Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
This Government are delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. Our £39 billion social and affordable homes programme will build around 300,000 homes over 10 years, with at least 60% for social rent, backing councils and housing associations to build at scale. The Conservative Government failed to build the homes this country needs. They put homes out of reach for too many British families, allowed homelessness and rough sleeping to double over their 14 years in power and choked off the economic growth that this country needs. This Government will “Build, baby, build” to make the dream of a secure home a reality for everyone in this country.
Emma Lewell
After a long campaign from myself and constituents, South Tyneside council has eventually agreed to curtail any new houses in multiple occupation, but we remain saturated with them. My right hon. Friend knows that they are no substitute for good social housing, so does he have any plans to strengthen the licensing regime, to close down badly managed HMOs and to deliver better housing?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her petition, which the Department will respond to in the usual way. Planning authorities have the power to limit the number of HMOs within their locality, and they may withdraw a permitted development right in a specific area using an article 4 direction, but we are keeping this policy under review. I am aware of the concerns that her constituents have expressed to her, and those that others have expressed to their own MPs.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
The Government’s affordable homes programme will contribute 180,000 social homes over the 10-year period, but Shelter has called for 900,000 homes over that period. Could the Secretary of State tell the House how much he expects social providers to provide on top of the 180,000 to be provided by the affordable homes plan?
Steve Reed
The hon. Gentleman will be aware, as I am and as Shelter is, that we inherited a housing crisis from the previous Government, who failed to build sufficient numbers of social and affordable homes. The £39 billion that this Government are investing over 10 years will give us the biggest increase we have seen in a generation. We know that in the long term we need to go further than that, but I hope he will agree that this is a very positive first step.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
Ministers are claiming that this is a record amount of funding for affordable housing in South Shields and across the rest of England, but why are they consistently refusing to publish a breakdown of the annual funding under their 10-year programme? Is it because the majority of the cash is backloaded into future Parliaments and then exaggerated by inflation? The small-print prospectus says that the homes must be completed by 2039. That is 14 years away. As with Labour’s house building target, is this not just an exercise in hoodwinking people by promising homes that are never going to see the light of day in this Parliament?
Steve Reed
It is ironic that the hon. Gentleman mentioned 14 years, because that is the amount of time his party was in government, and it left us with this crisis, rather than building the social homes this country needs. The £39 billion is a record. It will give us the biggest increase in social and affordable homes that this country has seen in a generation. Conservative Front Benchers should be welcoming that, as we do here. Bids to the social and affordable homes programme will open early in the new year, and we will then start to get those homes built so that people who were denied a decent home under the Conservative Government will get one with this Government.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
Our homelessness strategy will be published soon. Our overall goal will be to prevent homelessness before it starts, saving people from trauma and saving taxpayers the cost of failure. Councils can use our homelessness funding flexibly to meet those needs, including by commissioning Housing First services, which evidence has shown can transform the lives of people with complex needs.
Patrick Hurley
Housing First is a tried and tested, proven intervention to reach those who most need our help, so will the Minister expand on what plans she has to roll out Housing First, especially in the Liverpool city region, to ensure that we work effectively across state agencies and that we support people experiencing homelessness into stable, long-term housing?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend, who has a long-standing record of campaigning for those who have experienced rough sleeping or homelessness. Housing First, as we have discussed, is one way that areas can provide person-centred and trauma-informed support for people with complex needs, which is important in preventing long-term rough sleeping. Areas across England can use flexible funding, including our £255 million rough sleeping prevention and recovery grant, to do so. The Liverpool city region combined authority, which includes his constituency of Southport, received nearly £4 million of funding through the grant this year.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
We do need to build more homes, including more affordable homes, but they have to be built in an environmentally sustainable way. Why are Ministers, through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, taking powers such that any planning application for more than 150 houses, if turned down by the democratically elected councillors, is sent straight to the Secretary of State? Why have local elections and elect people who know their own area to take decisions if they will simply be overruled automatically by someone whose whole mantra is “Build, baby, build and let the devil take the consequences”?
Alison McGovern
There we have it: in a question about homelessness, we have a Tory MP getting up and asking how he can say no to more homes. [Interruption.]
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
When we look at the statistics, we see that homelessness and rough sleeping are surging under this Government, with London and the south-east hardest hit where social housing delivery has collapsed under the current Mayor of London. Will the Minister commit to lifting the restrictions that this Government have placed on councils’ use of the homelessness reduction grant, and will she commit to funding councils for the growing impact that asylum seekers are having on homelessness pressures, so that Housing First can become more than just a slogan?
Alison McGovern
Homelessness and rough sleeping doubled under the previous Tory Government. Our homelessness strategy will be published very shortly. Last week we published our policy statement on the fair funding review, which will stabilise council funding and target it at those areas with significant levels of deprivation. I look forward to the hon. Member’s support in ensuring that councils have the powers they need to ensure that everyone has a roof over their head.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
Our vision on local government reorganisation is clear: we intend to create stronger single-tier local councils that are better equipped to drive economic growth and improve local public services. The Government’s intention remains for all elections scheduled for May 2026 to go ahead, including East Sussex county council.
James MacCleary
Cuts to adult social care, collapsing support for children with special educational needs and disabilities, roads full of potholes—the list goes on. The Conservatives have failed East Sussex for too long and should be held to account. Another delay would mean that the current administration will have their term extended to six years. Can the Secretary of State give me and residents across East Sussex a clear answer on when we will know if we will have the chance to vote this May?
Steve Reed
First, I recognise the circumstances that the hon. Member describes, which were left behind by the previous Government’s approach to local government funding. As I said earlier, it remains the Government’s intention that those elections will go ahead as scheduled, unless there is a very strong justification otherwise. That is what will happen.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
The Secretary of State really needs to do better than that. With local government reform not being in the Labour party manifesto and with the Prime Minister last week refusing to rule out further cancellations of local elections, will the Secretary of State now rule out—not “intention” but rule out—cancelling the next local elections, yes or no?
Steve Reed
I am sure the hon. Member will be aware that consultations and engagement are going on with local authorities, but the Government’s intention is that all the elections scheduled for next May will go ahead next May.
Paul Holmes
Here we go again: it is the Secretary of State’s “intention”. I remind him that he actually leads his Department and can set the legislation going forward. He needs to accept that the uncertainty created by this Government in relation to local government reorganisation, on sizes and funding, has meant that leaders have scrambled to meet the ever-changing expectations, with no leadership from this Government. Will the Secretary of State put his money where his mouth is and support the Opposition’s amendment to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill tomorrow that would ensure that local elections go ahead and that local leaders have the certainty they need?
Steve Reed
Perhaps to the Conservatives the word “consultation” means “diktat issued from the centre”, but to me it means listening carefully to the views of those who will be affected. My intention, and my preference, remains for the elections to go ahead on schedule.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
It has been very interesting to hear the back and forth on this question. It is not just about East Sussex, of course; it is about all the councils up for reorganisation. Councils across the country that are due to have elections next year have received letters asking them whether they would consider cancelling them. Will the Minister set out the content of those letters, and will he stand with the Liberal Democrat by backing our amendments, which seek absolute assurances for councils across the country that are putting money into organising those elections?
Steve Reed
It does not surprise me that the Conservatives do not understand consultation, but it does surprise me that it is also difficult for the Liberal Democrats. We are engaging with the councils that will be affected. There is precedence for this where elections would result in only a very short term in office. Our intention, and my preference, is for the elections to go ahead. We want to cut the cost of politics, simplify decision making for local people, and deliver stronger economic growth and better public services in every part of the country.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
The Government are changing the way we fund local authorities, reconnecting funding with deprivation after 14 years of Tory Governments cutting councils in the poorest places. The vast majority of upper-tier councils will see their income increase in real terms over the next three years. For 2025-26, the local government finance settlement made available up to £577 million for Buckinghamshire council—a 5.7% cash-terms increase in core spending power on the year before.
Greg Smith
That is a curious answer, because modelling by the County Councils Network indicates that, assuming there is a punishing 5% annual council tax increase, core spending for Buckinghamshire council will go up by only a below-inflation 2.2%—a real-terms cut. What assurance can the Minister give Buckinghamshire council that it will not find itself with a real-terms cut in spending power as it delivers essential services to my constituents?
Alison McGovern
As I said in an earlier answer, we made a policy statement on the fair funding review consultation last week. In addition, as I have said, the vast majority of upper-tier councils will see their incomes increase in real terms over the next three years. More details will come as we finalise funding arrangements. The Department will work closely with Buckinghamshire and all other councils to ensure that their finances are stabilised after 14 rocky years.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Multi-year funding settlements can help councils such as Buckinghamshire to prepare for the future and ensure the continuity of local services, but that approach was not necessarily applied by the last Conservative Government. In the north Buckinghamshire towns and villages that I represent, there is particular pressure on the economic and social infrastructure that meets rural requirements. Will the Minister set out in a bit more detail how the fair funding review will take all that into account so that residents in my community have the services they need?
Alison McGovern
I know how important it is for my hon. Friend to champion those towns and villages. He is right to say that the three-year funding settlement for councils will help, including with forward planning. Where we are considering cost pressures—those in adult social care, for example—it will help us to change the way in which services are delivered so that we can support people and ensure that councils across the country, such as Buckinghamshire, have more stable finances in the future.
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
Glasgow city will receive £1.5 million of Pride in Place impact funding to improve high streets and invest in community spaces and assets. In addition, neighbourhoods across Scotland will receive up to £20 million through our Pride in Place funding to transform their areas. We are working with the Scotland Office to announce the specific neighbourhoods included in phase 2. This is an exciting chance to put power, money and agency in the hands of communities that have been held back for too long, to drive the change that they want to see.
Maureen Burke
My survey of Glasgow North East constituents shows that there is real excitement about the possibility of Pride in Place funding coming their way. From parks and shopfronts to local connectivity, I have been inundated with incredible ideas to transform our corner of Glasgow. Will the Minister commit to giving my constituency bid her full consideration, and will she visit Glasgow North East to see the difference that the investment could make?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I would be delighted to visit Glasgow North East and am pleased to hear of the local enthusiasm for our Pride in Place agenda and my hon. Friend’s work in supporting this locally and championing her constituency. We are working closely with the Scotland Office on phase 2 of the Pride in Place programme to confirm the specific neighbourhoods and will be announcing that shortly.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Although Tempsford—along with Crews Hill in Enfield and Leeds South Bank—looks like a promising site, no final decisions on new town locations will be made until the strategic environmental assessment that was commenced on 28 September has concluded. Alongside the SEA process, my Department will continue to engage with local leaders to further develop our understanding of how different locations might meet the Government’s expectations of what a future new towns programme can deliver.
Ian Sollom
I thank the Minister for his answer. St Neots is the nearest town to the proposed east coast main line and East West Rail interchange station that would be central to any new town development at Tempsford. Many recognise the opportunities of our area, but my constituents also need clarity, particularly on health and education infrastructure. With multiple local authorities potentially being involved across county boundaries, will the Minister meet me to discuss how, in the event of a new town at Tempsford going ahead, St Neots will be supported and, in turn, how St Neots can support the new town?
Matthew Pennycook
I stress again that no decisions have been made or will be made until the SEA process concludes. We have been clear that the next generation of new towns must be well connected, well designed, sustainable, healthy and attractive places where people want to live and, importantly, that they must have the infrastructure, amenities and services necessary to sustain thriving communities established from the outset. I am more than happy to have a conversation with the hon. Gentleman at the point when the SEA concludes and we know the final set of sites that we are taking forward.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Just to help Members, let me explain that this is a Cambridgeshire question so I am calling Cambridgeshire MPs, not anybody else. And here is a good Cambridgeshire MP, Daniel Zeichner.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The plans for Tempsford vindicate those of us who have long argued for East West Rail and the plans for the area between Cambridge and Oxford, but can my hon. Friend assure me and the House that this Government will be consistent in their support and will not wobble like the previous Government did, which led to a lost decade for these projects?
Matthew Pennycook
We will be consistent. Where we make commitments around large-scale housing development or infrastructure that is required to support it, we intend to bring that forward, and my hon. Friend will know that on Greater Cambridge we are out to consultation on a centrally-led development corporation to take forward nationally significant growth in his part of the country.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
We are providing £1.5 million from the Pride in Place impact fund to enable immediate work in Luton to develop community spaces and revitalise local high streets. Work is already under way on this, and I look forward to seeing the impact it will have locally.
Rachel Hopkins
I really welcome the £1.5 million Pride in Place impact funding awarded to Luton, and I have launched a survey with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) to find out what people want to see improved in our town. Does the Minister agree that local people’s voices must be at the heart of shaping the changes they want to see, and that this Labour Government are putting power and investment back in their hands?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Yes, I agree 100%. May I just thank my hon. Friend for the work that she is doing to bring the voices of her community to the very heart of this? Our Pride in Place strategy represents a new way for Government to work that puts power, agency and the voice of our communities front and centre. We expect all local authorities in receipt of Pride in Place impact funding to work with their MPs and their community to deliver the change that local people want and to focus on local people’s priorities.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
We are providing £1.5 million from the Pride in Place impact fund to enable immediate work in Slough to develop community spaces and revitalise local high streets. Local authorities must engage with their local MP and their residents. We have made that clear and we will continue to reiterate it.
Mr Dhesi
I have spoken to hundreds of my Slough constituents who are tired of having a high street where they do not feel safe, that lacks essential local amenities and that is devoid of community spaces, so I am delighted that this Labour Government have given our town, which has been neglected for too long, that £1.5 million Pride in Place boost. Does the Minister agree that it is essential that the local council uses that money wisely and that it listens—not only to my good self, but to local residents about their priorities?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is completely right to remind us about the neglect of our high streets under the last Government, and to reiterate that it is this Government who are putting power and investment into the hands of our communities to drive change. He is also completely right: local authorities must listen to their communities and ensure that investment is focused on their priorities.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
We have taken decisive steps to support councils to invest in social housing, including committing to a new 10-year rent settlement and the launch of our £39 billion social and affordable homes programme. We are very clear that we want to see councils increase the level of social housing.
Will Stone
Will the Secretary of State tell us a bit more about the additional support that the Government can offer local councils, like Swindon, to invest in existing council housing stock, especially in areas like Penhill, with flats that desperately need investment?
Steve Reed
The Government are supporting councils to invest in new and existing social housing through the new 10-year rent settlement and our £39 billion social and affordable homes programme. A further £14 million is being provided this year to boost council house building skills and capacity. In addition, the warm homes social housing fund will provide £1.2 billion from 2025 to 2028, and we have committed over £1 billion between 2026 and 2030 to support cladding remediation for social landlords, ensuring equal access to building safety funds.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
We are facing a national affordability crisis, but handing out planning permissions like confetti did not bring down prices under the last Government and there is zero reason to expect it will do any better this time. Does the Minister accept that relying on private developers to bring down prices can never work, because they simply stop building whenever prices start to fall?
Steve Reed
Respectfully, I wish to correct the hon. Gentleman. The reason we are allocating £39 billion to build more social and affordable housing—the biggest amount in a generation—is precisely to avoid the very scenario to which he refers.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
This Government are making a record £10.5 billion investment to deliver the largest flood and coastal investment programme in history. The floods resilience taskforce brings together experts and decision makers from across the UK Government, as well as from non-government and industry organisations at local and national level. The work of the taskforce will be considered as part of our ongoing planning reform programme.
George Freeman
In areas like Mid Norfolk, planning is the key to avoiding developments that cause and exacerbate flooding. In Attleborough, a recent planning application for 350 houses on a floodplain was turned down by the council on the basis that it would cause flooding, but fast-tracked by the Planning Inspectorate on the basis of the Government’s house building targets. The Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill contained nothing on flooding, which is why I am introducing a Bill. Will the Minister meet me and cross-party campaigners from affected constituencies—some of my constituents are now wading through sewage after the development I mentioned—to talk about how we can integrate planning with flood prevention?
Samantha Dixon
This Government will maintain the highest levels of flood protection, while taking decisive action to fix our broken planning system and to deliver 1.5 million homes through our plan for change. We will consider whether further changes are necessary to manage flood risk when we consult on planning reform, including national policy relating to decision making, later this year.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
Our Labour Government will build the homes that Britain needs and put our country on a path to end homelessness for good, unlike the Tories, who—if people have not heard us say this already today—allowed homelessness and rough sleeping to double. We will publish the child poverty strategy and the homelessness strategy shortly, and both will set out steps to defend families against the risk of getting stuck in temporary accommodation.
Liam Conlon
The number of people in temporary accommodation in my constituency soared during the last 14 years. Hundreds of families in Beckenham and Penge are stuck in unsuitable accommodation for months and years on end, and one in 50 Londoners are now living in temporary accommodation. From speaking to fantastic local charities such as Living Well, as well as local schools and NHS staff, I know that the housing crisis left by the last Conservative Government is also a leading driver of deprivation and inequality. Will the Minister set out what her Department is doing to address that?
Alison McGovern
That is a very important point: London is a fine city, but we need to ensure that everyone there is housed well. That is why the Labour Government are investing more than £1 billion in homelessness services this year—an increase of more than £300 million. That includes £10.9 million of top-up funding, announced last month, to increase access to support services in areas with the highest number of children in temporary accommodation, like the one mentioned by my hon. Friend. We have to get everybody in this country properly housed.
Dame Meg Hillier
As the Minister says, we do need that housing. There are some solutions locally, where Education or Health land has become available. Will she undertake to talk to those Department—I can talk to her in more detail about local issues—to ensure that that land can be released as soon as possible, with the prospect of it becoming social housing for local families?
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend is an expert in these matters. She knows that the Secretary of State has taken recent steps to make sure that we do build homes, including social and affordable homes, in London. We will certainly work very closely with her, and with the information she mentions, to get homes built.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
There are nearly 300 households in temporary accommodation in Somerset, and 120 of them include children. Somerset is spending nearly £3.4 million per year on additional temporary accommodation to help to meet that demand, but it is clear that a long-term solution must be supported. What steps is the Minister taking to increase the number of affordable homes to help address that situation?
Alison McGovern
The homelessness strategy will be published soon, so the hon. Lady does not have long to wait. She characterises the situation well. We can fund sticking plasters and we can fund help, but in the end we have to get to the heart of the matter: No. 1—build homes; No. 2—make sure that families have enough money coming in to pay the rent. That will be at the heart of our strategy.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
With London councils now spending £5.5 million per day on temporary accommodation, it is clear that we need to build more social homes in London. Richmond council has been prioritising sites that it is selling for social housing. As the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) has just suggested, will the Minister look at incentives for other public bodies—whether it is the NHS or Government Departments—to prioritise for social homes land and buildings that they no longer need and are selling, as I have been campaigning for with respect to the former Teddington police station in my constituency?
Alison McGovern
I refer the hon. Lady, who asks a very reasonable question, to the response I gave some moments ago. Collectively, we must leave no stone unturned when it comes to available land for housing, particularly in the capital, where we desperately need more social and affordable homes.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for outlining those points. The situation is not just isolated to London; many councils are seeing an overspend—still going up—in this really tricky area. Just today, Epsom and Ewell borough council reported an overspend of £500,000, rising to £800,000 by next year. Slough estimates a £22 million overspend on TA; Woking, a £330,000 overspend; Waverley, a £165,000 overspend; and Waltham Forest, a £31 million overspend. That is just on temporary accommodation. This situation is not sustainable financially for councils or taxpayers. What more can the Minister do? Can she speak to Treasury colleagues about the big sticking point: the increase in and freeze on local housing allowance, which is not allowing people to live locally and rent locally?
Alison McGovern
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for setting out that, aside from the fact that we care about temporary accommodation because every child deserves the space to play and do their homework, this problem is putting local councils under a financial pressure that is not bearable. We have to get a grip of this situation. We will have more to say about this crucial issue in the homelessness strategy, and I look forward to engaging with the Chair and the whole Committee on it.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Westmorland has 3,500 empty properties—the fifth highest number of any local authority in the country. The council has invested in three additional staff to make sure we bring some of those properties back into permanent use to house homeless people, but what powers could the Minister give the local authority that would bolster its existing powers to requisition homes that have been empty for a long period of time to be used as temporary and emergency accommodation for people in communities like ours?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his important question. We all want to see empty homes brought into use, and councils already have extensive powers in this area. My job as the Local Government Minister is to make sure that we stabilise councils’ funding so that they are able to invest in that action, but if the hon. Gentleman would like to engage with the Department on the powers he would like to see, our door is very much open.
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
I thank the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister is answering the question. Please, Mr Law: you could at least wait until she has finished before entering the Chamber.
Alison McGovern
The Government keep the homelessness code of guidance under regular review, and this will continue once we have published the strategy that I mentioned previously. We will develop further good practice guidance and toolkits to support local government to deliver homelessness services.
James McMurdock
Ministers will be well aware that the maximum period of time for which the most vulnerable people should ever be placed in temporary accommodation is six weeks, but I have seen repeatedly from Labour-run Basildon council a tweaking and gaming of the rules, whereby a single-room bed and breakfast property is incorrectly reclassified as a self-contained unit through the addition of a microwave and a fridge. Vulnerable people, including pregnant women or women with children, are being crammed into one room for periods of time that we recognise as unlawful, essentially because the rules are not strict enough. I do not blame Ministers for that, but I do blame the local Labour council for abusing those rules. What will the Minister do to strengthen things up?
Alison McGovern
As the Homelessness Minister, my responsibility is to get the homelessness strategy published so that we can look at issues such as those the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, make sure that the guidance is good enough, and—most importantly—get our country’s children out of temporary accommodation and give them a proper roof over their heads.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I declare an interest, as I formerly worked for a homelessness charity in Harlow called Streets2Homes. Can the Minister tell me how the increased funding of £1 billion to tackle homelessness will support local authorities—which we have discussed—as well as Streets2Homes and other charity groups to get people off the street and into secure tenancies?
Alison McGovern
I would be grateful if my hon. Friend would pass on my very best wishes and thanks to Streets2Homes. In the best case, the money we are investing can stop homelessness before it starts through good advice. If a family or an individual do find themselves homeless, support can be in place to get those people into a more stable situation and properly housed. Every penny is worth it, because in the end, long-term homelessness costs the state more.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
Areas across Scotland, including Elgin, will receive up to £20 million of Pride in Place programme funding to transform their areas. Phase 1 places have already been identified, and we are working with the Scotland Office and partners to confirm additional neighbourhoods, which will be announced shortly for phase 2.
Graham Leadbitter
The Government are encouraging towns across the UK to apply for Pride in Place funding, but with the specific exclusion that any town applying should not be located in a UK parliamentary constituency with a phase 1 neighbourhood. Does the Minister appreciate that in my constituency of Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, this would exclude Nairn from applying because Elgin is already in receipt of funding, despite Nairn being in a different unitary authority and not even being in the same constituency prior to boundary changes? As a further example, it would also exclude Shetland from applying because Orkney already has funding. Does the Minister agree that this exclusion is nonsensical and discriminatory against large geographies, and needs to be changed?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The big driver of how we are allocating funding is deprivation. We are taking a slightly different approach in Scotland, where we have also looked at other indicators, including health indicators. As I said, we are working closely with the Scotland Office and local partners to ensure we are getting the Pride in Place programme into the areas that need it, and we will be announcing that allocation in due course.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
This Government are determined to end the injustice of fleecehold entirely, and we will publish consultations before the end of this year on how we best implement the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, on new consumer protection provisions for residential freeholders and on options for reducing the prevalence of private estate management arrangements. We are also committed to ensuring that residential freeholders and leaseholders are protected from abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous property agents.
Lloyd Hatton
At a recent public meeting, people living at the Chesil Reach and Greys Field development in Chickerell told me about the problems they had been facing with the estate management company FirstPort, with large increases to the service charge, little transparency and a failure to fulfil even the most basic obligations. It is all made so much worse because FirstPort is truly terrible at responding to concerns when they are raised by the public. With all that in mind, can the Minister outline what steps are being taken to hold FirstPort to account for its many failings? How can we deliver much stronger protections for everyone living in properties managed by FirstPort?
Matthew Pennycook
As my hon. Friend may be aware, in response to widespread concerns raised in a recent debate on property service charges, I met Martin King, managing director of FirstPort, on 17 November. In our meeting, I pressed Mr King and his associates on a wide range of issues stemming from reports of poor service, and I left him in no doubt that in the Government’s view, FirstPort’s performance is not good enough. I intend to write to FirstPort to follow up on the issues raised, and I will happily deposit a copy of that letter in the Library.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I was contacted by residents of Canford Paddock, who wrote to me about ongoing unregulated estate fees, which particularly relate to a suitable alternative natural greenspace—SANG—that was a condition of the development, as it is near a site of special scientific interest. The privately owned SANG is in the Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council area, but is not managed by the council. What protections therefore exist for the residents, who are having to pay for a public site managed by a private developer?
Matthew Pennycook
In my opening answer, I referenced the consultation we intend to launch soon relating to protections for residential freeholders from that type of charge, where it is unreasonable. Those provisions in the 2024 Act provide for greater transparency. They allow homeowners on freehold estates to take the estate manager to the first-tier tribunal if unreasonable rent charges are being levied. The hon. Lady and her constituents will have a chance to feed into that consultation very soon.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The national planning policy framework sets out a sequential approach to flood risk management, requiring inappropriate development to be directed away from areas at highest risk and providing strong safeguards where development is necessary in these areas. The updates to the framework made in December last year expanded the requirement for development to provide sustainable drainage systems. Statutory guidance accompanying building regulations promotes flood-resilient buildings in flood-prone areas through approved document C.
Brian Mathew
Over the past week, I am sure many of us have seen and felt the proof that our weather is becoming more extreme. That is why it is ever more important to be proactive and forward-thinking in our housing strategy. Does the Minister agree that sites that flood frequently, such as the old golf course in Bradford-on-Avon in my constituency of Melksham and Devizes, should not be included in local plans and not be called upon for development?
Matthew Pennycook
I would say a number of things to the hon. Gentleman. First, local plans are tested for their soundness by the Planning Inspectorate. He will appreciate that I cannot comment on individual sites, but I again draw the attention of the House to the strong protections in national planning policy which mean that development that could be vulnerable to flooding should not be allowed in areas of high flood risk.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
Labour’s Renters’ Rights Act 2025 is the biggest strengthening of tenants’ rights and protections in a generation. From 1 May 2026, 11 million renters in England will benefit from the changes that this Government are making, including an end to section 21 no-fault evictions and preventing unfair rent hikes.
Tom Rutland
In my constituency more than 10,000 residents are renting privately. These families, couples, friends and individuals have too often been the victims of excessive rent hikes, no-fault evictions, substandard conditions, and a private rented sector that benefits bad landlords and disadvantages fair landlords and good tenants. Can my right hon. Friend tell me when the measures in the Renters’ Rights Act will come into effect and give security to my constituents who rent privately?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend is, I know, an outstanding advocate for his constituents. We will deliver our reforms in three phases. On 1 May next year, we will implement reforms to reshape the tenancy system and remove barriers to renting, including abolishing section 21 no-fault evictions, limiting rent increases to just one a year, and outlawing bidding wars. The implementation dates for Awaab’s law and the decent homes standard are subject to consultation. The 11 million renters in England, including those in my hon. Friend’s constituency whom he mentioned, will not forget that the Conservatives and Reform UK voted against these important changes that will benefit renters throughout the country.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I recognise what the Secretary of State has said about protection for those who rent houses, but desperation is the issue for many people who rent their accommodation, and who find themselves in financial difficulties while living—as we heard earlier from the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock)—in a small, one-bedroom flat. Will the Secretary of State please speak to the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland, who I think would be the Minister for Communities, about what the Government here are doing, to ensure that we in Northern Ireland can be a focus of attention?
Steve Reed
I recognise what the hon. Gentleman has said. The answer is, of course, to build more social and affordable housing, and to increase the supply of housing more generally. I am, in fact, due to meet the relevant Northern Ireland Minister to discuss these matters, and I look forward to that.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
On Thursday 20 November, the Government published a policy statement setting out our plans for the 2026-27 to 2028-29 multi-year local government finance settlement. Through the settlement, we are introducing a system based on need and evidence. In doing so we will target a greater proportion of grant funding at deprived places, ensuring best value for money for taxpayers.
Sarah Hall
In Warrington we see some of the starkest inequalities anywhere in the country. One area is ranked the 899th most deprived, and the highest position is 33,480th, a gap of more than 32,500. Those vast disparities are masked by population-weighted averages, with Warrington ranking 199th overall and only 43rd in range. Will the Minister ensure that fair funding 2.0 truly reflects vast internal inequalities, so that resources reach the communities most in need?
Alison McGovern
I admire my hon. Friend not only for standing up for Warrington, but for her command of the statistical detail. The fair funding review will distribute more funds to deprived areas, and, as she has just demonstrated, the distribution is underpinned by granular data from households in lower-layer super-output areas consisting of between 400 and 1,200 people. That means that we can account for pockets of deprivation within more affluent areas. More broadly, I will happily work with my hon. Friend to ensure that we can stabilise Warrington council’s finances, and I will ensure that officials are in touch with the council.
Jo White
Under the last Government, cash-strapped authorities like Bassetlaw district council saw support grants slashed from a 66% funding commitment in 2011 to a 25% commitment in 2024. The compounded damage that this has done to areas like mine can be calculated in multimillions of pounds. Many authorities are on their knees. Can the Minister explain in more detail how they will be able to plan for the year ahead?
Alison McGovern
I know that my hon. Friend always stands up for her constituency, and that she always will. Under our proposals, shire district councils are expected to see an average funding increase of 2.7% over the spending review period. Across the Department, we will support district councils in that and other ways, and I look forward to discussing the issue in detail with my hon. Friend and her council.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Cambridgeshire fire and rescue service is funded through a formula that relies on population density and sparsity figures from the 2001 census. Since 2001, Cambridgeshire has grown by over 150,000 people and 30,000 new homes, making the service one of the leanest per head in the country. We have effectively built a city the size of Cambridge in Cambridgeshire and given it no further funding. Over-reliance on council tax to bridge funding gaps undermines the core principle of risk-based resource allocation, so what assurances can the Minister give me that the fairer funding review 2.0 will not require the difference to be made up by simply increasing the council tax precept by the maximum?
Alison McGovern
The hon. Gentleman mentions fire. The Minister responsible and I are keeping this issue under review, and we are happy to hear further from him if he has concerns about it.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Rural counties like Herefordshire face additional costs in delivering services because of rurality. Extra cost pressures mean that we need another £35 million next year to provide the same services, but it looks like the fair funding review will reduce central Government funding for Herefordshire by £12 million. Does the Minister recognise the extra costs of rurality, and will she ensure that the fair funding review properly allocates the funding that rural communities need to deliver public services in a fair way?
Alison McGovern
When it comes to rural areas, there are particular challenges for public services. This Government have increased funding for council spending on areas of demand, such as adult social care. We need to make sure that all councils can be financially stable, and can develop the way that they deliver public services, particularly given the challenges that the hon. Lady mentions.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
At the general election last year, Labour promised the biggest boost to renters’ rights and protections in a generation. Earlier this month, our historic Renters’ Rights Act 2025 gained Royal Assent, and it will transform private renting for 11 million renters in England. The reforms will be introduced in three phases. The first phase, including abolishing section 21 no-fault evictions, will come into effect on 1 May 2026. Those 11 million renters will never forget that Reform UK and the Conservatives opposed these changes, which will massively benefit renters’ security by allowing them to remain in the homes that they love.
Emma Lewell
The hospitality industry in South Shields has really struggled over the last year. There are now deep concerns, which I share, about the imposition of a tourism tax. Can my right hon. Friend explain what assessment he has made of such a tax’s impact on beautiful little coastal tourist towns, like mine?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend tempts me to venture into terrain that is properly within the decision-making jurisdiction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. She only has to wait 48 hours to find out what the Chancellor has decided. I suggest that she ask the Chancellor on Wednesday, rather than me this afternoon.
Mr Speaker
It will all be on Sky News in between. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and even the Secretary of State himself have said that they will not touch council tax bands in this Parliament. Does he not recognise that a new tax, or levy, revaluation or surcharge, would be a de facto breach of that commitment, and will he therefore rule it out?
Steve Reed
Again, much as I would like to comment on matters that are properly for the Budget, the right hon. Gentleman will know that there is a very long-standing convention that prevents me from doing so.
Sir James Cleverly
All the Secretary of State had to do was repeat his earlier commitments. He chose not to do so. Labour’s unfair funding review shows that the party is consciously starving well-run councils of money, penalising councils that have kept council tax low and subsidising his political friends in high-spending, wasteful, Labour-run councils. How on earth can the Secretary of State justify this blatant party political decision?
Steve Reed
The right hon. Gentleman will remember his former colleagues being caught on video boasting about how they were taking money away from poorer areas, and giving it to wealthier parts of the country that needed it less. Through the fair funding review, this Government are ensuring that funding is aligned with need and with deprivation. That is the right thing to do.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
Under our new approach to funding, in places like Luton, which were starved of the resources that they needed for far too long, and for which we can evidence significant levels of deprivation, councils can expect to see the resources that they need in order to help people properly.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
The Planning and Infrastructure Bill takes smaller decisions away from councillors. Last week’s direction, announced in a ministerial statement, will take big decisions involving over 150 homes, such as the decision on Oldway Road in Wellington, out of the hands of local councillors. Do the Government no longer trust local people to shape communities and deliver the housing that we need?
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that I think he misrepresents the proposal that has been announced. It is not an automatic removal for all planning applications relating to more than 150 homes; it is simply a referral process, which applies in other situations already, that allows the Secretary of State to call in individual applications.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
I recently met representatives of BUUK, a multi-utility infrastructure provider that constructs and operates essential utility assets, and can provide all utilities as a one-stop shop. In view of the Department’s progress on new towns, and the need to rapidly scale up house building, what consideration has the Department given to using innovative delivery models, such as BUUK’s site-wide deployment of utility infrastructure, and thus reducing bureaucracy, streamlining delivery, improving accountability and allowing house builders to get on with building?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The Government obviously recognise the importance of ensuring that new housing development is supported by appropriate infrastructure. On the individual company that he references, I will ask my officials to reach out to it directly to discuss its delivery model and find out a bit more about its potential advantages.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Mr Speaker
Order. We are on topicals, and Members are stretching the questions.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. Again, he will appreciate that, due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning system, I cannot comment on individual applications. I am aware of the concerns that have been raised by Members from across the House about holding directions, issued in particular by National Highways. He may be aware of the reforms that we are making to the statutory consultation system as a whole, which are now out to consultation.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
In my constituency of Sherwood Forest, we have new housing developments, including in Edwinstowe and Rainworth. Does the Minister agree that when these sites are developed, local authorities and housing companies should ensure appropriate infrastructure is put in place, whether that is GP surgeries, schools or shops, because in the past this has not happened, including in Hucknall?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and she is absolutely right. Local development plans should address infrastructure needs and opportunities. When preparing a local plan, local planning authorities are under a duty to bring forward infrastructure funding statements. However, we realise that there is more to be done to ensure that we get the right infrastructure built in the right time as a development proceeds.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, which is topical in that I recently met officials from Cornwall council and Members, including hon. Friends, banging the drum for new homes in Cornwall, in particular social and affordable homes. There is ongoing work, including conversations taking place with Homes England, on how we can better support Cornwall to bring forward the homes it needs.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
If it comes forward, Tempsford new town would offer an opportunity to get infrastructure right while building the homes we crucially need, in stark contrast to the chaotic approach to development seen by far too many of my Bedfordshire towns and villages. If it does proceed, will the Minister meet me to ensure we engage on how we can maximise the infrastructure benefits, not just for Tempsford but for my existing communities that are already feeling the strain?
Matthew Pennycook
I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that and other matters of importance to him in his locality. He is a doughty champion for ensuring that, as we bring forward new homes, we get the essential infrastructure and amenities in place as well.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
Matthew Pennycook
If memory serves, I answered another question from the hon. Gentleman on precisely this topic. He knows, I think, that we are out to consultation on the matter. If he wants to write to me in the first instance with further details about the type of changes he is seeking, I would be more than happy to respond.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
In cities such as Portsmouth, outdated formulas for local authority funding have long failed to reflect real levels of deprivation. I would like to see a Labour Government increase support for children’s services, with a fairer system using up-to-date data. That would make an enormous difference to my constituents. Will the Minister meet me to ensure that funding allocation is being considered for Portsmouth to finally receive the funding it deserves?
Alison McGovern
Yes, I will very happily meet my hon. Friend. She is an incredibly powerful champion for Portsmouth and I would be very happy to meet her to discuss her council’s funding.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Alison McGovern
We recently put forward our response on improving standards. We are looking for an opportunity to take that forward, for the reasons the hon. Gentleman mentions.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
I have residents from Tillicoultry who have not had access to their homes for two years because of RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. Their lives have been turned upside down. A year ago, the Scottish Government were given the largest settlement figure in the history of devolution, but they have not helped my residents. Will the Secretary of State inform me what discussions his Department has had with regard to residential RAAC with Scottish Government counterparts?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend raises a very important point, and I would be happy to write to him with details of our engagement with the Scottish Government.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Steve Reed
The Conservatives foisted Liz Truss on us as Prime Minister. I am very surprised that they have failed to learn from that disaster. Unfunded commitments they have no idea how to pay for cause only trouble to the economy, including to the housing economy.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Cornwall has been campaigning for fair funding for years under successive Tory and Liberal Democrat Governments. We are so pleased with the fair funding formula 2.0. There have been some consultation changes, so can the Secretary of State please confirm that they will not disadvantage Cornwall and that we will get the increased fair funding we deserve?
Alison McGovern
With Cornwall Labour Members of Parliament standing up for Cornwall in this House as they are, I feel assured that Cornwall will be in a much better place. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to make sure that that is the case.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Matthew Pennycook
As I made clear in answer to a previous question, strong protections in national planning policy mean that development that could be vulnerable to flooding should not be allowed in areas of high flood risk. Where local planning authorities have approved development in spite of initial objections—for example, from the Environment Agency—they will have had to ensure that the development would be safe through, for example, adequate mitigations.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for Housing and Planning for visiting Ebbsfleet Garden City in my constituency last week. Does the Minister agree that, with an additional 10,000 homes to be built in Ebbsfleet over the next 10 years, to create great places to live we have got to build schools, medical facilities and green spaces—
Matthew Pennycook
We fully appreciate the importance of finishing Ebbsfleet Central, and while I cannot pre-empt the Department’s business planning, my hon. Friend can be assured that his championing of Ebbsfleet Garden City will ensure that it receives the support it requires through the new—
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Matthew Pennycook
I am afraid that the hon. Lady will have to write to me and outline which fund precisely she is talking about. I am more than happy to get back to her if she does that.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras, Mr Speaker. The whole of Cornwall, one of the most deprived regions in northern Europe, missed out on Pride in Place funding, which I can only assume was due to the “trusting your neighbour” indicator being treated as a marker of affluence rather than deprivation in the community needs index. Can the Minister confirm that Cornwall will not be disadvantaged because of that in the next tranche of Pride in Place funding?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
My hon. Friend is always a champion for Cornwall. To confirm, there were two things that drove the allocation: indices of multiple deprivation and our community needs index. For places that did not receive Pride in Place funding, within our strategy there is a whole suite of tools and levers that communities can grip in order to drive the change that they want to see. I hope we will see that in Cornwall.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
The Great Ayton allotments group received funding from the community ownership fund last year. As the deadline for disbursing the funds approaches, delays in a related planning application are threatening that funding. I thank Department officials for trying to resolve the issue, and I ask Ministers to support that flexibility, because the project means a great deal to the community of Great Ayton.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the right hon. Member for raising the important work that has been done in his constituency. We will continue to work with that group, because we want to ensure that all communities have the ability to grip assets and drive the change that they want to see.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
For years, Derby residents have felt the full force of Tory austerity, with many services at breaking point. Does the Minister agree that Derby deserves better, and what can the Government do to ensure that the fair funding review delivers for communities such as Derby?
Alison McGovern
Councils up and down the country deserve better, especially in great cities like Derby—and with my hon. Friend as their MP, his community will not want for a brilliant champion.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
I thank the Minister for Housing and Planning for his constructive meeting last week on the community infrastructure levy. Could he tell the House whether Liberal Democrat-controlled councils such as mine in Waverley should be charging the community infrastructure levy to private householders who do a straightforward extension on their house?
Matthew Pennycook
As this is topicals, I do not want to repeat the extensive conversation that the right hon. Member and I have had. He knows that we are making good-faith efforts to resolve the issue and to bring some redress forward for his resident freeholders.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
Hillingdon council has applied for exceptional financial support due to years of underfunding under the previous Government and local financial mismanagement. Will the Minister assure me that, as part of our updated funding criteria, councils such as Hillingdon will get more of the funding that they need, and that there will also be improved accountability and management requirements on local councils?
Alison McGovern
I am considering the issues that Hillingdon is facing, which are really serious and important, and I will be in touch with my hon. Friend soon so that we can discuss them extensively.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Is Surrey going to get a mayor?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are working with all areas to ensure that we are devolving power, whether to strategic authorities or mayors, to make sure that they can grip the economic opportunities and unlock the growth that we did not see under the last Government, but that this Government absolutely want to deliver.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Cheshire East council area has pockets of severe deprivation, centred largely around my constituency. Under the previous Government, local government funding allocations never really took account of those deprivations. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can rebalance funding towards the deprived areas in my constituency that have been left behind for too long?
Alison McGovern
I will happily meet my hon. Friend—great railway towns like Crewe ought to be invested in. He will have heard from previous answers today that the new measure of deprivation uses fine-grain data, so we can identify those pockets of deprivation, like in Crewe and Nantwich. I look forward to talking with him at length on this subject.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
In rural areas like my constituency, private renting is very expensive and is unaffordable to many. What is the Minister doing to ensure that more housing is available at social rent rather than market rent, which people can simply not afford?
Matthew Pennycook
We are ensuring, through the new £39 billion social and affordable homes programme, for example, that the types of homes that need extra grant funding have that flexibility—that will include rural housing.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
What is grey belt, and can the Minister tell us what assessment he has made of the risk it poses to the integrity of the green belt in areas such as mine?
Matthew Pennycook
The right hon. Lady continues to ask me what grey belt is; Google is her friend in this instance. I continue to refer her to the planning practice guidance that covers exactly what it means.
Ministerial Code
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister to make a statement on the ministerial code.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Josh Simons)
Trust in Government and in politics is at an all-time low. For my constituents in Makerfield, Wigan and for others across the country, there is a crisis of faith and trust, and it is incumbent on all of us across this House to fix and restore it.
The Prime Minister has always been clear: serving this country is what we exist to do. The ethics of service must always guide all of us. We are committed to restoring trust in Government by ensuring that Ministers are held to the highest standards. That is why the Prime Minister strengthened the ministerial code when this Government came into office and why he has put the Nolan principles back on to the face of the code.
The ministerial code is a statement of values, not just a set of rules and guidance. Because public service is an immense privilege, this Government have implemented changes to raise the standards expected of Ministers, which includes giving new powers to the independent adviser, who can now initiate investigations without the risk of veto. The new code also closed loopholes on gifts and hospitality, mandating that information on Ministers’ gifts and hospitality are now published on a monthly basis, aligning more closely with the practices of Members across this House. We have also doubled the frequency of publication of information about Ministers’ interests from twice yearly to quarterly.
The Prime Minister further strengthened the ministerial code last month to implement reforms in relation to ministerial severance payments. Just last month, we set up the Ethics and Integrity Commission, as promised in our manifesto, and reformed the business appointment rules system. The reforms introduced on ministerial severance payments ensure that payments are proportionate and fair. Before the Government introduced those reforms, we saw thousands of pounds of public money going to waste after being claimed again and again by Conservative Members in the previous Parliament. As Members will no doubt remember, it did not matter whether former Conservative Ministers were reappointed or, in the worst cases, forced to resign due to unacceptable behaviour.
I digress, Mr Speaker. Unfortunately, it is not clear from the question which aspect of the ministerial code the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask about. For me, as for the Prime Minister, restoring public confidence and trust across the country in this House and in the Government is a defining mission. We will continue to seek to uphold standards in public life as we deliver and serve this great country.
Mr Speaker
Order. I thank the Minister who has been sent here, for coming to the House.
Once again I must remind Ministers of the requirement in the Government’s own ministerial code that major announcements should be made in the House in the first instance, not in the media. I understand that media announcements must be managed carefully as long as the expectations remain as they are in the ministerial code. That is the problem. It is the ministerial code that is being broken. I will continue to uphold the rights of this House and its Members to be treated with respect and to be first to hear any major announcements. Unfortunately, last week, when I also had to criticise Ministers, some of them decided to make comments about “having a bugle”. The point is, those Ministers ought to learn the facts of the ministerial code before they make comments in the media.
Alex Burghart
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I mean no offence to the Parliamentary Secretary, because I have been in his shoes, but when the Government send out a junior Minister to answer a very serious question, it is normally because they have something to hide. In this case, it is clear that the Government have a great deal to hide.
We have had a whole series of scandals since the summer break, and there have recently been a number of apparent breaches of the ministerial code, in addition to the one that you just raised, Mr Speaker, referring to paragraph 9.1 of the ministerial code about ensuring that this House hears about serious announcements first. We have seen pre-Budget briefing become entirely endemic—to the point where the Government have successfully spooked the markets in advance of the Chancellor’s speech. Goodness knows how they will react when they actually hear the Chancellor’s speech. Will the Minister at least condemn these briefings?
Even more serious is the case relating to paragraph 1.6.f of the ministerial code, which states that Ministers must ensure that no conflict of interest arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise. In the case of David Kogan and the Prime Minister, it is clear that a perceived conflict has arisen. Mr Kogan told the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on 7 May that he donated money to the Prime Minister’s leadership campaign. That was before the Prime Minister appointed him as football regulator. Surely given the circumstances, full transparency is required. How much money did the Prime Minister receive from Mr Kogan?
We also had the absurd situation of the Prime Minister clearing the Culture Secretary of wrongdoing in this case, despite the fact that the Prime Minister should have recused himself. How did this happen? Over the weekend the Prime Minister said that Ministers know that if there is any issue they must refer themselves to the independent adviser. Has the Prime Minister referred himself, and if not, why not? Surely the House will see that this is pure hypocrisy otherwise.
Lastly, the Information Commissioner’s Office has today said that Ministers’ criminal convictions do not have to be disclosed to the public. This seems odd. Will the Minister reassure the House that this Government will reveal any criminal convictions that Ministers have, and is he able to confirm that no current Minister has a criminal conviction?
Josh Simons
I thank the hon. Member for his series of questions—connected, I think, by virtue of being in relation to the ministerial code. Things happen in politics. Things go wrong and people misbehave. But the difference between us and the Conservatives is that whenever something has come up, we have always followed processes and then acted. That is why the Prime Minister has strengthened the ministerial code and put public service at its heart, and strengthened the role of the independent adviser.
I notice that the hon. Member is not joined on the Front Bench by the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who when faced with bullying claims and having broken the ministerial code was not sacked by the Prime Minister at the time, to whom the hon. Member was a Parliamentary Private Secretary. Instead, the Prime Minister at the time made his independent adviser on standards quit. I notice that the hon. Member is also not joined by the shadow Housing Secretary—the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly)—who called a north-east town not that far from me a word that I will not repeat. We will not take lectures from the Conservatives, who were roundly rejected by the public for having corroded trust in politics.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I commend the Minister for saying clearly, and quite rightly, that we should not be taking lessons from the Conservative party. What more can he say about the reforms that will follow the establishment of the Ethics and Integrity Commission to ensure that former Ministers cannot trade on their knowledge through the revolving door and—with the scrapping of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which had been derided as a toothless regulator—that there are far stronger safeguards on former Ministers taking up jobs in the private sector.
Josh Simons
I know that my hon. Friend has done a lot of work to look into and promote some of these important reforms. We made a manifesto promise to establish the Ethics and Integrity Commission—now a manifesto promise kept—and abolished ACOBA, which means that there will be financial penalties for ex-Ministers who break any rules on jobs. That is something that the former Prime Minister, to whom the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) was a Parliamentary Private Secretary, will surely be furious about.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
It seems that the urgent question has been in part fuelled by rampant pre-Budget briefing, but I would argue that it is a symptom of wider dysfunction in our Budget scrutiny process. Parliament is generally relegated to the sidelines and has no real power to challenge or amend the Budget, unlike in other democracies. Will the Minister look to review the UK Budget scrutiny process and see what we can learn from other countries? More broadly, will he look to enshrine the ministerial code into law? Will he also look at the role of the ethics adviser and ensure that it is truly independent, able to initiate its own investigations, come to its own conclusions and publish reports in its own time?
Josh Simons
To address that question directly, we have no plans to put the ministerial code on a statutory footing. It is a standard that sets out the Prime Minister’s expectations of his or her Ministers and it is right that it remains a political document directed by the Prime Minister. That has been the approach of many Governments.
Mr Speaker, I assure you that the Government and I take our obligations to the House very seriously. Before I was elected, I regularly read about what was going to be in the Budget in the papers. That is why, to answer the hon. Member’s question, it is right that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee is carrying out an inquiry into ministerial statements and the ministerial code. The Government have already engaged with the inquiry and look forward to considering the Committee’s report in full and recommendations that it might have.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
My constituents have not forgotten following the rules during lockdown only to find out that the then Government, who set those rules, were having raucous, drunken parties in the corridors of power. I greatly welcome this Government’s strengthening the ministerial code and ensuring that our nation’s leaders are properly held to account. What is the Minister’s response to those who served in the previous Government having the brass neck to lecture this Government on standards in public life?
Josh Simons
I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful point. It is somewhat ironic to be asked the urgent question by a former PPS to a Prime Minister who did so much to corrode trust in government. Under that Prime Minister, as opposed to this one, not one but two independent advisers resigned from their posts because they did not feel able to conduct their inquiries. I will not take lectures from the Conservative party on standards in public life.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
When did the Prime Minister realise that his preferred candidate to be the football regulator had donated to his leadership campaign? From whom did the Prime Minister seek advice when he learned that? What was the nature of the advice in response? In particular, what advice was the Prime Minister given regarding his continuing involvement in the process and his ability effectively to be judge and jury on the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport? Notwithstanding what the Minister has rightly said on the status of the ministerial code, which is authored in and policed by Downing Street, is it not time, given the problems that successive Governments have had on these issues, for serious consideration to be given to bringing the ministerial code under the orbit and auspices of this place and not No. 10?
Josh Simons
On the independent football regulator appointment, the hon. Member may be aware that the Prime Minister wrote to the independent adviser on ministerial interests, setting out in detail his involvement in the process and the recusal arrangements that were in place. The Prime Minister acknowledged that, in retrospect, it would have been better if he had not been given a note on the appointment, or confirmed that he was content with the appointment. He has expressed his sincere regret. I draw the House’s attention to the independent adviser’s conclusion that the disclosures made by the Prime Minister were an important demonstration of the Prime Minister’s
“commitment to transparency and to ensuring that mistakes are acknowledged and necessary steps taken to improve processes underpinning standards in public life.”
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
It is clear that trust in politicians from all parties is too low, and that is why I really welcome the setting up of the Ethics and Integrity Commission, but just for the avoidance of doubt, and to place it on the public record, can my hon. Friend confirm his view on the ethics of elected Members of any Parliament accepting bribes from Russia to ask questions?
Josh Simons
I was truly shocked to read about those revelations, and I would direct that question to Reform Members. When, during the last Government, I saw Conservatives Members trashing the reputation of the Government with the public, I was running a charity and having my first child, and I was furious about it. We can always do more as politicians and as a Government to restore trust in politics, and I welcome those who support the measures that this Government have taken and the measures that we will take in the future.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The independent adviser on ministerial standards is currently appointed by the Prime Minister, and it is a genuine question for the whole House whether that model is still fit for purpose. If the adviser were incapacitated or ill—it is to be hoped that will not happen to the current one—what would happen? Would we all wait for many months? Might a new model involve bringing together three ministerial advisers to the Prime Minister on ministerial standards, so that if one were incapacitated, the other two could step in, or if there were deadlock in reaching any agreement, there would be a casting vote? Clearly, having the Prime Minister appointing the individual who oversees the highest standards of integrity in public life is not longer fir for purpose.
Josh Simons
To my mind, one cannot get away from the character of the Prime Minister and his or her relationship to that appointment. What matters is that if the post of adviser is vacant, it will not be allowed to remain so. Unlike under the previous Government, it will be appointed and the person will be respected. That is exactly what this Prime Minister has done and will always do because, in the end, the Prime Minister believes that restoring standards in public life and restoring trust in this House and in democracy is the most important mission for this Government.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Speaker, I thank you on behalf of the people of Harlow for allowing us Back Benchers to get a voice in Parliament on these issues. That is really important. Last month, the Government set up the Ethics and Integrity Commission, which I welcome. Could the Minister touch a little more on its scope and remit, to ensure that we avoid things like the partygate scandal in future?
Josh Simons
The Ethics and Integrity Commission was a vital part of our manifesto commitment to restoring trust in Government. Its scope has been set out clearly in the public domain and it will, over time, establish its reputation as a core driver of standards across the state, across Government and across the public sector. I look forward to the next series of publications that are coming later this year.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
One potential breach of the ministerial code is the briefing to the papers, but not to this House, that the Government will pay a major increase to pharmaceutical companies, seemingly at the behest of Donald Trump. Can the Minister confirm today that people who are worried about their local health services will not see a huge amount of money going to pharmaceutical companies at the behest of an outside player? Furthermore, will he ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to come to the House and explain that to us in full?
Josh Simons
I can assure the hon. Member, given the respect that the Government pay to this House and to their obligations in it, that if there is an important policy announcement to be made, it will be made to this House. If she writes to me with more details about the issue she raises, I will be happy to look into it and to talk to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I listened carefully to the Minister’s rather Kafkaesque reply, but could I ask him a technical question? Given that the Prime Minister oversees the code and appoints the independent adviser, when the independent adviser reports, who adjudicates whether to take further action, because it could be argued that the Prime Minister has a vested interest? Should another Minister take that decision—perhaps the Health Secretary, or does he have a vested interest, too?
Josh Simons
In this country, we have a political constitution—it is one of the great strengths of this country—and, ultimately, therefore, the Prime Minister answers to this House and this House answers to the people.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The former Environment Secretary and now Housing Secretary, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), claimed at the Dispatch Box just a few months ago that water pollution levels in Scotland are worse than they are in England. When it was pointed out that this is completely untrue, rather than apologising he doubled down repeatedly. Now the UK Statistics Authority has rebuked him, saying his claims “lacked enough transparency” and
“run the risk of misleading the public”.
The ministerial code is clear that he should correct the record. Does the Minister agree?
Josh Simons
I thank the hon. Member for drawing my attention to that issue. I do not know the details of it, but I am happy to look into it and to refer that to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I will try a fourth time. We know that the chair of the football regulator—the chap who is now in charge—donated to the Labour party, to both the Prime Minister and the Culture Secretary, before he was appointed. At what point did the Prime Minister know personally that he was signing off a Labour donor to be chair of the football regulator?
Josh Simons
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), has set out already in extensive detail to the House the background to the appointment of David Kogan as the chair of the Independent Football Regulator. The Secretary of State also responded comprehensively to the recent report by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. She acknowledged the findings of the report, accepted responsibility for an unknowing breach related to previous donations and explained that she will ensure that lessons are learned from this process. As I mentioned earlier, the Prime Minister wrote to the independent adviser, who responded with the conclusion that his disclosures are an “important demonstration” of the Prime Minister’s commitment to transparency.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Prime Minister agreed with the independent adviser on ministerial interests to recuse himself from the appointment of the football regulator in autumn 2024. Then, in April, as the report by the Commissioner for Public Appointments makes clear, he confirmed Mr Kogan’s appointment, breaking that undertaking. How much did the Prime Minister receive in donations from Mr Kogan, and when did he declare them?
Josh Simons
The Prime Minister acknowledged, as I have said before, that in retrospect it would have been better if he had not been given a note on the appointment or confirmed that he was content with the appointment. He has expressed his sincere regret for what was an unfortunate error.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The Minister says that the Prime Minister is committed to transparency, so how much did Mr Kogan give to the Prime Minister’s leadership campaign?
Josh Simons
As I say, the Prime Minister acknowledged that in retrospect it would have been better if he had not been given a note on the appointment or confirmed that he was content with it. That is why he has expressed his sincere regret for what was an unfortunate error.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) said, dealing with the Department of Health and Social Care over the past year or so has been an exercise in opacity. One thing that we have struggled with has been the 50% cuts to NHS integrated care boards. That has left hon. Members from across the House having to piece together the facts from the media. Will the Minister confirm to Members which NHS services will lose funding to pay for the £1 billion redundancies that the Government’s reorganisation has created?
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
The Prime Minister boasted to ITV at the weekend that he had strengthened the ministerial code and the powers of the ethics adviser, and that any Minister who makes a mistake must refer themselves to the adviser. The former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), was referred for breaching the ministerial code, so why has the Prime Minister not referred himself? It this just more Labour double standards?
Josh Simons
The independent adviser on appointments is the person to whom the Prime Minister wrote about his own ministerial interests in order to be very clear about his involvement in the process and the recusal arrangements in place. He has expressed his sincere regret for what was an unfortunate error.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
The Welsh Local Government Association has warned today that next year’s Welsh local government settlement still fails to meet structural pressures on Welsh councils. That is the stark backdrop to the upcoming Budget. Does the Minister recognise that the pre-Budget circus of leaks, briefings and chaotic U-turns in No. 10 has only made it harder for already struggling councils to plan ahead and deliver their essential services?
Josh Simons
I will not comment on speculation about the ongoing Budget process. The Chancellor will come to the House on Wednesday to deliver a Budget that will put money into the pockets of working people, tackle the cost of living crisis, protect the NHS and get debt down.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
The Minister said that the Government’s defining mission is to uphold the highest standards, but he is failing to answer simple questions about transparency. How much did the Prime Minister receive in donations from David Kogan, and did he adhere to the ministerial code in declaring those donations?
Josh Simons
Well, I will sound like a stuck record, but it is true that the Prime Minister wrote to the independent adviser on ministerial interests to set out his involvement in the process, and he acknowledged in retrospect that it would have been better had he not been given a note on the appointment or confirmed that he was content. He has expressed his sincere regret for what was an unfortunate error.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
How can the Minister justify the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) receiving severance pay after she had to resign in disgrace?
Josh Simons
As the hon. Member knows, we have changed that policy. When the changed policy comes into force at the end of October, it will apply to all future such situations.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I will try to speak really slowly and ask not multiple questions but just the one. How much cash did David Kogan give the Prime Minister?
Josh Simons
I can speak slowly, too. The Prime Minister wrote to the independent adviser on ministerial interests to set out his involvement in the process and the recusal arrangements in place. He has expressed his sincere regret for what was an unfortunate error.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
We just want the transparency that was promised to be delivered. The Minister has been given an impossible task as a junior Minister, but the House surely deserves to know how much cash was transferred to the Prime Minister by someone who has been given a £130,000-a-year part-time sinecure. [Interruption.] If the Minister will not answer today because he is being told not to do so by the chair of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), will he undertake to come back and give the House an answer? We are entitled, on behalf of the whole country, to be given an honest answer by the Government, who are supposedly committed to transparency.
Josh Simons
As I said, after the Prime Minister wrote to the independent adviser on ministerial interests, he expressed his sincere regret for what was an unfortunate error.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his statement, and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for all you do to ensure that the ministerial code is followed by all Ministers—we appreciate it.
There has been much discussion this year regarding the ministerial code and how major policy announcements are made. What steps will the Minister take to give Members confidence that Ministers will adhere to the code—and to the requirements set out within it—and ensure the correct working order of this House?
Josh Simons
I thank the hon. Member for that question.
May I correct myself, Mr Speaker? I did not realise that you directed the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee to carry out that investigation. It is an important inquiry into how ministerial statements and the ministerial code work in practice, which is clearly a problem. The Government are already engaged with the content of that inquiry and look forward to considering the Committee’s report and any recommendations in it.
Mr Speaker
That completes the urgent question. Was that your first one, Minister? Well done.
Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make a statement on the intelligence used by West Midlands police that led to the ban on Maccabi Tel Aviv fans from attending Villa Park on 6 November 2025.
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this urgent question. Let me begin by acknowledging the concern and disappointment felt by supporters affected by the decision regarding attendance at Villa Park on 6 November; I recognise the strength of feeling in this House and the wider communities on the matter.
As Members will appreciate, operational decisions regarding public safety at football matches are a matter for the police, working closely with local partners and events organisers. In this case West Midlands police, in consultation with the club and the local safety advisory group, made the recommendation that away fans should not attend based on their assessment of the intelligence available to them at the time. I am sure the House will understand that I am limited in what I can say about the specific intelligence underpinning this decision; these are sensitive matters and it is vital that the police act on information received to protect public safety. West Midlands police issued a statement in response to the latest media reporting on the intelligence they used, are carrying out a debrief of the events leading up to the match and will be publishing the timeline of events, the decisions taken and the rationale for the recommendations provided to the SAG.
In light of recent events and to ensure robust oversight, the Home Secretary has commissioned His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services to review how police forces in England and Wales provide risk assessment advice to local SAGs and other bodies responsible for licensing high-profile public events. This inspection will consider whether police advice takes proper account of all relevant factors, including the impact on wider community relations and whether the balance between public safety and community consideration is being struck effectively.
I want to assure Members that understanding the series of events that occurred in the period before the match was played remains of keen interest to me and of course the Home Secretary. The Government are clear there is no place for hatred or discrimination in football or indeed in wider society. We are committed to ensuring that fans can attend matches safely, regardless of background or affiliation.
Nick Timothy
The ban on Israeli Jewish supporters was a disgrace and the justification given by West Midlands Police was, it turns out, based on fiction. The police said that their intelligence came from Dutch counterparts after the Ajax against Maccabi Tel Aviv match last year. West Midlands police called the Israeli fans “highly organised” and “co-ordinated” and
“experienced fighters…linked to the Israel Defence Forces”.
They said they intentionally targeted Muslim communities and 5,000 officers were deployed in response, but that was contradicted by an official Dutch report and the Dutch police themselves. They called the West Midlands police claims “not true” and “obviously inaccurate”. In some cases, such as the Israeli victim thrown into the river, the facts were inverted with Israelis presented as aggressors.
West Midlands police repeated their claims to the Home Affairs Committee Chairman on Friday and refused to answer specific questions from The Sunday Times or to justify their claims, so will the Minister ensure the publication of all intelligence material relating to the ban? It is mostly not sensitive; it can be redacted where necessary. Will lists of individuals and organisations consulted by West Midlands police and the safety advisory group and all those who submitted evidence be published? Can the Minister confirm that no organisations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood or subject to Government non-engagement participated? Will she confirm that Hind Rajab Foundation submitted a paper and that this was accepted by West Midlands police?
What intelligence was shared by West Midlands police with the United Kingdom football policing unit and the National Police Chiefs’ Council?
Which information was given to Home Office Ministers and officials, and when? Officials were told about the options under consideration on 2 October, two weeks before the ban was announced, so what did Ministers do in the intervening period?
Under pressure from Islamist agitators, local politicians and thugs, an English police force is accused of fabricating intelligence and misleading the public. This could hardly be more serious. We need Ministers to hold the chief constable to account and give the country the truth.
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I know that he understands the principle of police operational independence, and that we need to ensure that we reflect that correctly when such decisions are taken. Stepping back, there are wider lessons that we need to learn, which is why the Home Secretary has written to the inspector to ask him to look at how the SAG process occurs and how the group makes decisions. Members will know that the SAG process was set up following the Hillsborough tragedy as a means by which we can make decisions and secure safety at football matches and other large-scale events.
The Home Secretary has asked the inspector to consider the degree to which the police take into account intelligence and the degree to which the SAG process takes into account wider community impacts. That speaks to the hon. Gentleman’s question, which I cannot answer now, about who was giving the information and on what basis the police were making their recommendations. The review will look at whether the balance of those factors is being struck correctly, and I hope we will come back through that process. We wrote to the inspector at the end of October to ask him to undertake the work. We have asked him to provide his initial conclusions by March next year and made funding available for the additional inspection.
On the specific chronology of events, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that Home Office officials asked the United Kingdom football policing unit for an update on the match on 2 October. They were told that force gold was considering and it would go to the SAG for decisions, and several different available options were laid out at that time.
I have written to the chief constable of West Midlands police to ask for clarity following yesterday’s newspaper article. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot tell him about the truth of those claims—it is a newspaper article and we want to get to the bottom of it—but there are questions within it that we need to understand. I have written to the chief constable to answer those questions. I am happy to share more information as I get it, and the Home Affairs Committee has already taken a lead in asking West Midlands police some of those questions.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
As a local MP, I have previously expressed my concerns about the decision-making process. I welcome the Minister’s commitment today that a review is being carried out about how such risk assessments are made. I understand why some information may not be suitable for placing in the public domain, but can the Minister assure the House that the Government’s view is that as much information as possible should be made available for public scrutiny?
Sarah Jones
Of course we want to ensure that as much information as possible is in the public domain. We do not yet know the truth about some of the statements in yesterday’s article and we need to get to the bottom of that. I know that Members of the House will be very interested in hearing about where the inspector gets to in his work, as well as ensuring that we have answers to the questions that Members are raising today.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Last month, Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were banned under the threat of antisemitic mob violence and a highly politicised anti-Israel campaign. Let me be clear: we must never allow the threat of mob violence to dictate policy. West Midlands police cited concerns about the Tel Aviv fans based on a previous game in Amsterdam, but the Dutch police have now shown that those concerns were completely false. There was no mob of 500 fans targeting the Muslim community in Amsterdam. In fact, many Maccabi fans were themselves attacked. Nobody was thrown in a river, apart from one Maccabi fan. The Maccabi fans were not skilled and organised fighters; that was just made up. What will the Government do to hold West Midlands police to account for providing that false information? Unless they have a good explanation, the chief constable should resign.
Disturbingly, two members of the safety advisory group, Waseem Zaffar and Mumtaz Hussain, both previously expressed vehement anti-Israel views, so they were not impartial. We have seen the Palestine solidarity campaign in Birmingham trying to hunt down Maccabi players before the game—that is despicable. When my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) went to the game, he was abused and called a “dog” by pro-Palestine protesters, thereby revealing their true colours.
We have now discovered through a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston) that the Home Office was made aware of the possibility of the ban as early as 2 October—a full two weeks before the decision was taken. Why did the Home Office then do nothing to ensure that Maccabi fans could be properly protected? Do the Government really think it is acceptable that the threat of antisemitic mob violence can dictate policy? That is morally wrong and should never be allowed to happen in this country.
Sarah Jones
I agree entirely with the shadow Home Secretary that we should not allow the threat of mob violence to stop matches going ahead. With respect, I think that he is jumping the gun a bit with some of the phrases he has used, saying that it was “just made up”. We are not clear on that at this point, and I do not want this House to take what was in the newspaper yesterday and jump to conclusions. That is not to say that we do not want to get to the bottom of what happened; I can reassure hon. Members of that.
Antisemitism has absolutely no place in our society, and we are taking a strong lead in tackling it in all its forms. The Prime Minister made his view about the decision on this match very clear, as did the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she came to this place to speak of it in previous weeks.
We have a duty to find the right balance between operational independence and ensuring that all our communities are protected in exactly the way that we need them to be. Lots of hon. Members here will know of the work of lots of Jewish organisations, in particular the Community Security Trust, which help us in that task. We will not shy away from that or from what we need to do.
As I said, the SAG process was set up following Hillsborough for a different purpose, and we find ourselves in a different world with a different set of situations. If changes to the SAG process are needed, we will make them.
As I also said, I have written to the chief constable of West Midlands police to ask some questions of him, and we have asked the inspector to conduct a review. The Home Secretary is right—[Interruption.] The shadow Home Secretary is right—
Sarah Jones
I think not, but there we are. He is my constituency neighbour in Croydon, so best wishes to him always.
The 2 October was the point at which the Home Office asked officials in the United Kingdom football policing unit for the update, and we were told that a range of different options were being considered. That is certainly true, and I will not shy away from that. It is now important we ensure that where there are lessons to be learned, we learn them.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
At high-risk football matches, including several local derbies, away fans have been given tickets only once they are on the coaches. Those buses have been taken in by a police escort, removing any fan clashes. Does the Minister agree that questions should be asked about why that tried and tested method was not used?
Sarah Jones
The SAG looked at lots of considerations in terms of what the options were. Should it have been a closed match, for example, with no fans? That sometimes happens. Should the match not have gone ahead at all? As my hon. Friend says, should it have been a match with a limited number of tickets? Many options were being weighed up, but a SAG will not just look at the policing advice when it makes its recommendation; it will also look at other factors. That is why we want to get to the heart of how the SAG process is working, what kinds of decisions are being made and how it operates.
I should also tell the House that although there was concern that there would be problems at the match itself, with significant protest and different groups coming to the match, those concerns were not realised, which was a good thing. However, I certainly take my hon. Friend’s point.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is alarming that the decision made by West Midlands police was based on intelligence parts of which the Netherlands national police force has stated is not true, according to reports in the national press this weekend. The public should be able to trust the authorities to base decisions on credible, well-sourced and proportionate intelligence. Will the Minister set out where this intelligence came from, if not the Dutch police, and if she cannot, is that one of the questions she is asking West Midlands police? Who was ultimately responsible for sourcing that intelligence? What investigations has the Home Office asked for to ensure that any circulation of misinformation and the use of that misinformation by police was not prompted by antisemitic sentiment?
West Midlands police have continued to defend their decision, and to say that the threat was related to a specific sub-group of fans, not the wider fanbase. Will the Home Secretary ensure that senior West Midlands police officers come back to Parliament to appear before the Home Affairs Select Committee, to defend their decision and explain why a total ban on all supporters was justified? Finally, with antisemitic incidents remaining at record highs, what steps are the Government taking to reassure the Jewish community of their safety and tackle the root causes of antisemitism? This Government promised a community cohesion strategy last year following the Southport attacks. Part of that strategy must focus on anti-Jewish racism, so when will the Minister commit to publishing it?
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. At this point, I cannot give him the answers he wants about intelligence—the root of it and the truth of it. We are responding simply to the information that we got yesterday, and we have asked the appropriate questions to get to the bottom of that. He is right to say that the Home Affairs Select Committee has a strong role in this space, and can be quite helpful in helping us to unpick some of these challenges.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the support and signals that we as a Government are sending, and intend to send, to our Jewish communities to reassure them that we take their safety incredibly seriously. I can reassure him that I have met Jewish community leaders, including the Community Security Trust, as has the Home Secretary. As a response to the Manchester attack, we are making more funding available for our Jewish synagogues and other buildings. We have also commissioned an independent review of our public order and hate crime legislation, and Lord Macdonald of River Glaven KC—a former Director of Public Prosecutions who is well known to this House—has been appointed to carry out that review. It will examine whether the existing legislation within the wider parameters of public order and protest is effective and proportionate; whether it adequately protects communities from intimidation and hate; and whether it strikes a fair and sustainable balance between the freedom of expression and peaceful protest and the need to prevent disorder and keep our communities safe.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the wider review that is being undertaken. That work is not being done within my Department, but we are working with the relevant Department on it, and the review will be published as soon as it is ready.
Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism, I know that with British Jewish communities facing an unprecedented rise in antisemitic attacks and hatred of Jews being spread with impunity online, many Jews are fearful that the events in Birmingham are just the first step towards excluding them from British public life. There can be no doubt that there are many people in this country who would be only too happy for that to happen. Is the Minister able to take this opportunity to make clear to Israelis coming to the UK to take part in our cultural, sporting and academic activities that they will be treated just as we treat any other visitor coming from any other friendly country?
Sarah Jones
I can definitely give my hon. Friend that assurance—she is absolutely right, and I thank her for the work she is doing as chair of the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism. I have been involved with that group and with Danny Stone for many years; they do a fantastic job, and I recommend that all Members of Parliament do their training session on antisemitism—it is incredibly insightful and really worth investing the time in.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If Israelis want to come here, they are very welcome, and there should be no question about that. Through the reviews that we are undertaking on public order and through the work we are doing to put money in to tackle antisemitism and to protect our Jewish friends in synagogues and other places, we hopefully will be sending the right message. There will always be extra work to do, because antisemitism is a rising issue and we all need to work to tackle it.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Will the Minister provide any information about the work done by the Home Office from the point that it found out that the away fans may be banned to when the decision was taken—or was the work that could be done to enable the match to go ahead with the away fans there done only after the decision had been taken?
Sarah Jones
There were a series of different interactions and communications between the different groups in that period, as Members would expect. There is a balance to be struck with the operational independence question, and we need to get that right; it is not for the Home Secretary to march in and demand that the police say a certain thing or act a certain way. There were communications—I am sure we could help by outlining them—between the period of 2 October, when the Home Office first asked the question of the United Kingdom football policing unit, and 16 October, when the decision was made. To be clear, the Department found out about the decision when it broke on the news; we were not told in advance.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
Our police forces in this country have dealt with violent fans from other countries for a long time. I do not expect my hon. Friend to be familiar with the Bad Blue Boys of Dinamo Zagreb—probably the worst fans in Europe, responsible for deaths and imprisonments—or the ultras of Roma, Inter Milan or Lazio, but they have been dealt with. The only conclusion I can draw from the information before us is that the West Midlands police and the local authorities in Birmingham, following fictions about the fans of Maccabi Tel Aviv, created a no-go zone for Jews in one of our major cities. Is she, like me, ashamed of that?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he did supporting colleagues and his constituents after the Manchester attack. He is right to point to the 1980s, when we had a completely different era of huge violence in football. We are very glad that that has, in the main, subsided. He says that there should be no no-go areas for Jews. That is absolutely right; I completely agree with him.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
The Minister knows the Birmingham and Sutton Coldfield area well, so she will understand why so many of us locally are deeply troubled by this unpleasant episode. The initial decision to ban the Israeli fans was clearly wrong, and that is compounded by the information that has now come to light. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing this urgent question. Birmingham is a welcoming and tolerant city, and community relations in Britain’s second city are truly excellent. That is not because of the politicians, but because of the work that faith communities have done over many years.
Sarah Jones
The right hon. Member is right. I am very familiar with Sutton Coldfield—and my husband is a Villa season ticket holder, as are my twin boys. It is in some ways the bane of my life, because I never see them as they are always at Villa. It is worth saying that Villa fans are lovely and it is a lovely club. They are devastated that there would be any of this controversy. They just want to play football, watch football, support football, support their players and get on with it. Having talked to lots of them, I know that they have found the whole thing upsetting. They just want to watch the football.
As the right hon. Gentleman says, Birmingham is a great city. I pay tribute to the faith communities in his area and, I suspect, in many of our constituencies where the Faiths Together groups meet and bring different leaders together to ensure that we are all learning from each other and living side by side in peace.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
According to the response to the Home Affairs Committee by the West Midlands police and crime commissioner, the Home Office was fully briefed in advance on the likely recommendation to ban visiting fans from the match, so can the Minister explain why the Government failed to offer additional support for the match to go ahead until after the ban was finalised?
Sarah Jones
We were not fully briefed in advance of the decision; we were told when the decision was made. As we have already said, we knew that options were being considered. This is the way in which these processes work: a safety advisory group makes recommendations, and the local authority responds accordingly. In response to what has happened, we are asking the inspector to look at the safety advisory groups and tell us whether we need to make some changes.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism, I can attest to the fact that many British Jews do not feel safe, especially in Birmingham. I take the Minister at her word that she takes this very seriously. When I stood up and spoke about the issue, I received torrents of abuse for doing so, but I did so because I thought it was clear that the decision was wrong: it was bad for the people of the west midlands, bad for Aston Villa fans, bad for British Muslims—some of whom wrote to me expressing concern that they had been dragged into it—and, of course, terrible for British Jews.
The Minister said that she could not comment on the evidence having been made up. Has she read the Dutch report, does she knowledge that the stories over the weekend have further upset British Jews, and will she ensure that West Midlands police are held to account?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are Jews in this country who do not feel safe. In Croydon we have a small community who visit a synagogue very close to my house, and I have spoken to them many times about how they feel. It is true that people do not want to go into central London at weekends, which should be completely unacceptable to all of us. We are reviewing the public order legislation to establish how we can balance people’s right to express their views and protest in a way that is appropriate with the reality of the impact that that has had over quite a long period.
I am aware of the matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised about the information. I have written to West Midlands police to ask them a series of questions, and I do not want to comment until I have those responses. I know that the Home Affairs Committee has written to them as well.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
As a west midlands MP, I find this deeply troubling. There are clearly questions that need to be answered. Specifically, in the light of the significant inaccuracies that have now been confirmed by Dutch law enforcement, does the Minister agree that there are also questions that should be asked of the political leadership in the west midlands and, in particular, the police and crime commissioner, who—however we look at it—is supposed to be representing our communities?
Sarah Jones
I am not going to make a slightly political point about the right hon. Lady’s decision to attack the police and crime commissioner; I think that he does a good job and has served well for many years. As for the wider point that she made, as a west midlands MP, about what has happened and what it means, I absolutely share her concern.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the information that came to light over the weekend seems to suggest that a very worrying bias has entered the decision-making process, and that this has cast a stain on Birmingham’s reputation as a welcoming city as well as raising serious questions about the senior leadership of West Midlands police ?
Sarah Jones
I am not going to draw that conclusion today, but the hon. Gentleman can be assured that I am going to ensure that we get to the bottom of yesterday’s reporting and what happened. We often ask the police to make decisions that are almost impossible, and—here I am setting aside this particular case—we ask them to police protests in such a way that we are almost asking them to make political decisions on a day-to-day basis, which is very difficult for them. I should pay tribute to the many excellent public order police officers, who are very well trained and who work in such difficult circumstances. We ask a great deal of them, and I am grateful for the work that they do.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
After the incident with Maccabi Tel Aviv fans in Amsterdam, the Government’s independent assessor on antisemitism, Lord Mann, visited the city, did a fact-finding mission and compiled a report. It was passed to the Government in January, and to the Government and the police again in June. Can the Minister tell us what consideration, if any, was given to this report in the decision making?
Sarah Jones
I would very much like to talk to Lord Mann about the work that he has done, which was prior to me being in post. I will pick that up.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
Let us cut to the chase: Jew hatred in this country has been on the rise for over a decade. It was given a safe space in the past, and that has grown. I have a significant Jewish population in my constituency, who will tell you that Leeds sometimes feels like a really threatening place because of the protests. But the reality is that the protests that take place are okay under freedom of speech, which I support, as long as they do not break the law.
These fans were not breaking the law, and they should have been allowed to go to the match, but it appears that there were people—for example, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) outlined, in the safety advisory group—who had a biased intent. Will the Government start to analyse and audit these groups, which are supposed to be independent? We have seen bias at the BBC and a rise in antisemitic language and incidents in the NHS—which, despite the Health Secretary saying they are unacceptable, the General Medical Council clears. It is reported that 51% of students in Russell Group universities feel that it is okay to insult Jews. Can there please be a root-and-branch review from the Government to make sure that bodies are truly independent and are not hiding their blatant antisemitism?
Sarah Jones
To the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, the Prime Minister’s view was very clear: the wrong decision was made. That is our position. We believe that the decision made was the wrong one.
On the safety advisory groups, we have asked the inspector to look at them, their role and their function. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that across all our public bodies, we need to stamp out antisemitism in all its forms, wherever we find it and wherever we see it. I will certainly support him in that.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Confidence in the police is very important, and the Jewish community have every justification for not being confident in the police—whether it is some of the policing we have seen here in London or in the west midlands. Given that the reports in The Sunday Times seem to contradict totally what the police in the west midlands said, is it not accurate to say that their recommendations on which Israeli fans were to be banned from the Aston Villa match were nothing but a tissue of lies? If they had really wanted accurate information, would they, as experienced investigators, not just have lifted the phone or sent an email to the police in Amsterdam to find out the facts about the match that occurred there?
It appears that the West Midlands police have given in to pressure from Muslim politicians and Muslim thugs. As a result, the Jewish community are once again left feeling that they are the disadvantaged people. Will the Minister assure us that the inquiry will look very clearly at what political pressure was put on the police in the west midlands to reach their decision?
Sarah Jones
The right hon. Member is right to say that confidence in policing is incredibly important. We need that confidence across all our communities, and we know that there is a lot of work to do in some areas in particular. I am not going to comment on what appears to be the case, but I can reassure him that, as I have said, the Prime Minister believes it was the wrong decision in the first place. We want to understand what happened, and we want to take a wider look at the safety advisory groups, which, as I said, were set up in response to a problem of safety within our football venues. We recognise that things have moved on, and we need to look at whether the SAGs are working in the way that they should be.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
It sounds as though the Minister is getting to grips with this, and I am very grateful for that. Will she accept that the counterpart or corollary of operational independence for the police is their political impartiality, and does she agree with me that the last thing we want is a poisonous cocktail of football hooliganism infected by the hatreds arising out of the middle eastern conflict?
Sarah Jones
The right hon. Gentleman is right to talk about political impartiality. It is absolutely crucial that our police are not making decisions based on politics. We ask them every day to almost do that, even though we are very clear that they must not. It is difficult and complicated, and when they are policing—for example, in London or our big cities—protests with multiple causes, and protests in response to events around the world that are deeply interesting to a lot of citizens of this country, we do ask a lot of them. We need to appreciate that, in the vast majority of cases, they make the right call, and they also do things behind closed doors that we do not see. For example, there is lots of negotiation with lots of protest organisations about changing the route of a protest, and making sure that it is moving in the right way to avoid more conflict. In the main, they do a very good job, but we need to make sure that we get to the bottom of this case.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
This whole sorry episode will have had a very corrosive effect on the confidence and trust that the Jewish community places in policing. What will the Government do to ensure that confidence is restored in the long term? Whether we are talking about this instance at Villa Park, or disorder following pro-Palestinian marches, can the Minister tell me and the House why, far too often, the Jewish community is made to feel that it is the problem?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Member raises a good question. Of course, we need to work with the Jewish community to make sure that relationships with police are strong. The Community Security Trust has a really good relationship with police. It works very closely with them, and it obviously has a huge infrastructure, for which we are very grateful, that helps it to monitor synagogues and other spaces. As probably many Members have done, I have been to its head office and seen the work that it does. Indeed, it has a police officer embedded in the operations centre some of the time. Those relationships are good, but the wider Jewish community of course needs to feel that it can go to the police and report crimes. I would encourage all members of that community to do so whenever they are affected by any kind of hate crime, so that we can make sure that the figures are accurate. I will of course keep working to make sure that we get this right.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The whole House recognises the challenge posed by football hooliganism, but anyone with the slightest knowledge of football would accept that this hooliganism is restricted to a very small minority of fans of clubs and countries across the world. Will the Minister work with colleagues in the Home Office and police forces across the country to ensure that next time an Israeli club draws a British club in a European competition, or the Israeli national side draws one of the home nations in a qualifying competition—or, indeed, if Israel were to qualify for Euro 2028—those fans would be welcome in the United Kingdom to enjoy our football and our hospitality?
Sarah Jones
Of course, we want to ensure that all fans from all parts of the world are welcome in this country. The hon. Member is absolutely right to say that the problem of football hooliganism is nothing like what it was in the 1980s. There was a football match at Villa from which fans were banned in 2023, but I think that decision was made in response to activity in the immediate vicinity of the match. He is right to say that this is not a large problem any more—thank goodness—in part because of great policing, and in part because we have changed how football matches work. They are much more family affairs than they used to be, and there is less alcohol—all things that have helped us with these issues. He is right: we of course want to welcome Israeli fans, whenever they come.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for her answers, and for the confidence that she is trying to instil across the nation. On the so-called confidential intelligence that West Midlands police claims to have seen about Israeli fans engaging in significant hooliganism, I am very concerned, as others are, about the message that sends about exclusion, and about how the Government deal with intelligence in this country. What steps have been taken to ensure that international football fans are treated fairly and are not excluded from events based on incorrect information and dishonest claims, and that lessons can be learned to prevent similar incidents in the future?
Sarah Jones
I agree with the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. Where we can, we want to ensure that intelligence is correct, that decisions are made on the basis of a wide range of factors, and that football, a sport that this country loves so much, carries on in the way that we all want it to.
Critical Minerals Strategy
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
With permission, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s critical minerals strategy. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am particularly delighted that you are in the Chair, given your personal interest in critical minerals, having launched the UK’s first critical minerals strategy a number of years ago. I am also pleased to be joined on the Front Bench by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), for whose work I aim to take the credit this evening.
The story of man is the story of metals. From the discovery of the first alloy—bronze, a mixture of copper and tin—people have smelted, melted, forged and formed metals to their will. Knowledge of the art of blending alloys has been sought throughout history by kings and nations for defence and prosperity. The ancients recognised the noble metals of gold and silver, and the base metals of tin, lead, copper and iron. The industrial revolution led to the industrial metals of steel, aluminium and titanium, but our age is to be dominated by critical minerals—the basic materials that give function to everything from digital technology to fusion energy. That is why we have launched our new Vision 2035, the UK’s critical minerals strategy. It is part of our industrial strategy and supports the Government’s No. 1 mission—the mission for growth. Whether it is neodymium for permanent magnets, platinum for fuel cells or copper for infrastructure, our critical minerals strategy will ensure that the UK can access these vital materials, and that we all benefit from the security and economic opportunities they offer.
The UK is already home to one of the largest nickel refineries in Europe at Clydach, and a rare example of European cobalt refining at Widnes. We have titanium production in Swansea, aluminium at Fort William, chromium in Rotherham, platinum group metals and vanadium, all with the highest standards of environmental control. In Cornwall, we have Europe’s largest deposits of lithium, and in Devon, the world’s largest deposits of tungsten. The UK has the only Western source of rare earth alloys for F-35 fighter jets. To quote my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
“where things are made…matters.”—[Official Report, 11 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 979.]
We have world-leading academic institutions. The University of Birmingham is commercialising a process for pulverising magnets into a powder for remanufacturing. Queen’s University Belfast is developing magnet recycling technologies, using ionic liquids to recover rare earth metals. Camborne SCHOOL OF MINES has remained a leading British institution for over a century, and I am looking forward to visiting tomorrow.
Having spent much of my career in metals research, I know that as a country we underestimate the global standing of our institutions, but of course the point of research is to create value for the UK economy, which means commercialisation at home. In Britain, we understand the advantage that can be created by a global dominance in metals. For centuries, half of the world’s tin came from Cornwall and Devon. Britain dominated the graphite industry thanks to the Borrowdale deposits in Cumbria. Almost all the world’s copper was smelted in Swansea and the majority of global steel production came from Sheffield. As a nation, we confidently built a global competitive advantage from ingenuity alone, taking action to shape the world around us. Now, we have the opportunity to confidently do so again. By combining our natural mineral deposits, secondary resources from recycling, strength in midstream processing, innovation, and a role as the global centre for finance and trading, we will ensure that by 2035 at least 10% of annual UK demand is met from domestic production and 20% from recycling. This displacement of imports by the development of both primary and secondary recycling routes is driven by a need to enhance our economic security.
The deployment of this strategy will ensure that our capabilities are marshalled and supported appropriately, our supply chain opportunities are identified, and that resources, both public and private, are targeted at strengthening the UKs competitive position. Our industrial strategy is a deliberate partnership between Government and private investment, and this is also the case on critical minerals. Up to £50 million of new Government funding for domestic production will take total funding to over £200 million. The City of London is already a global centre for the listing of mining companies and mining finance. With the London Metal Exchange as the global hub for metals trading, and ICE Futures Europe expanding into critical minerals, our opportunity is to redirect our financial and investment strength into UK industrial development.
Significant investment support is available from UK Export Finance and the National Wealth Fund. That will reduce the need for UK entrepreneurs to sell their companies to overseas investors at an early stage, and increase the opportunity for Britain to benefit from the growth of new UK-owned, UK-headquartered and UK-listed industrial champions.
Our British industrial competitiveness scheme, the consultation on which was announced in a written statement laid before the House today, will improve the competitiveness of the business environment. It will reduce electricity costs by up to £40 per megawatt-hour from April 2027 for over 7,000 eligible manufacturing businesses, reducing their energy bills by 25%.
Having identified our critical mineral needs and domestic capabilities, and as we now take action to secure investment, we must make sure that our policies on trade and international co-operation ensure diversity of supply and safeguard our nascent industries. As well as exploiting our natural primary and secondary sources of critical minerals, we will diversify international supply chains, so that by 2035, no more than 60% of any critical mineral will come from a single country. We will achieve this by ensuring that future trade agreements allow increased access to critical mineral supply chains, and by entering into bilaterial agreements that increase the breadth of our supply base. We will work through organisations such as the G20, G7, the World Trade Organisation, NATO and the International Energy Agency to improve supply chain resilience.
In June, the Prime Minister announced the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, and for the sake of national security, we are considering mandating that stockpiles be held by industry, using procurement to create diversity in the supply chain, and taking part in the NATO critical minerals stockpiling project. Our trade strategy includes a strengthened approach to trade defence, ensuring that we can safeguard UK businesses from an increasingly volatile international trading environment. That will involve us introducing new legislation to expand our powers to raise tariffs in response to unfair trading practices.
This Government are not agnostic on the fate of British industry and British manufacturing. Given a fair business environment, our industry and workers can out-compete others. The industrial capability of Britain should not be subject to the whims of the international market or foreign Governments. Our industrial strategy, and the place of critical minerals within it, is a marked departure from the hands-off approach of the past. The UK Government is now 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. The new critical minerals strategy is another step forward in that ambition, and gives business investors confidence that the materials, industry and jobs for Britain’s future are secured. Critical minerals are essential for building the modern world. Control and supply of these materials are the means by which nations will secure power and wealth in this century. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I will definitely be paying close attention. I call the shadow Minister.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Critical minerals are vital to our national security. In submarines, missiles, jet fighters and radar, we need critical minerals for our national defence. Critical minerals in electric vehicles and wind turbines are also vital for clean energy generation.
It is striking, however, that the Government’s critical minerals strategy does not mention China once. That is despite that fact that China, which has built an almost global monopoly on processing, recently imposed export licence requirements on seven rare earth elements: samarium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, lutetium, scandium and yttrium.
Can the Minister say whether the Department has made any assessment of China’s dominance in the critical minerals market and whether the Government consider it a threat?
The UK “Critical Minerals Strategy” document seems to have been written in a bit of a rush. It is sloppy, riddled with spelling mistakes and has inconsistent statistics and errors in geography. Why should industry trust a Government who cannot even proofread? For instance, according to the Cobalt Institute, current global demand is 200,000 tonnes and is set to grow by 14% a year, meaning that by 2030, the global demand for cobalt is forecast to be 438,000 tonnes. In the Government’s document, however, UK domestic demand will be 636,000 tonnes in 2030. Could the Minister kindly proofread the document and place a corrected version of the whole strategy in the Library?
The strategy recognises the impact that high energy prices have had on the critical minerals industry, but under Labour, our energy bills are up. Why do the Government not just adopt our cheap power plan to cut electricity bills by 20%? Oil and gas are key inputs in the production of critical minerals. What impact does the Minister believe this Government’s policy of closing down the North sea will have on domestic critical minerals production?
Under Labour, foreign direct investment into this country has fallen to an all-time low. How do the Government expect to build a critical minerals industry if no one is investing? Can the Minister therefore today rule out any tax rises heading towards this industry on Wednesday? The national insurance jobs tax and the unemployment Bill are set to cost the critical minerals industry £50 million, which is exactly the same figure as the funding pledged by the Government today—the Chancellor’s jobs tax and the 330-page job-killing Employment Rights Bill are costing businesses £1,000 per worker, and there are a total of 50,000 people employed in the critical minerals industry. Is this a recognition from the Minister that the Government’s tax rises are crippling British industry?
In summary, the first duty of any Government is to keep our country safe. Refreshing the critical minerals strategy is an essential part of that mission. Given the scale of global competition and the risks of supply chain disruption, does the Minister agree that there is still a great deal of work to do to ensure that Britain is secure in the critical minerals we need for our future?
Chris McDonald
I start by saying that if there are indeed any spelling or factual errors in the document, I offer my apologies to the House; that is clearly unacceptable, and I will ensure that any corrections are made and that a new copy is laid before the House. I thank the hon. Lady for bringing those matters to my attention.
On the substantive issues raised by the shadow spokesperson, the point about China is clearly very important. The Government are well aware of China’s dominance of critical minerals supply chains. In some areas—particularly in processing, as she will be aware—China controls 70% to 90% of the market. Our critical minerals strategy is designed precisely to provide greater diversity of supply, both at home, through primary and secondary extraction where we have the materials to do that, and through our G7, G20, NATO partners and others, as I mentioned in my statement. A critical point to note is that the supply of secondary raw materials is a natural resource that the UK has. We currently offer those resources for processing overseas, which are then returned to the UK at considerable cost. A focus of this strategy is ensuring that we have those resources in the UK.
The shadow spokesperson mentions electricity bills. I think that my statement is best read in conjunction with the written statement on the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which aims to reduce electricity bills for industry by 25% compared with current levels—a reduction of £40 per MWh. The British industrial competitiveness scheme and the critical minerals strategy are both part of this Government’s relentless focus on growth and our success in attracting inward investment.
As to the points about taxation, I am afraid that the hon. Lady will have to wait 48 hours for the Budget.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. Anyone who has visited my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency cannot have missed the signs of our industrial past, but after decades of post-industrial deprivation, global demand for critical minerals is surging to accelerate the transition to a clean energy future—opposed entirely by Reform—and with our unique geology, Cornwall is at the epicentre of the opportunity. The geology has not changed, but the market is back with a Government who get it. This Labour Government have published a strategy with teeth, with targets for domestic production, a new growth minerals list and £50 million in funding. Does the Minister agree that investment must flow into Cornwall to create jobs, reduce the reliance on China that was allowed to run rampant under the Conservatives and, in so doing, unleash the Cornish Celtic tiger?
Chris McDonald
Meur ras to my hon. Friend. He has been such a strong champion of critical minerals, so it is a pleasure to hear from him today, and it is no wonder that we have, given that Camborne and Redruth is already home to the Crofty tin mine and has great opportunities for lithium extraction as well, holding Europe’s largest deposit of lithium. I believe that this will mark the launch of a renaissance in the mining industry in Cornwall—an industry that has so much to bring to Cornwall and that the Cornish people love so well for the jobs it brings and the pride it gives to communities too. All the work in this strategy would simply not have been possible without the support of my hon. Friend and his fellow MPs from Cornwall. I look forward to finding out more about the opportunities in Cornwall when I visit tomorrow.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I also thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. Critical minerals are vital to national security, economic development, the green transition and regional prosperity. The Liberal Democrats believe that the UK must strengthen and regularly update its industrial strategy. The 2022 plan and the Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre are useful foundations, but they are insufficient.
We have long been champions of industrial strategy, and we are proud of the strategy that we introduced in Government. I am glad that the Government are taking steps to address green growth, regional inequality and sustainable economic development, and we welcome the ambition shown in the strategy announced today. Increasing domestic production will boost our national resilience to supply chain changes. We support the commitment for at least 10% of annual UK demand to be met from domestic production by 2035. However, what further steps are the Government taking to reduce reliance on unreliable foreign sources of critical minerals? Furthermore, how will the Government ensure that the UK remains competitive with the US and the EU, both of which offer substantial incentives for critical minerals processing?
We welcome the launch of the consultation today on the British industrial competitiveness scheme. Energy-intensive industries are set to benefit from a 90% discount on their electricity network charges, but what support will be available to small businesses, including the many in the hospitality sector that were omitted from the industrial strategy and continue to struggle with energy bills?
Chris McDonald
I thank the hon. Lady for her words on the strategy. Words are one thing, but implementation is another. This Government are now focused on how we implement the strategy and ensure that we attract investment. The single biggest difference with this Government is that we are putting real money behind the strategy; as I mentioned, we are putting in an additional £50 million, bringing the total funding to £200 million. Through both the British Business Bank and the National Wealth Fund, there are opportunities for more significant investment to ensure that we have UK-headquartered, UK-owned and UK-listed industrial champions in this area. We are not agnostic about industry and manufacturing, and we want to ensure that the communities that host these businesses benefit from that and that the UK economy benefits as a whole.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I am so pleased that the riches beneath our feet in Cornwall will finally be taken out and used in a sustainable way that benefits the people of Cornwall. I am so pleased to see this strategy, as are the people of Cornwall. The Minister is coming to Cornwall and will visit the port in Falmouth, which I hope will benefit from an expansion project. I am also hopeful to see the freight railway restored, which could be used in future to move critical minerals and supplies around in a more sustainable way and take lorries off the road. Will the Minister consider this tomorrow when he comes to Cornwall and as part of the strategy going forward?
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for the significant amount of work she has done and her engagement with me during the preparation of this strategy. She is right to highlight the opportunities at the port of Falmouth. Those opportunities start with critical minerals and perhaps also renewable energy. I intend to visit the port of Falmouth tomorrow and would be pleased to hear more about those opportunities when I am there.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
This country has no phosphates, and no phosphates means no agriculture. Happily, our close friend and ally the Kingdom of Morocco has most of the world’s reserves of phosphates, but it is closely followed by unreliable countries such as Russia, China, Syria and Algeria. Does the Minister’s 60% rule apply to phosphates? Will he ensure that the association agreement signed between the UK and Morocco in 2019 is strengthened further so that we can ensure that we do have access to phosphates, without which our farming sector would be completely finished?
Chris McDonald
I thank the right hon. Member for mentioning phosphates, which he is right are an incredibly important element for agriculture. As for securing supplies, I point him to the part of the strategy that talks about bilateral arrangements with nations to ensure that we get that diversity of supply. We are committed to working through multilateral organisations as well as ensuring that we get bilateral agreements in place with countries with mineral wealth that will be of benefit to the UK and where the relationship can be mutually supportive.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
Cornwall has a proud history of mining, and this announcement means that we will also lead the way in meeting the UK’s future demand for critical minerals, so I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement. The Government’s plan will create opportunities for businesses in South East Cornwall such as Cornwall Resources—my constituents thank the Minister for that—including year-round skilled jobs, strong local supply chains and investment that will keep local talent in Cornwall. Will he outline how the Government will ensure that that investment is supported by a clear skills plan so that local people can access the new jobs linked to critical industry and how communities will be involved throughout the exciting months ahead?
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for raising skills and for continually championing industry in Cornwall and skills with me for some time. The existing skills of the people of Cornwall are clearly one of the reasons why these industries will be so successful in Cornwall, but the Government also recognise that more investment in skills is required to ensure that so many viable projects in Cornwall can be successful. I assure her that the Department for Business and Trade is working with the Department for Work and Pensions on this issue. We are determined to ensure that all the people of Cornwall have the opportunity to participate in these industries.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Will the Minister tell the House what is so special about the year 2035? It is the year by which the Government say they will achieve expenditure of 3.5% of GDP on defence—compared with the 4.5% to 5% we used to spend in the cold war years of the 1980s—and it is now the year by which that the Government say no more than 60% of any critical mineral will come from a single country. Do the Government not feel that the deterioration of international relationships is such that we ought to be thinking about a rather closer timescale than 10 years from now?
Chris McDonald
I do not know about the right hon. Gentleman, but when I am setting objectives, I like them to be specific, measurable and achievable. We have worked carefully with industry on the 2035 target, and projects such as those I mentioned in Cornwall clearly have mobilisation periods. He may be right to point out the synergy between the 2035 date of our critical minerals strategy and of our defence strategy, given that they are so closely linked.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on critical minerals, I greatly welcome the strategy released this weekend. Domestic supplies of critical minerals are of huge importance to our economic security and resilience in an ever more turbulent world. They are also a potential source of jobs and prosperity, particularly in places like mid-Cornwall, which, like the Minister’s own home, were once rich with the spoils of industry and can be once again. May I welcome the Minister meeting Cornish industry, Cornish workers and our supply chain businesses to agree how we ensure that the spoils of the industry cascade through every level of the local workforce, supply chains and even local ownership?
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on the all-party parliamentary group on critical minerals and for working with the Critical Minerals Association; their work in advance of this strategy was incredibly helpful. He speaks well in championing his area in Cornwall, where there are projects involving Cornish Lithium and British Lithium. I can assure him that I will meet both those companies and speak to the management and the workforce when I am in Cornwall tomorrow.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I welcome the ambition and importance of this new strategy, and I congratulate the Minister on recognising that Devon is the source of more than just cream teas and tourism. The Devon minerals plan has more in it than the critical minerals: my constituency has an application for an extension to dig up Zitherixon ball clay, a substance found in the middle of the town of Kingsteignton and in the war zone in Ukraine.
May I have the Minister’s assurance that, although we have a justified urge to get these minerals out, we will not abandon the environmental and residential concerns of our constituents in the areas impacted? Does he also acknowledge that transport is important and that Devon needs the Dawlish rail line to support these minerals?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Please keep questions short. They are not speeches.
Chris McDonald
I thank the hon. Member for his comments and for pointing out the importance of Durham—sorry, Devon! Durham is slightly on my mind; it is my home county. I think we may come to Durham later session.
On his prime point about the environmental aspect of mining for these minerals in Devon, I mentioned in my statement that the UK project will be held to the highest environmental standards. I specifically wrote those words into the speech because we need to take into account, when assessing the sources of critical minerals, that great environmental harm is caused in many places in the world by their extraction and processing. The processing in particular presents an economic opportunity for the UK, but there is also an environmental responsibility that we need to face up to. It is incumbent on us to find a way to do this processing economically in the UK so that environmental harms are not caused anywhere else in the world.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
I welcome the statement from the Minister and refer him to the Select Committee’s report issued today on economic security, which touches on some of the issues that he has talked about. It also talks about the much wider threats to the resilience of the UK’s economy. On that point, I want to ask him about stockpiling. The statement refers to the potential for some stockpiling to take place in the defence industry, but having seen the many threats to our national security identified by the Select Committee, will he consider expanding the scope of stockpiling to other critical minerals? There is real potential for industries to be completely crippled if hostile actors wanted to take us down that route.
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his work as part of the ministerial team in the Department for Business and Trade prior to my appointment. On stockpiling, it is the Government’s view that we will work with the Ministry of Defence and with industry and, while not mandating stockpiling, use procurement to ensure that we can stockpile appropriately. I certainly think that the precise quantity and breadth of the minerals to be stockpiled is something the Ministry of Defence will want to look at much more carefully. I know that my hon. Friend has also been a great champion for Less Common Metals, a great British champion in this space in his constituency. I spoke to the chief executive of that business just last week, and it has been central to forming the strategy.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friends on the Minister’s side of the House and endorse everything that they have said on this issue.
As the Minister will be aware, Cornwall has its own industrial strategy, which harmonises with the Government’s ambition and includes the space sector, green energy and geothermal. Will he ensure that the Government back the Cornish industrial strategy so that we can crack on with delivering the critical minerals strategy, and indeed all other aspects of the Cornish industrial strategy?
Chris McDonald
The hon. Member makes a good point in that, ultimately, the delivery of any modern industrial strategy is fully dependent on critical minerals. The sectors he mentioned, such as space, are entirely dependent on critical minerals. I doubt that there has ever been a strategy presented in this House that has more fulsome backing of Cornwall than this one.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Defence Committee has been conducting a review of the AUKUS submarine programme and has recently published its review on European defence security. Secure critical minerals are central to both. Will the Minister explain how the strategy supports our national security strategy and the delivery of major defence programmes, such as the global combat air programme, the lightweight multirole missile, the new Typhoon radar and the new frigates?
Chris McDonald
My hon. and gallant Friend is right to raise the issue of AUKUS. I omitted AUKUS from the long list of international collaborations in my speech, but of course, there is an important role for AUKUS here through co-ordination between the nations involved. Our procurement reforms with the MOD will involve a supply chain centre where we will work with such international partners. He is also right to point out the economic opportunity through the export orders that the UK has recently secured. Having a supply chain of critical minerals in the UK will help the security of those exports.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Anyone listening to this statement should be fearful for the future of energy production in this country. On the one hand, we have a Government who are totally committed to net zero, the elements of which will require huge inputs of critical minerals. On the other hand, the Minister tells us that by 2035 we cannot expect to supply more than 10% by ourselves and will still be reliant on some other countries for 60%. We have no control, or no political control, over the global distribution of those metals. Does he not accept that this strategy, rather than being one of assurance for the future, could leave us increasingly vulnerable to people who have control over materials that we need for energy production, and that we should not be turning our back on the gas and oil we have?
Chris McDonald
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to clarify one point. He has formed the impression from my words, and I apologise if I was not clear, that we would supply only 10% from UK production. It is actually 10% from primary sources—that is, from mineral extraction—and a further 20% from recycling, so it is 30% in total from UK production. He talked about the green energy industries. Of course, these critical minerals are essential for many other industries, such as defence, space and artificial intelligence. In fact, I know how concerned he is about industries like oil and gas—they are essential for those industries, too.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I ask colleagues to keep their questions short.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee has heard evidence that we need these critical minerals for our energy future. That is absolutely true, so the 10% from production and the 20% from recycling are key steps along that road. Can I ask the Minister about no more than 60% coming from one country? He talked about some of the allies he will work with, but what will this Government do to ensure that production is increased from countries other than those such as China?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend asks from where the remaining 70% of the UK’s critical minerals will be sourced. Of course, for some of those critical minerals, the UK will be able to produce more than our own domestic needs, and that enables us to enter into trading arrangements. I have already met my opposite number in the Canadian Government. Canada, of course, has extremely rich resources in this area, and the US is also very active. I mentioned some of the multinational organisations we are working through, not least NATO. It is through those arrangements and through trading arrangements with such nations that we will ensure diversity of resources where we do not have those resources ourselves in the UK.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Minister mentioned that Devon is home to the world’s largest deposits of tungsten. Tungsten is used in medical devices, robotics and defence applications, yet 80% of global demand for tungsten is being met by China. Will any of the £250 million that the Government have announced in their defence growth deal go towards tungsten mining in Devon?
Chris McDonald
We are determined to ensure that we exploit all the natural resources I mentioned that are available in the UK. The hon. Gentleman mentioned China’s strong grip on the processing of minerals, and that goes back to my earlier point about processing. It is one issue to get the raw materials from primary or secondary sources, but we also need to ensure that we attract investment in the UK for processing, too. There is certainly an opportunity for processing to be co-located alongside the natural resources in Devon, if that were considered a beneficial economic opportunity.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, but he will be aware of the widespread concern about the impact of the deep-sea mining of critical minerals, which devastates an ecosystem that we know very little about. I acknowledge that he may not have the answer now, but will he undertake to write to me to say what the Government could do to ensure that we do not encourage deep-sea mining by allowing it into our future strategy?
Chris McDonald
I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are extremely concerned about the ecological impact of deep-sea mining. The Government support a moratorium on—I choose my words carefully here—the exploitation of deep-sea mining, while allowing for the exploration of deep-sea mining. As a scientist and engineer myself, I think that the exploration is valuable, to ensure that we gather appropriate data, and I recently commissioned work from the chief scientific adviser in my Department to be fully appraised of the potential environmental impacts of deep-sea mining.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his positive statement. It is great that the Government’s critical minerals strategy aims to reduce our over-reliance on foreign suppliers and to build a more resilient domestic supply chain, which is central to our growth sectors and to clean energy. He referred to the critical and important role of Queen’s University Belfast in magnet-recycling technologies. What steps have been taken to ensure good collaboration with the devolved Governments, to unlock further incentives for extraction projects, and to support domestic improvements through our minerals strategy?
Chris McDonald
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the critical minerals strategy will benefit every nation in the UK, including Northern Ireland. I am particularly keen to learn more about the ionic liquid separation methods of Ionic Technologies, which has been a flagship project for Queen’s University Belfast. I wrote to the relevant Ministers in the devolved Governments before the launch of the strategy, and I am keen to continue working with them on it.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s critical minerals strategy, but I wish the great British export of polyhalite had been included and given the recognition that it deserves as a critical mineral. As Teesside is a region with great critical mineral strength, how will the strategy benefit it and the wider supply chain?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the polyhalite mines. There is the Whitby mine, of course, and I went down the Boulby mine myself some years ago. They are quite remarkable and a great natural mineral strength for the UK. Two projects—Tees Valley Lithium and Green Lithium—are considering sites in the Teesside area, and we hope that they will be operational soon. They are certainly positioning Teesside to continue in its strength as a processing centre for critical minerals in the UK.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that, in an increasingly uncertain world, ramping up our domestic critical mineral production and diversifying our supply is critical to the defence of our country?
Chris McDonald
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. There is an intrinsic link between the availability of critical minerals and the surety of defence, which is why so many countries are concerned about this. It is also why I am determined to ensure that British businesses are invested in and grow in the UK so that we have the supply of critical minerals that we need.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I welcome the strategy for all that it will do to tackle China’s stranglehold on critical minerals. It will sit alongside the Government’s efforts to build home-grown clean energy to get off the Russia-dominated fossil fuel market, and our work to ramp up the domestic production of defence capabilities to keep the Russian menace at bay. That stands in stark contrast to Reform, whose leader in Wales, Nathan Gill, has just been jailed for 10 years for betraying our country and accepting bribes for pushing out pro-Putin propaganda. Does the Minister agree that we can all feel safer when our essentials are made in Britain?
Chris McDonald
I agree that the security of the nation is very much dependent on the availability of these critical minerals. I hope that when people go to the ballot box, they think about the security of this nation and whether parties such as Reform can be trusted when they have senior people taking bribes from overseas Governments.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Critical minerals underpin everyday life and are essential from national security to the electronic gadgets we all rely on. Will the Minister say how the critical minerals strategy will ensure that UK businesses benefit while securing resilient supply chains?
Chris McDonald
Clearly the strategy will help UK businesses to benefit, but in my hon. Friend’s constituency, Wolverhampton North East, Recyclus Group is already operating a state-of-the-art plant that makes full use of waterless, low-emission processes to recycle lithium-ion batteries. I am sure we will see many such technologies to make use of end-of-life batteries from electric vehicles.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I welcome the statement from the Minister, who is of course my constituency neighbour. He knows full well that we represent areas that built this country and were far too often left behind by the last Government, by globalisation and by deindustrialisation. Can he assure me that this strategy and our wider industrial strategy will benefit those areas, like Teesside and Hartlepool, that did so much to build this country?
Chris McDonald
We already have projects for lithium recycling coming forward in Teesside that will benefit my hon. Friend’s constituents in Hartlepool. More than that, investments in nuclear power, the life extension of the existing power station, and small modular reactors in his constituency will all require critical minerals. He is right: the people of Hartlepool did build the UK and, more than that, they are now also the entrepreneurs leading some of these new critical minerals companies.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
I respect my hon. Friend’s optimism and his detailed technical knowledge of this issue. I suspect it is going to be very tough getting the supply lines as secure as he wants them to be, but does he also recognise that there is an absolute magnitude problem? I am sure he has read the book “Material World”, in which the writer, Ed Conway, points out that in the next 22 years we will need an amount of copper equivalent to what has been mined over the last 5,000 years. Is my hon. Friend aware of that and is it part of the strategy?
Chris McDonald
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has raised the issue of copper; I raised it nearly 10 years ago. Copper was not included in previous strategies because it was not regarded as a critical mineral. I am pleased to say that the new strategy creates a new category of growth minerals: minerals that do not fit the definition of critical minerals but are important for the future, and which we need in order to grow. The recycling and secondary refining aspect is also a priority for me; all of our copper is currently extracted and taken overseas for smelting and refining, but there is a good opportunity for us to do that in the UK.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister talks about things that are smelted, melted, forged and formed, and he will know that ceramics are crucial to those processes. He will also know that to deliver his ambitions for growth and recovery, and for virgin production, there will need to be an expansion of those processes. Is he having conversations with British Ceramics about how we can get refractory level ceramics in a better position to compete? Today’s announcement of the British industrial competitiveness scheme mentions foundational industries with a “certain threshold” of electrical usage. He will know that the processes he needs to get the strategy that he wants require gas, so are conversations happening about how the gas prices will underpin this strategy as well?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend correctly points out the essential role of ceramic refractories in the production of any high temperature processes, including critical minerals. I would be very happy to meet him later this evening to discuss both issues further.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Advanced ceramics companies such as Mantec in my constituency produce ceramic membrane filters that are capable of extracting critical minerals including from industrial waste, improving productivity and recycling, reducing environmental pollution and of course reducing costs. Can the Minister tell me how UK businesses in the critical minerals supply chain, including innovators like Mantec, can benefit from the strategy through our strong public finance offers, including the National Wealth Fund and UK Export Finance?
Chris McDonald
Businesses with the kinds of technologies my hon. Friend mentions—separation technologies—can, as she said, access funding via the British Business Bank and the National Wealth Fund, and also the additional £50 million that we have made available. If it is a very early stage technology, I would encourage the business to have discussions with one of the Catapult centres or local universities and to consider an Innovate UK grant.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I was delighted to see the prominence given to County Durham in the strategy, as Weardale, which I represent, has the highest density of lithium currently known in the UK. Will the Minister support me in working with the businesses in Weardale that are trying to extract lithium? Does he agree that we should not look only at extraction—we fall behind not only in the supply of critical minerals, but in their processing—and that there is a real opportunity to develop battery manufacturing in County Durham?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is right to point to the opportunity in Weardale, which is currently being investigated by Weardale Lithium. I do hope that the company is successful in the extraction of lithium. Of course, as he says, there is an opportunity for processing as well. The strategy identifies two major areas of activity: in Cornwall, and in County Durham in the north-east of England. That is not a new arrangement—the village I grew up in had a sinkers’ row for Cornish tin miners who came to sink mines in County Durham and I am sure that most people in County Durham have Cornish genes—and the strategy provides a great opportunity for industrial collaboration between these two great regions of the country.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Boulby mine is the world’s only polyhalite mine, but Woodsmith mine near Whitby is hoping to be the second. Polyhalite is a rare mineral that is used as a super-fertiliser. Will the Minister confirm that polyhalite, which contains magnesium, is eligible for support under the new strategy?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance of polyhalite and the uniqueness of the UK’s reserves. As I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer), the mine at Boulby, which I have visited, and hopefully soon the new mine at Whitby, which will be transporting material up to Teesside, both form an important part of the UK’s mineral resources. We expect and hope that they will continue to be exploited for some time to come.
Point of Order
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is now over one year since myself, the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), as well as my right hon. Friends the Members for Newark (Robert Jenrick), for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) and for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), my hon. Friends the Members for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) and for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), and the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), wrote to the Chancellor to express our concerns about the rise in national insurance affecting the Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire air ambulance. Shamefully, despite the matter being chased repeatedly by my office, by our raising it in the House repeatedly and by raising it with members of the Procedure Committee, we have still had no reply. The Government have shown huge disrespect for this House and for people right across Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire. With the Budget on Wednesday, what can we do to get this sorted out?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Did I hear the hon. Member correctly when she said one whole year?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. Government Departments must reply promptly to questions; one whole year is very shameful indeed. The delay outlined by the hon. Member would suggest that something has gone seriously wrong in the Treasury in relation to answering this question. I assume that those on the Treasury Bench will relay the point to colleagues forthwith. I suggest that the hon. Member also ask the Chair of the Procedure Committee to look into the matter, because nobody should be waiting one whole year for a response to correspondence. Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings First day New Clauses and new Schedules relating to the subject matter of, and amendments to, Part 1 and Part 2 The moment of interruption on the first day Second day New Clauses and new Schedules relating to the subject matter of, and amendments to, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5 and Part 6; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules; remaining proceedings on Consideration One hour before the moment of interruption on the second day
English Devolution and Community Empowerment (Programme) (No.2)
Ordered,
That the Order of 2 September 2025 (English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Programme) be varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.
(3) Proceedings on Consideration—
(a) shall be taken on each of those days in the order shown in the first column of the following Table, and
(b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
(4) Proceedings on Third Reading shall be taken on the second day and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.—(Stephen Morgan.)
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:55 - The House divided: - Ayes: 158 / Noes: 318 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:10 - The House divided: - Ayes: 74 / Noes: 311 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:22 - The House divided: - Ayes: 57 / Noes: 309 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:36 - The House divided: - Ayes: 99 / Noes: 367 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 44—Licensing functions of the Mayor of London.
New clause 2—Council tax: CAs and CCAs to be subject to same increase as most county and unitary councils—
“(1) The Local Government Finance Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 52ZC, after subsection (4) insert—
‘(4A) Where, for the purposes of this section, the Secretary of State determines categories of authority for the year under consideration, one of the categories determined by the Secretary of State must include all mayoral combined authorities and CCAs (‘the CA and CCA category’).
(4B) Where the Secretary of State has determined a category that includes the majority of county and unitary councils (“a county and unitary category”), a principle that must be applied to the CA and CAA category is that the means of determining whether the relevant basic amount of council tax is excessive is the same as any means set out in a principle applied to the county and unitary category (but for the purposes of the determination references to any referendum principle for county and unitary councils that specifically relates to expenditure on adult social care should be discounted).’”
This new clause would limit increases in the mayoral precept according to similar principles limiting council tax increases.
New clause 4—Application of CIL to householders—
“(1) The Planning Act 2008 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 205 (The levy) after subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) In making the regulations, the Secretary of State may not charge CIL on householders’ property extensions that are for their own use.
(2B) The Secretary of State must amend the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 so that they are in accordance with the requirements of subsection (2A).’”
This new clause disapplies CIL from householders extending property for their own use.
New clause 5—Power of mayors to convene meetings with local public service providers and government—
“(1) After section 17B of LURA 2023 (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—
‘17C Mayoral duty to convene meetings with local public service providers and government
(1) The mayor for the area of a CCA must convene regular meetings with—
(a) principal local authorities within their area,
(b) public service providers in their area, and
(c) town and parish councils within their area.
(2) A meeting under subsection (1) must occur at least every 12 months.’
(2) After section 103B of LDEDCA 2009 (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—
‘103C Mayoral duty to convene meetings with local public service providers and government
(1) The mayor for the area of a combined authority must convene regular meetings with—
(a) principal local authorities within their area,
(b) public service providers in their area, and
(c) town and parish councils within their area.
(2) A meeting under subsection (1) must occur at least every 12 months.’
(3) After section 40B of GLAA 1999 (inserted by section 21 of this Act) insert—
‘40C Mayoral duty to convene meetings with local public service providers and government
(1) The Mayor must convene regular meetings with—
(a) principal local authorities within their area,
(b) public service providers in their area, and
(c) town and parish councils within their area.
(2) A meeting under subsection (1) must occur at least every 12 months.’”
This new clause would require mayors of combined authorities, mayors of CCAs, and the Mayor of London to regularly convene meetings with local government actors within their area.
New clause 7—Consideration of existing adult skills provision—
“(1) A strategic authority has a duty to consider—
(a) existing education and training provision for persons aged 16 to 19 in its area, and
(b) existing higher education provision in its area
when carrying out any function conferred on it by virtue of Schedule 10 to this Act.
(2) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about how a strategic authority may comply with the duty under this section.”
This new clause would require strategic authorities to consider existing provision for 16 to 19 education and higher education in their area when exercising adult education functions.
New clause 8—Annual reporting on adult education funding—
“(1) A strategic authority exercising any function conferred on it by virtue of Schedule 10 of this Act must publish an annual report on its exercise of such functions.
(2) A report under this section must include—
(a) how a strategic authority has applied adult education funding to meet local skills needs;
(b) a summary of coordination arrangements with employer representative bodies and other skills providers within the authority;
(c) a summary of outcomes for adult learners and local employers regarding—
(i) learner achievement of qualifications and progression to employment or further learning,
(ii) employer satisfaction with the skills and capabilities of adult learners, and
(iii) the alignment between skills provision and identified local labour market needs.
(3) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about—
(a) any further content of, and
(b) publication of reports under this section.”
This new clause would require Strategic Authorities to publish annual reports on their exercise of adult education functions, demonstrating how public funding has been deployed, coordination arrangements with local skills providers, and outcomes achieved for adult learners and employers.
New clause 9—Authority involvement in local skills improvement plans—
“(1) Section 1 of the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (7), after ‘relevant authority’ insert ‘and, where the specified area covers any of the area of a strategic authority, the strategic authority’.
(3) After subsection (7) insert—
‘(7A) Where a specified area covers any of the area of a strategic authority, the Secretary of State may approve and publish a local skills improvement plan for the specified area only if satisfied that—
(a) the strategic authority and the employer representative body for the area have exercised joint leadership in developing the plan,
(b) the plan has been agreed by both the strategic authority and the employer representative body, and
(c) the boundaries of the plan align with the strategic authority boundaries.
(7B) For the purposes of subsection (7A), ‘joint leadership’ means that—
(a) strategic priorities for skills development in the area are agreed by both the strategic authority and the employer representative body, and
(b) spending priorities relating to devolved adult education funding are jointly determined.
(7C) A local skills improvement plan may only be altered if both the strategic authority and the employer representative body agree to any proposed alterations.
(7D) Where there is disagreement between a Strategic Authority and an employer representative body exercising joint leadership under subsection (7A), either party may refer the matter to the Secretary of State, who may—
(a) issue guidance to resolve the disagreement;
(b) give directions to either or both parties to ensure effective coordination;
(c) require the parties to adopt alternative arrangements for decision-making;
(d) approve and publish a plan that addresses the disagreement.
(7E) In exercising functions under subsection (7D), the Secretary of State must have regard to—
(a) the effective delivery of post-16 technical education and training in the area,
(b) employer engagement in identifying local skills needs,
(c) value for money in delivery of services by Strategic Authorities, and
(d) democratic accountability of Strategic Authorities in delivering such services.’
(4) Section 4 of the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 is amended as follows.
(5) In subsection (1), at the appropriate place insert—
‘“strategic authority” has the meaning given by section 1(2) of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2025;’”.
This new clause would require Strategic Authorities to exercise joint leadership with employer representative bodies in developing Local Skills Improvement Plans. The amendment also requires Local Skills Improvement Plan boundaries to align with Strategic Authority boundaries to enable effective coordination and provides dispute resolution mechanisms where joint leadership arrangements encounter difficulties.
New clause 14—Policy delivery in areas of competence—
“(1) Any function of a mayoral combined authority or mayoral combined county authority which—
(a) relates to an area of competence, and
(b) is not a mayoral function exercisable solely by the mayor
must be exercised by or under the direct authority of the constituent members of that authority.
(2) No person may be appointed to exercise any function that relates to making or delivering policy relating to an area of competence unless that person is an elected member of—
(a) the relevant strategic authority, or
(b) a constituent council within the relevant strategic authority.
(3) Nothing in this section is to be taken as preventing the appointment of staff by the strategic authority or its elected members for the purposes of administrative, advisory or technical support for the exercise of its functions.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “a constituent member” means any elected representative who is—
(a) appointed by a constituent council to be a member of the mayoral combined authority or mayoral combined county authority;
(b) acting in the place of a person appointed under paragraph (a).”
This new clause provides that any policy delivery or development relating to an area of competence in a strategic authority is carried out by an elected representative.
New clause 15—Duty to ensure public trust and financial transparency—
“(1) The mayor for the area of a combined authority or combined county authority must take reasonable steps to ensure that information regarding the authority’s financial affairs, including its annual budget, significant expenditure, and financial performance, is made accessible to local communities in a clear and understandable manner.
(2) The mayor must publish a policy setting out how the combined authority or combined county authority will engage with local communities on its financial priorities and major spending decisions, and review this policy periodically.”
This new clause requires mayors of CAs and CCAs to ensure that financial information is accessible and understandable to local communities.
New clause 23—Transport authority functions: funding and support—
“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that relevant authorities have sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to discharge effectively any functions relating to transport conferred on them by this Act.
(2) In discharging the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of those authorities in relation to their transport functions, taking into account the scale and complexity of those functions.
(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘functions relating to transport conferred on them by this Act’ means—
(a) functions of a local transport authority as described in Schedule 9, and
(b) any other functions reasonably connected with the transport.”
This new clause creates a requirement for regular reviews of the financial and administrative needs of authorities to carry out their transport functions.
New clause 24—Duty to publish and implement a forward devolution strategy—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, prepare and publish a forward devolution strategy (‘the strategy’).
(2) The purpose of the strategy is to set out the proposed timeline for the establishment of new strategic authorities, or the expansion of existing strategic authorities, in areas of England that are not currently within the area of an established mayoral strategic authority.
(3) The timeline set out in the strategy must include a period within which the Secretary of State intends to issue invitations or directions for proposals for the establishment or expansion of such new strategic authorities for those identified areas.
(4) Any annual report required under section 1 of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 (inserted by section 19 of this Act) must include a statement on the progress made in implementing the strategy, including information on any revision of or replacement for the strategy.
(5) Before preparing, publishing, or revising the strategy, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the mayors for the areas of established mayoral strategic authorities; and
(b) the constituent councils of combined authorities and combined county authorities.”
This new clause would introduce a commitment to publish a strategy and timeline for further devolution.
New clause 25—Community infrastructure levy charges: guidance—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, prepare and publish guidance for charging authorities on—
(a) the implementation and administration of community infrastructure levy charges;
(b) appropriate procedures for handling technical errors in the calculation, notification, or collection of community infrastructure levy charges; and
(c) best practice for resolving disputes relating to community infrastructure levy charges where technical errors have occurred.
(2) The guidance under subsection (1) must include—
(a) guidance on what constitutes a technical error in the context of community infrastructure levy charges;
(b) recommended procedures for reviewing and, where appropriate, waiving or reducing community infrastructure levy charges where a technical error has occurred;
(c) principles to guide the proportionate collection of community infrastructure levy payments when technical errors have been identified; and
(d) time limits for the rectification of technical errors.
(3) In this section—
‘charging authority’ has the meaning given in section 106 of the Planning Act 2008, as amended by Schedule 14 of this Act;
‘technical error’ means an error in the calculation, notification, or administration of a Community Infrastructure Levy charge that is not related to a material change in the development to which the charge applies.”
New clause 28—Regional governance—
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the establishment of a regional governance body in any part of England, where in the opinion of the Secretary of State there is demonstrable local support for such a body.
(2) Regulations made under this section must—
(a) provide that—
(i) a regional governance body is a body corporate,
(ii) the name of any such body is determined locally, and
(iii) the structure and membership of any such body is determined following consultation with people who live in the relevant part of England;
(b) confer functions upon a regional governance body in relation to—
(i) education and skills,
(ii) transport,
(iii) health and social care,
(iv) housing and planning, and
(v) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) in making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to—
(a) the promotion of effective and accountable regional governance,
(b) the identity and aspirations of the region concerned, and
(c) the principle of subsidiarity.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would enable the establishment of regional governance bodies in parts of England, such as a Yorkshire Parliament or Cornish Assembly, with locally determined names and structures, and allow them to be conferred with responsibilities in areas including education, transport, health and housing, where there is local support.
New clause 29—Duty to contribute to delivery of nature, clean air and climate targets—
“(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.”
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.
New clause 30—Visitor levies—
“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review into giving local authorities powers to introduce visitor levies within their area.
(2) The review in subsection (1) may only consider a visitor levy which directs receipts from the levy into the relevant authority’s general fund.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the review in subsection (1) before both Houses of Parliament within 12 months of the passage of this Act.”
New clause 31—Overnight accommodation levy—
“(1) An EMSA may impose a levy on any overnight accommodation provided within the EMSA’s area (‘the OAL’).
(2) The levy is payable by persons staying for one or more night in exchange for payment in any—
(a) hotel;
(b) guest house, or bed and breakfast;
(c) self-catering accommodation;
(d) short-term let;
(e) campsite or caravan park;
(f) any other premises that the mayor of an EMSA may designate.
(3) Before introducing or modifying an OAL the mayor of an EMSA must consult such as persons as they consider necessary, which must include communities, business and organisations working in or affected by the tourism industry.
(4) The mayor of an EMSA may determine the rate and structure of an OAL, including concessionary rates and exemptions where they consider it appropriate.
(5) The mayor of than EMSA may specify arrangement relating to—
(a) the collection of the OAL,
(b) the administration of the OAL, and
(c) arrangements for circumstances in which the OAL is not complied with.
(6) Receipts from the OAL are to be paid into the general fund of the EMSA.
(7) Monies received under subsection (6) may be used by the mayor of the EMSA for the purposes of—
(a) promoting, developing and managing tourism within the EMSA area;
(b) enhancing infrastructure for the purposes of benefiting tourism in the area;
(c) supporting cultural, sporting and business activity;
(d) preserving or improving heritage assets;
(e) supporting economic growth in the EMSA area
provided that, in the view of the mayor of the EMSA, such use is consistent with the EMSA’s local growth plan.”
New clause 32—Greater London Authority: decision-making—
“(1) The Greater London Authority Act 1999 is amended in accordance with this section.
(2) In section 42B (Assembly’s power to reject draft strategies), in subsection (5)(b), leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority’.
(3) In schedule 4A (Confirmation hearings etc)—
(a) in paragraph 10(5) leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority’;
(b) in paragraph 11(5) leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority’.
(4) In schedule 6 (Procedure for determining the authority’s consolidated council tax requirement)—
(a) in paragraph 8(4) leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority’;
(b) In paragraph 8C(4) leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority’.
(5) In schedule 7 (Procedure for making of substitute calculations by the authority), in paragraph 7(4), leave out ‘at least two thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority’.”
New clause 33—Joint planning committees—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations which make provision for local authorities which share a border to establish a joint planning committee.
(2) Joint planning committees under subsection (1) may only consider planning applications which are within 0.5 miles of the adjacent authorities’ border.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish joint planning committees for adjacent authorities to jointly consider planning applications which are within 0.5 miles of their adjoining border.
New clause 39—Regulation of waterborne transport services by regional mayors—
“(1) A mayor for the area of a combined authority, combined county authority, or other mayoral strategic authority may exercise functions relating to waterborne transport services operating wholly within the authority’s area.
(2) Functions exercisable by a mayor may include—
(a) making regulations concerning the provision, operation, safety, accessibility, affordability, and reliability of waterborne transport services;
(b) requiring operators of waterborne transport services to provide such information as the mayor considers necessary for the purposes of monitoring or enforcing compliance with regulations made under paragraph 2(a);
(c) imposing and enforcing conditions relating to a requirement or duty imposed under this section;
(d) imposing and enforcing any penalties resulting from non-compliance with conditions set out under paragraph (2)(c);
(e) regulation of fares and fare structures for waterborne transport services, including imposing a fare cap;
(f) functions relating to accountability of waterborne transport services providers for the delivery and performance of services, including by holding public hearings or inquiries;
(g) any such additional functions as a mayor considers necessary for the purpose of ensuring effective regulation of waterborne transport services within an authority’s area.
(3) Before making regulations under this section, the mayor must consult—
(a) the constituent councils of the combined authority (or equivalent local authorities),
(b) any local transport authorities affected,
(c) operators of waterborne transport services within the area, and
(d) other such persons as the mayor considers appropriate.
(4) Regulations under this section may include provision for appeals against any enforcement action taken by the mayor.
(5) In this section ‘waterborne transport services’ has such meaning as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify, provided that such specification must include—
(a) ferry services, and
(b) water taxi and private hire transport services,
which carry passengers by water between two or more places within the area of the authority.”
This new clause gives mayors of combined and other strategic authorities powers to regulate waterborne transport services in their areas, including the ability to cap fares.
New clause 41—Mayoral CAs and CCAs: any increase in council tax to be subject to referendum—
“(1) The Local Government Finance Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 52ZC, before subsection (1) insert—
‘(A1) A mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA’s relevant basic amount of council tax for a financial year must be determined to be excessive if the financial year is the first financial year in which the authority has charged a relevant basic amount of council tax.’
(3) At the beginning of subsection (1), for ‘The’ substitute ‘In any other case, the’.”
New clause 48—Regulation of ferry services by regional mayors—
“(1) A mayor for the area of a combined authority, combined county authority, or other mayoral strategic authority may exercise functions relating to ferry services operating wholly within the authority’s area.
(2) Functions exercisable by a mayor may include—
(a) making regulations concerning the provision, operation, safety, accessibility, affordability, and reliability of ferry services;
(b) requiring operators of ferry services to provide such information as the mayor considers necessary for the purposes of monitoring or enforcing compliance with regulations made under paragraph 2(a);
(c) imposing and enforcing conditions relating to a requirement or duty imposed under this section;
(d) imposing and enforcing any penalties resulting from non-compliance with conditions set out under paragraph (2)(c);
(e) regulation of fares and fare structures for ferry services, including imposing a fare cap;
(f) functions relating to accountability of ferry service providers for the delivery and performance of services, including by holding public hearings or inquiries;
(g) any such additional functions as a mayor considers necessary for the purpose of ensuring effective regulation of ferry services within an authority’s area.
(3) Before making regulations under this section, the mayor must consult—
(a) the constituent councils of the combined authority (or equivalent local authorities),
(b) any local transport authorities affected,
(c) operators of ferry services within the area, and
(d) other such persons as the mayor considers appropriate.
(4) Regulations under this section may include provision for appeals against any enforcement action taken by the mayor.
(5) In this section ‘ferry services’ means services for the carriage of passengers or vehicles by water between two or more places, all of which are within the area of the authority.”
This new clause gives mayors of combined and other strategic authorities powers to regulate ferry services in their areas, including the ability to cap fares.
New clause 58—Obligation to align decision-making with nature, air quality, and climate targets—
“(1) When exercising their functions, a strategic authority, mayor, or local authority shall refrain from taking any action or decision that would contradict—
(a) the fulfilment of the carbon budgets and targets established under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008;
(b) the achievement of the environmental targets and interim targets set under Part 1 of the Environment Act 2021;
(c) compliance with the limit values provided for in Schedule 2 to the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010; and
(d) implementation of the programme for adapting to climate change prepared under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008.
(2) 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 requirements in subsection (1).
(3) Guidance under subsection (2) must include clear metrics and measurable terms for strategic authorities, mayors and local authorities to meet.”
This new clause places a duty on strategic authorities, mayors and local authorities to operate consistently with the targets and requirements in the Climate Change Act, the Environment Act, the Air Quality Standards Regulations, and the statutory climate adaptation programme. The Secretary of State must publish guidance for defining authorities’ contributions towards these objectives.
New clause 60—Power to provide for an elected mayor to appoint a deputy mayor—
“(1) The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (section 107C) is amended as follows:
(2) In subsection (1), leave out “one of the members of the authority to be the mayor's deputy” and substitute ‘a deputy mayor’.
(3) In subsection (3)(c), leave out ‘the person ceases to be a member of the combined authority’ and insert ‘the person ceases to be a councillor of a constituent council of the authority’
(4) In subsection (4), leave out ‘another member of the combined authority’ and substitute ‘another councillor of a constituent council’.”
This new clause would amend section 107C of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 so that a mayor is no longer restricted to appointing a deputy mayor from among the leaders of the constituent local authority members of the Combined Authority.
New clause 61—Mayoral special advisers—
“(1) The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (section 15) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 15 (Definition of ‘special adviser’) insert—
‘15A Mayoral special advisers
(1) A mayor may appoint one mayoral special adviser
(2) A ‘mayoral special adviser’ is a person (‘P’) who holds a position within a mayoral strategic authority and whose appointment to that position meets the requirements in subsection (3).
(3) The requirements are—
(a) P is appointed to assist the Mayor after being selected by the Mayor personally;
(b) the appointment will end not later than—
(i) the day on which the Mayor ceases to hold office, or
(ii) if earlier, the end of the day after the day of the poll at the election following the appointment.
(4) The Secretary of State must publish a code of conduct for mayoral special advisers (‘the code’).
(5) Before publishing the code (or any revision of it) the Secretary of State must consult the Council of Nations and Regions.
(6) The code must provide that a mayoral special adviser may not—
(a) authorise the expenditure of public funds; or
(b) exercise any power in relation to the management of any part of the mayoral or strategic authority.
(7) The code must provide that a mayoral special adviser may—
(a) engage in political activity; and
(b) provide party-political advice to the Mayor.
(8) The code must form part of the terms and conditions of service of any mayoral special adviser.
(9) A person appointed under this section is not to be regarded, for the purposes of Part I of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (political restriction of officers and staff), as holding a politically restricted post under a local authority.’”
This new clause would insert a new section into the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 to establish a statutory framework for the appointment of “mayoral special advisers”. It makes provision about appointment, function, code of conduct, and exemption from political restrictions.
New clause 62—Business Rates Supplement: mayoral authority—
“(1) The Business Rate Supplements Act 2009 (‘the 2009 Act’) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 2(1) (levying authorities), for the definition substitute—
‘In this Act, ‘levying authority’ means—
(a) the Greater London Authority;
(b) an established mayoral authority in England;
(c) a county council or county borough council in Wales.
(3) Omit section 4(c).
(4) Omit section 7.
(5) Omit section 8.
(6) Omit section 9.
(7) In section 10, omit paragraph (2)(c) and subsections (10) and (11).
(8) In Schedule 1, omit paragraphs 19 and 20.”
This new clause would allow an established mayoral authority in England to levy a Business Rates Supplement. It would remove the ability of county and district councils in England to do so, and would remove the existing requirement for such a supplement to be approved by referendum.
New clause 64—Decisions on GLA strategy and budget: simple majority requirement—
“(1) The Greater London Authority Act 1999 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 42B (Assembly’s power to reject draft strategies), in subsection (5)(b) for ‘at least two thirds’ substitute ‘a simple majority’.
(3) In Schedule 6—
(a) in paragraph 8(4), leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority; and
(b) in paragraph 8C(4), leave out ‘at least two-thirds’ and insert ‘a simple majority.’”
This new clause would require certain decisions of the London Assembly in relation to the mayor’s strategy and GLA budget to be taken by a simple majority rather than a two-thirds majority.
New clause 65—Power of the London Assembly in relation to mayoral decisions—
“(1) The Greater London Authority Act 1999 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 59 (review and investigation) insert—
‘59A Power of the Assembly in relation to proposed mayoral decisions
(1) The powers of the assembly under this Act include—
(a) power to direct that any decision that the Mayor proposes to take is not to be taken while it is under review and scrutiny by the Assembly, and
(b) power to recommend that any decision that the Mayor proposes to take be reconsidered.
(2) The Assembly must publish details of how it proposes to exercise its powers in relation to the review and scrutiny of proposed decisions and its arrangements in connection with the exercise of those powers.
(3) Before complying subsection (2), the Assembly must obtain the consent of the Mayor to the proposals and arrangements.
(4) In the proposals and arrangements published under subsection (2), the Assembly may make provision to require the Mayor to submit to the Assembly details of any decision the Mayor proposes to take.
(5) Provision under subsection (4) may include provision for deadlines by which any such details should be submitted to the Assembly.’”
This new clause would give the London Assembly the power to direct that proposed decisions of the Mayor are not taken while under the Assembly’s review and scrutiny. It would also give the Assembly power to recommend that the Mayor reconsider a proposed decision.
New clause 66—Consultation on GLA reform—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act being passed, carry out a consultation on potential reforms to the Greater London Authority.
(2) The report must examine as a potential reform the scope for greater direct engagement with elected representatives of the London Borough Councils in decisions made by the Greater London Authority.
(3) The Secretary of State must, within nine months of this Act being passed, lay before each House of Parliament a report setting out the findings of the consultation.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on proposed reforms to the London Assembly, including proposals for greater involvement of London Borough representatives in GLA decisions.
New clause 70—Duty to confer ESMA powers on Cornwall Council—
“(1) This section applies where Cornwall Council has applied to the Secretary of State for a power available to an established mayoral strategic authority in or under any Act of Parliament (a “relevant power”) to be conferred upon it.
(2) On receipt of an application, the Secretary of State must make regulations to confer the relevant power upon Cornwall Council.
(3) Where a relevant power has been conferred, any reference in or under any Act of Parliament to the exercise of the power by the mayor of an established strategic authority should be read to allow the exercise of the power by the leader of Cornwall Council.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative procedure.”
This new clause would allow Cornwall Council to apply to the Secretary of State to be conferred ESMA powers and requires the Secretary of State to make regulations to that end upon receipt of such an application.
New clause 71—Requirement to establish and consult neighbourhood area committees—
“(1) The Secretary of State may not make an order or regulations under any Act of Parliament to establish, expand or confer functions on any strategic authority until the Secretary of State is satisfied that the strategic authority will, at the moment of establishment, expansion or conferral of functions, have in place—
(a) neighbourhood area committees which collectively cover the whole area of the strategic authority,
(b) mechanisms to ensure that the neighbourhood area committees are consulted on any decision the strategic authority may take that might affect the area covered by the neighbourhood area committee.
(2) A neighbourhood area committee must ensure that, when consulted by a strategic authority under subsection (1)(b), it responds to the consultation in accordance with any reasonable deadline set by the strategic authority.”
New clause 72—Visitor levies (No. 2)—
“(1) Within one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision enabling established mayoral strategic authorities to impose a levy charged on the purchase of overnight accommodation.
(2) Following consultation, regulations under this section must—
(a) define the basis on which the levy is to be calculated;
(b) specify the process and consultation requirements for an area seeking to impose a scheme;
(c) set out reporting requirements for relevant businesses and mayoral strategic authorities; and
(d) specify the investigatory powers and penalties available to mayoral strategic authorities for the enforcement of a scheme.
(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on, and subsequently make, regulations enabling established mayoral strategic authorities to impose a tourism levy on overnight accommodation.
New clause 74—Power of mayors and local authorities to regulate advertising—
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must make regulations to enable mayors and local authorities to carry out functions relating to the display of advertising.
(2) Such regulations must—
(a) transfer or otherwise provide for the exercise of powers under section 220 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to mayors and local authorities; and
(b) provide that such functions include—
(i) a duty to consider the impact of advertisements on public health, and
(ii) the regulation of content of advertisements deemed to have an adverse impact on local health or likely to exacerbate inequalities in health outcomes.
(3) Regulations under this section may amend provision made by or under an Act passed—
(a) before this Act, or
(b) later in the same session of Parliament as this Act.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would provide mayors and local authorities with the power to regulate advertising, and include duties on their use of that power in relation to public health and health inequalities.
New clause 76—Duty to establish a London Combined Board—
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations establish a London Combined Board (“the Board”).
(2) Regulations under this section must—
(a) specify the Membership of the Board as—
(i) the Mayor of London, and
(ii) the membership of the Executive Committee of London Councils;
(b) make provision about joint decision-making between the GLA and the Board, including in relation to—
(i) powers exercised by the GLA on behalf of any London borough;
(ii) funding devolved to the GLA;
(iii) governance of any integrated settlement for London.
(3) In making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consider—
(a) existing best practice cooperation within other combined authorities in England, and
(b) existing cooperation between the GLA and London boroughs.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a London Combined Board to ensure cooperation and joint decision-making between the GLA and representatives from London borough councils.
New clause 77—Proposals for alternative models for devolution—
“(1) One or more leaders of any strategic authority may notify the Secretary of State of—
(a) any changes to the boundaries and structures of a strategic authority;
(b) any changes to the governance of strategic authorities, including the relationship between a strategic authority and any local authority within its area; and
(c) any other changes to the structure of local devolution in its area
which the leaders believe would contribute to securing the effective exercise of functions either by the strategic authority, or by any local authority within its area.
(2) Before making any notification under subsection (1), the relevant strategic authority must consult—
(a) local authorities within its area;
(b) representatives of the community within its area, including businesses, education providers, health providers, and civil society, and
(c) any other persons that the strategic authority considers expedient.
(3) The Secretary of State must respond to a notification given under this section within three months beginning on the day on which it is submitted to the Secretary of State.
(4) A strategic authority may publish a notification made under this section, and the Secretary of State may publish a response to any such published notification.”
New clause 78—Abolition of PCCs—
“(1) In any mayoral combined authority or mayoral CCA, within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations to transfer all PCC functions to the mayor and abolish the PCC.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”.
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to abolish the PCC and transfer their functions to the mayor in authorities which already have a mayor.
Amendment 175, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
“(d) Cornwall Council.”
Amendment 176, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
“(d) Cornwall Council, notwithstanding any requirement for the authority to have a mayor.”
Amendment 91, in clause 2, page 2, line 21, after “economic development” insert “, poverty and socio-economic inequality,”.
This amendment would make poverty and socio-economic inequality an area of competence for devolved authorities, ensuring they can take action to address the root causes of disadvantage in their areas.
Amendment 37, in clause 3, page 2, line 27, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
“(1) A unitary district council or a county council may submit a proposal to the Secretary of State for designation as a single foundation strategic authority.
(2) A proposal under subsection (1) must be prepared in such form and contain such information as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations designate a unitary district council as a single foundation strategic authority if—
(a) a proposal has been submitted in accordance with subsection (1), and
(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the designation is appropriate having regard to the need to secure effective and convenient local government in relation to the areas of competence.”
This amendment would restrict the Secretary of State's power to designate a single foundation Strategic Authority. Instead, a local authority would initiate the request by submitting a proposal to the Secretary of State.
Amendment 104, page 2, line 31, leave out from “unless” to the end of line 32 and insert
“a referendum has been held in which residents of the council have consented to the designation.”
This amendment would create a requirement for a referendum to be held prior to the Secretary of State designating a council as a strategic authority.
Amendment 53, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
“(3A) Before making a designation under this section, the Secretary of State must consult town and parish councils within the area of the proposed single foundation strategic authority.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult town and parish councils prior to the unitary district council or county council within which they are situated being designated as a single foundation strategic authority.
Amendment 61, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure councils designated as a single foundation strategic authority receives adequate funding to facilitate their transition.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that councils designated as a single foundation strategic authority receive funding to facilitate their transition.
Amendment 165, page 2, line 33, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State may not designate a council if the council’s area is within, or is, the area of a National Park unless the Secretary of State has consulted with the authority for that National Park.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult a National Park authority, if the area of a council which the Secretary of State is designating is within, or is, the area of that National Park.
Amendment 85, page 11, line 1, leave out clause 9.
This amendment would remove the Bill’s provision to grant mayors of CAs and CCAs the power to appoint commissioners to deliver policy.
Amendment 161, in clause 9, page 11, line 4, leave out “not more than 7”.
This amendment would remove the statutory cap on the number of commissioners that may be appointed by a mayoral authority.
Amendment 162, page 11, line 29, leave out “not more than 7”.
See explanatory statement for 161.
Amendment 77, in clause 19, page 23, line 6, at end insert—
“(f) funding which has been allocated to support the establishment of new strategic authorities.”
This amendment would require the annual report on devolution to include an account of funding provided to support the establishment of new strategic authorities.
Amendment 79, page 23, line 6, at end insert—
“(f) progress with the implementation of the strategy provided for in section [Duty to publish and implement a forward devolution strategy].”
This amendment is consequential on NC24.
Amendment 39, in clause 21, page 24, line 4, leave out subsection (b) and insert—
“(b) one or more of the following—
(i) health and social care;
(ii) planning;
(iii) environmental concerns;
(iv) funding;
(v) sustainability measures;
(vi) education;
(vii) transport provision and
(viii) green and community spaces.”
This amendment ensures that mayors must consider specific community matters when consulting with local partners.
Amendment 27, in clause 40, page 41, line 11 , at end insert—
“(2A) In section 144, after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) In exercising powers under subsection (1) the relevant authority must engage with town and parish council within its area.
(1B) Engagement under subsection (1A) must include—
(a) consulting town and parish councils on tourism strategies, policies, and investment priorities; and
(b) creating opportunities for town and parish councils to contribute to activities relating to the exercising powers under subsection (1).
(1C) In exercising powers under subsection (1) the relevant authority must publish a report summarising the authority’s engagement with town and parish councils which includes—
(a) form of engagement used;
(b) the views of town and parish councils on the authority’s exercise of powers under subsection (1); and
(c) the role of town and parish councils in exercising powers under subsection (1).
(1D) The Secretary of State may issue guidance regarding requirements for engagement under subsection (1A).’”
This amendment would require local and/or strategic authorities exercising powers to encourage visitors to their area to engage with town and parish councils.
Amendment 75, in clause 43, page 44, line 21, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that a combined authority has sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support the duties in subsections (1) and (2).
(2B) In discharging the duty under subsection (2A), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of a combined authority insofar as they relate to the needs described in subsection (1).”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review the financial and administrative needs of combined authorities with regard to reducing health inequalities in their areas.
Government amendment 116.
Amendment 92, in clause 43, page 44, line 31, leave out “prosperity” and insert “poverty and socio-economic inequality”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 93 which would ensure that the health improvement and health inequalities duty focuses explicitly on tackling poverty and socio-economic inequality, rather than using the broader term “prosperity”.
Amendment 72, page 44, line 36 , at end insert—
“(e) nitrogen dioxide level and general air quality,”.
This amendment would include air quality as a general health determinant which combined authorities must consider in their duty to reduce health inequalities.
Amendment 87, page 44, line 36, at end insert—
“(e) access to green space and nature,
(f) exposure to environmental harms, including air pollution, water pollution, land pollution, and any other form of environmental pollution,”.
This amendment would expand the list of general health determinants for the purposes of the new health improvement and health inequalities duty as it applies to CCAs, so it includes access to green space; and exposure to environmental harm.
Amendment 88, page 45, line 3, at end insert—
“(5A) In subsection (5)(e), the reference to “green space and nature” includes—
(a) any multifunctional green and blue space, and
(b) any urban or rural natural feature,
that is considered to deliver any environmental, economic, health and wellbeing benefits for communities and nature.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 87 and describes “green space and nature” for the purpose of this section.
Amendment 172, page 45, line 11, at end insert—
“107ZBA health inequalities strategy
(1) Each strategic authority must prepare and publish a health inequalities strategy setting out how it will operationalise the duty under section 107ZB.
(2) The strategy may be a standalone document or incorporated within another statutory or strategic plan of the authority.
(3) The strategy must promote health improvement and the reduction of health inequalities between persons living in the strategic authority area.
(4) In preparing the strategy, an authority must have regard to relevant national and local strategies relating to health improvement and the reduction of health inequalities.
(5) The strategy must set locally appropriate targets and policies designed to meet them, set for the end of a 10- year period beginning on the day on which the strategy is published.
(6) The metrics may include, but need not be limited to metrics relating to—
(a) healthy life expectancy,
(b) infant mortality rate, and
(c) poverty (including the child poverty rate).
(7) The strategic authority must, once every five years, alongside its local growth plan, produce and make publicly available a report on progress against the strategy.”
Amendment 76, page 45, line 21, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that a CCA has sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to have regard to the needs described in subsection (1).
(2B) In discharging the duty under subsection (2A), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of a CCA insofar as they relate to the needs described in subsection (1).”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to review the financial and administrative needs of CCAs with regard to reducing health inequalities in their areas.
Government amendment 117.
Amendment 93, page 45, line 31, leave out “prosperity” and insert “poverty and socio-economic inequality”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 92 which would ensure that the health improvement and health inequalities duty focuses explicitly on tackling poverty and socio-economic inequality, rather than using the broader term “prosperity”.
Amendment 73, page 45, line 36, at end insert—
“(e) nitrogen dioxide level and general air quality,”.
This amendment would include air quality as a general health determinant which CCAs must consider in their duty to reduce health inequalities.
Amendment 89, page 45, line 36, at end insert—
“(e) access to green space and nature,
(f) exposure to environmental harms, including air pollution, water pollution, land pollution, and any other form of environmental pollution,”.
This amendment would expand the list of general health determinants for the purposes of the new health improvement and health inequalities duty as it applies to CCAs, so it includes access to green space; and exposure to environmental harm.
Amendment 90, page 45, line 39, at end insert—
“(5A) In subsection (5)(e), the reference to ‘green space and nature’ includes—
(a) any multifunctional green and blue space, and
(b) any urban or rural natural feature,
that is considered to deliver any environmental, economic, health and wellbeing benefits for communities and nature.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 87 and describes “green space and nature” for the purpose of this section.
Government amendment 118.
Amendment 47, in clause 45, page 50, line 31, at end insert—
“(c) a draft of any such order is subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This amendment would ensure that regulations made by the Secretary of State to alter the size of PCC areas when transferring powers of PCCs to strategic authorities receive parliamentary scrutiny.
Amendment 48, in clause 46, page 53, line 43, at end insert—
“(7) Regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This amendment would ensure that regulations made by the Secretary of State regarding the functions of fire and rescue authorities receive parliamentary scrutiny.
Amendment 40, in clause 49, page 55, line 15, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) Where a notification under subsection (1) is given, the Secretary of State must, within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the notification is given, give effect to the change or changes proposed by the mayor or mayors.
(4) Effect may be given under subsection (3) by means of regulations made by statutory instrument.
(5) A statutory instrument made under subsection (4) is —
(a) subject to the affirmative procedure if it—
(i) amends an Act of Parliament, or
(ii) confers or modifies a function which relates to an area of competence;
(b) where neither of the conditions in paragraph (a) apply, subject to the negative procedure.”
This amendment creates a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to seek parliamentary approval before implementing mayoral requests for greater powers over funding or legal changes.
Amendment 36, page 55, line 21, at end insert—
“(4) No decision under subsection (3) may be implemented unless—
(a) the Secretary of State has made regulations giving effect to the decision,
(b) a statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament, and
(c) save as where provided for otherwise, regulations giving effect to any decision made under section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This amendment would require any decision of the Secretary of State following a request from a local authority to be implemented by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure.
Government new schedule 1—Charges payable by undertakers executing works in maintainable highways.
Government new schedule 2—Licensing functions of the Mayor of London.
Amendment 8, in schedule 1, page 81, line 15, leave out subparagraph (b).
This amendment, and Amendments 9 to 15, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined authorities without consent of the councils involved.
Amendment 9, page 81, line 33, leave out subparagraph (b).
See explanatory statement for Amendment 8.
Amendment 10, page 82, line 18, leave out “subsections (3) to (5)” and insert “subsection (3)”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 8.
Amendment 11, page 83, line 6, leave out paragraph 8.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 8.
Amendment 12, page 83, line 8, leave out paragraph 9.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 8.
Amendment 13, page 84, line 36, leave out paragraph 16.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 8.
Amendment 169, page 85, line 10, at end insert—
“(3A) The proposal does not include Cornwall Council, or any area under the authority of Cornwall Council.”.
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from making a proposal to establish a combined authority which includes Cornwall or any area under the authority of Cornwall Council.
Amendment 54, page 85, line 27, at end insert—
“(6A) The Secretary of State must consult town and parish councils within the proposed new combined authority area.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult town and parish councils prior to proposing a new combined authority in the area in which they are situated.
Amendment 166, page 85, line 27, at end insert—
“(6A) If the proposed area is within, or is, the area of a National Park the Secretary of State must consult with the authority for that National Park.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult a National Park authority, if the proposed area for a new combined authority is within, or is, the area of that National Park.
Amendment 170, page 85, line 40, at end insert—
“(1A) The order does not include Cornwall Council, or any area under the authority of Cornwall Council”.
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from making an order to establish a combined authority which includes Cornwall or any area under the authority of Cornwall Council.
Amendment 105, page 86, line 28, at end insert—
“(7A) A referendum has been held in which residents of the proposed combined authority have consented to the area being established as a combined authority.”
This amendment would create a requirement for a referendum to be held prior to the Secretary of State making an order to establish a combined authority.
Amendment 62, page 86, line 37, at end insert—
“(8A) The Secretary of State must make provision to ensure the combined authority receives adequate funding to facilitate its establishment.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to ensure that combined authorities receive adequate funding to facilitate their establishment.
Amendment 14, page 88, line 14, leave out paragraph 19.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 8.
Amendment 50, page 88, line 20, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State has obtained consent for the proposal from any affected local government area.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to obtain consent from all affected areas in preparing a proposal to add a local government area to an existing area of a combined county authority.
Amendment 171, page 88, line 20, at end insert—
“(1A) The proposal does not include Cornwall Council, or any area under the authority of Cornwall Council”.
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from making a proposal to add a local government area to an existing area of a combined authority if the area in the proposal includes Cornwall or any area under the authority of Cornwall Council.
Amendment 167, page 88, line 41, at end insert—
“(5A) If the proposed local government area or existing area is within, or is, the area of a National Park the Secretary of State must consult with the authority for that National Park.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult a National Park authority, if the local government area or existing area the Secretary of State proposes to merge is within, or is, the area of that National Park.
Amendment 55, page 89, line 2, after “to” insert “and thereafter consult with”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult with any of the relevant councils and persons given notice that an area is being proposed to be added to an existing combined authority.
Amendment 56, page 89, line 9, at end insert—
“(da) any town and parish councils whose area would be added to the area of the combined authority, and”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult local councils prior to proposing the area in which they are situated is added to an existing combined authority.
Amendment 51, page 89, leave out from beginning of line 25 to end of line 12 on page 90.
This amendment would remove the Bill’s provision for the Secretary of State to have powers to prepare a proposal for there to be a mayor for the area of an existing combined authority.
Amendment 15, page 90, line 13, leave out paragraph 20.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 8.
Amendment 16, page 94, line 36, leave out subparagraph (b).
This amendment, and Amendments 16 to 21, remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create, or make certain changes to the governance or composition of, combined county authorities without the consent of the councils involved.
Amendment 17, page 95, line 21, leave out subparagraph (b).
See explanatory statement for Amendment 15.
Amendment 18, page 97, line 10, leave out paragraph 33.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 15.
Amendment 19, page 97, line 12, leave out paragraph 34.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 15.
Amendment 52, page 98, line 22, leave out paragraphs 37 and 38.
This amendment would remove the Bill’s provision for the Secretary of State to have powers to prepare a proposal for the establishment of a CCA without a public consultation.
Amendment 20, page 98, line 34, leave out paragraph 38.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 15.
Amendment 164, page 99, line 27, at end insert—
“(6A) If the proposed area is within, or is, the area of a National Park the Secretary of State must consult with the authority for that National Park.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult a National Park authority, if the proposed area for a CCA is within, or is, the area of that National Park.
Amendment 106, page 100, line 26, at end insert—
“(7A) A referendum has been held in which residents of the proposed CCA have consented to the area being established as a CCA.”
This amendment would create a requirement for a referendum to be held prior to the Secretary of State making regulations to establish a CCA.
Amendment 21, page 102, line 16, leave out paragraph 41.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 15.
Amendment 22, page 104, line 13, leave out paragraph 42.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 15.
Amendment 86, page 112, line 1, leave out Schedule 3.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 85.
Amendment 163, in schedule 3, page 113, leave out lines 1 to 32.
This amendment removes restrictions limiting appointments by mayors to one commissioner per competence.
Government amendments 122 to 124.
Amendment 24, page 117, line 25, at end insert—
“(2A) The relevant remuneration panel may not recommend allowances which exceed the amount paid in salary to a person employed at director level within the relevant authority.”
This amendment ensures that Commissioners cannot be paid more than Directors working for the authority.
Amendment 151, page 120, line 32, at end insert
“or,—
(c) prevent the commissioner from operating collaboratively with other commissioners across different areas of competence, recognising that the work of commissioners will often intersect and benefit from integrated working with a spatial lens to meet the needs of, and drive positive outcomes for specific places as a whole.”
This amendment broadens the scope of paragraph 4 of this Schedule to ensure that commissioners appointed by the mayor for the area of a combined authority are not only permitted to work incidentally across areas of competence but are also encouraged to do so collaboratively and with a spatial, place-based perspective.
Government amendments 125 to 134.
Amendment 23, in schedule 5, page 136, line 11, at end insert—
“(3) The regulations must include a requirement for the license holder to maintain sufficient docking space for the micromobility vehicles for which they hold a license.
(4) The regulations must include requirements for license holders which would require them to ensure that the micromobility vehicles for which they hold a license do not obstruct any highway, cycling path, footpath, bridlepath, or subway.
(5) The regulations must stipulate that failure of license holders to comply with subsections (3) and (4) will warrant a loss of license.”
This amendment would require that regulations ensure that license holders for micromobility vehicles are responsible for maintaining sufficient docking space for their vehicle and ensuring their vehicle does not obstruct any highways or public paths, or else lose their license.
Government amendment 137.
Amendment 35, in schedule 7, page 146, line 22, at end insert—
‘3 “(1) Part 1 of Schedule 7 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) After paragraph (4) insert—
4A “(1) There is a parking contravention in England if a person causes an obstruction which, without lawful authority or excuse, causes or permits a motor vehicle to stand on a pavement in such a manner as to wilfully obstruct free passage along the pavement.
(2) A parking contravention under subparagraph (1) is a civil offence which may be enforced by the local authority in which the contravention has occurred.
(3) The relevant local authority under subparagraph (2) may issue penalty charges for a civil offence under subsection (2).
(4) The amount for a penalty charge under subparagraph (3) shall be determined by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(5) Regulations under subparagraph (4) may specify different penalty charge amounts based on—
(a) the obstructing vehicle class,
(b) the area of the local authority in which the obstruction has occurred, or
(c) any other relevant circumstantial consideration.
(6) In this paragraph—
(a) “motor vehicle” has the meaning given in section 136 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and
(b) “pavement” has the meaning given in section 72 of the Highway Act 1835.
4B (1) Penalty charge amounts for parking contraventions under this Part may be set by the relevant local authority.
(2) Amounts under subparagraph (1) must align with provisions under section 77 of this Act.
(3) Amounts under subparagraph (1) must have regard to any regulations made under section 87 of this Act.
(4) Amounts under subparagraph (1) must be published by the local authority and may be revised from time to time.”’
This amendment would allow local authorities to enforce obstructive pavement parking within their areas as a civil offence and devolves the power to set parking penalty charge amounts for all parking penalty charge offences to local authorities.
Amendment 74, in schedule 7, page 146, line 22, insert—
‘3 “(1) After Paragraph 10 of Schedule 8 to the Traffic Management Act 2004, insert—
“Exercise of functions relating to civil enforcement
11 Any functions related to civil enforcement described by this schedule must be exercised directly by—
(a) the elected mayor for the area of an authority, or
(b) a member of an authority who is an elected member of a constituent council.”’
This amendment ensures civil enforcement powers, when exercised by CAs and CCAs, must be under the direction of elected officials.
Government amendments 138 to 144.
Amendment 25, in schedule 12, 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.”
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.
Government amendments 145 and 146.
Amendment 71, page 175, line 22 at end insert—
“(ba) After subsection (1BB), insert—
“(1BBA) When exercising any power under this section, the mayor of a relevant authority must ensure—
(a) any plans received comply with any Strategic Spatial Energy Plan for the area, and
(b) any plans comply with any Land Use Framework applicable to the area”.’
This amendment requires mayors to ensure that when making decisions relating to planning applications, the planning applications have regard to any Strategic Spatial Energy Plan and, or Land Use Framework in place for the area.
Government amendments 147 to 149.
Amendment 26, in schedule 17, page 207, line 27, at end insert—
“7A After section 202, insert—
‘202A: restrictions on designation of greenfield land
Where an MDC exercises any functions in relation to the designation of land for development, the MDC must not designate any development on greenfield land unless there is no available land that has not previously been developed.’”
Amendment 69, page 210, line 12, leave out from “that” to end of line 13 and insert
“the majority of members of an MDC are elected members of relevant councils”.
This amendment would require that the make-up of Mayoral Development Corporation boards must have a majority of members from constituent councils.
Amendment 65, in schedule 19, page 214, line 30, at end insert—
“(d) comply with any Land Use Framework issued by the Secretary of State, and
(e) comply with any local nature recovery strategies applicable to the area covered by the authority.
(2A) The Secretary of State must take steps to support a mayoral combined authority in complying with the provisions of paragraphs (2)(d) and (2)(e) of this section.”
This amendment requires mayoral combined authorities to ensure their local growth plans comply with any overarching Land Use Framework and relevant local nature recovery strategies.
Amendment 80, page 214, line 30, at end insert—
“(d) identify the plan’s contribution to targets set out by—
(i) sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021,
(ii) Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and
(iii) the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.”
This amendment would require combined authorities to have regard to targets set by the Environment Act 2021, Climate Change Act 2008, and Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 in developing local growth plans.
Amendment 159, page 214, line 30, at end insert—
“(2A) The mayoral combined authority must include amongst the projects identified measures that will promote growth through the safeguarding and promotion of existing cultural, creative, and community infrastructure such as grassroots music venues, theatres and other live performance spaces.”
Amendment 173, page 214, line 30, at end insert—
“(d) take account of the statutory health duty and health inequalities strategy prepared by the strategic authority, and
(e) promote community wealth building, cooperatives, mutuals and the wider social economy as mechanisms to narrow health inequalities.”
Amendment 174, page 214, line 30, at end insert—
“(2A) In preparing a local growth plan, a mayoral combined authority must make specific reference to the proposed benefits of the plan on areas which are rural, remote, or coastal.”
This amendment would require local growth plans to make specific reference to the proposed benefits of the plan on rural, remote and coastal areas.
Amendment 83, page 215, line 19, at end insert—
“107MA Funding and support relating for local growth plans
‘(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that mayoral combined authorities have sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to discharge effectively any functions relating to the—
(a) preparation,
(b) publication, and
(c) delivery
of local growth plans.
(2) In discharging the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of mayoral combined authorities in respect of functions relating to local growth plans, taking into account the—
(a) strategic importance, and
(b) complexity
of any such plans.’.”
This amendment creates a requirement for regular reviews of the needs of mayoral combined authorities with regard to local growth plans.
Amendment 66, page 216, line 29, at end insert—
“(d) comply with any Land Use Framework applicable to the area covered by the authority, and
(e) comply with any local nature recovery strategies applicable to the area covered by the authority.”
“(2A) The Secretary of State must make provision to support a mayoral CCA in complying with the provisions of paragraphs (2)(d) and (2)(e) of this section.”
This amendment requires mayoral CCAs to ensure their local growth plans comply with any overarching Land Use Framework and relevant local nature recovery strategies.
Amendment 81, page 216, line 29, at end insert—
“(d) identify the plan’s contribution to targets set out by—
(i) sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021,
(ii) Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and
(iii) the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.”
This amendment would require combined authorities to have regard to targets set by the Environment Act 2021, Climate Change Act 2008, and Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 in developing local growth plans.
Amendment 160, page 216, line 29, at end insert—
“(2A) The mayoral CCA must include amongst the projects identified measures that will promote growth through the safeguarding and promotion of existing cultural, creative, and community infrastructure such as grassroots music venues, theatres and other live performance spaces.”
Amendment 84, page 217, line 15, at end insert—
“32BA Funding and support relating to local growth plans
(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that mayoral CCAs have sufficient financial resources and adequate administrative support to discharge effectively any functions relating to the—
(a) preparation,
(b) publication, and
(c) delivery
of local growth plans.
(2) In discharging the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must regularly review the financial and administrative needs of mayoral CCAs in respect of functions relating to local growth plans, taking into account the—
(a) strategic importance, and
(b) complexity
of any such plans.”
This amendment creates a requirement for regular reviews of the needs of mayoral CCAs with regard to local growth plans.
Amendment 49, in schedule 21, page 224, leave out lines 6 to 12.
This amendment would remove the provision to allow mayors to appoint a person to manage policing and crime for their area.
Government amendments 112, 135, 136 and 113.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I am delighted to bring the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill back to the House on Report. Before I go any further, I would like to place on the record my gratitude to Members from across the House for their continued engagement on this Bill, and in particular to the Chairs and members of the Public Bill Committee for their diligent and thoughtful contributions to line-by-line scrutiny.
This Bill will secure the biggest transfer of power out of Whitehall to our regions and communities in a generation. At its heart is the principle that if we take power out of Westminster and Whitehall and place it in the hands of local leaders and communities who know their patch, we can unlock the economic potential of places, revive communities that have been held back for too long, and deliver for people in the places where they live, raise a family and work.
We will provide mayors and their strategic authorities with new powers over planning, housing, transport and regeneration so that they can get Britain building and unleash the economic potential of their areas. We will reform and rebuild local government so that it can once again deliver good local services that people can rely on, and we will empower local communities to shape their places so that they can drive the change they want to see on their doorstep.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Can the Minister assure me that the devolution of powers to our mayors—the west midlands is a really good example, because we have had a mayor for a number of years—will be accompanied by a devolution of accountability and scrutiny to local councillors and, importantly, to local communities? I fear that that is exactly what is missing and continues to be missing in this piece of legislation.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Absolutely. We are very clear that with powers come responsibility and accountability. We are strengthening scrutiny powers for local government, and we will continue to look at ways in which we can strengthen scrutiny and accountability powers for mayors. We are absolutely clear that we have got to devolve power, but alongside that it is really important that local people can hold to account the institutions we are creating and building.
Since the Bill left this Chamber after Second Reading, the Government have made a modest number of amendments to ensure that it will operate as intended. To be clear, we have not introduced significant new policy; rather, we have responded to concerns raised by Members in the best traditions of parliamentary scrutiny. I am therefore confident that we are bringing a better Bill back on Report.
Today’s debate is concerned with parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, on strategic authorities and their powers, duties and functions. Many of our amendments are minor and technical, and I will therefore focus on explaining the more substantive changes we made in Committee and the further amendments we have brought forward on Report that relate to these parts of the Bill.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
It is the Government’s clear intention to devolve powers, but in the reorganisation of local government, the Government are taking sweeping powers to determine the outcome of any reorganisation—in Essex, for example. Will the Minister undertake to listen to the consultation and to reflect the consultation responses in the decision that the Government take? Currently in the Bill, there is no obligation on them to do so.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are very clear that the process of local government reorganisation should be driven by local areas. That is why we are going through a process in which local areas are coming up with proposals, and consulting constituent authorities and their communities. We will then make a decision based on those proposals.
It is very clear that this Bill is about devolution. Yes, there is a backstop power, but it is not one that we intend to use; it will be used only in extreme cases. The process of local government reorganisation is proceeding at the moment, and all areas in that process are engaging. Proposals are coming forward, and we will make decisions based on those proposals.
At the heart of the reorganisation is an objective: to have local authorities that are more sustainable and that can deliver for their local people. That is the central purpose of reorganisation, and it is something that we are absolutely committed to delivering.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin). In Committee, the Minister outlined that she wants this process to be a happy one, but may I ask her to confirm one point on the Floor of the House? If local authorities do not wish to go through local government reorganisation, this Government will force them to do so, won’t they?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The Opposition have some cheek to raise that point, because on their watch, local government was put under a huge amount of pressure. Reorganisation should have happened on their watch, but they ducked it; we are now gripping this issue and driving the change. We are not doing this for the fun of it, but because we are very clear that we need to deliver for local people. We need services that make sense and geographies that make sense—that can deliver the outcomes we want in places. We are going through a process, and all areas are engaging with that process in good faith. We will see their proposals, and my colleague in the Department will make a decision based on the criteria we have explicitly and transparently set out.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will make some progress on the things we will be debating today. In Committee, we amended schedules 1 and 9 to the Bill to state that combined foundation strategic authorities’ decisions on adopting local transport plans and agreeing their budgets will require the unanimous agreement of all constituent councils. This recognises that budget setting and the local transport plan are key strategic decisions that all councils should agree to in the absence of a mayor with a clear democratic mandate. Further amendments to schedule 1 will also require the consent of relevant constituent councils in matters that could result in a financial liability on that council.
Moreover, we believe that strategic authorities are uniquely placed to understand the demands for education and training places in their areas. We have therefore widened duties on strategic authorities to work with their constituent councils to plan provision locally and ensure that enough education and training is provided in their areas. This will ensure that the needs of those aged 16 to 18 and those aged over 19 with an education, health and care plan are met. We have also ensured that at least one full academic year will pass between the establishment or designation of a new strategic authority and that authority being able to exercise the six adult education functions. This approach is in line with that taken for strategic authorities that already exercise those functions.
Turning to local growth plans, we have expanded the definition of relevant bodies that can be named in secondary legislation that must have regard to the shared local growth priorities that the Government agree with mayors. This reflects our original intentions as set out in the White Paper. It is essential that mayors know that their agreed priorities will be acted on, and that all parts of Government are pulling in the same direction to grow the economy.
I now turn to the more substantive amendments that the Government are making on Report to these parts of the Bill. The Bill already provides mayoral strategic authorities with the general power of competence. As currently drafted, schedule 4 allows non-mayoral combined authorities and non-mayoral combined county authorities to exercise the general power of competence only for the purposes of economic development and regeneration. Our amendments remove that restriction, ensuring that all combined authorities and combined county authorities can make full use in the same way as local authorities of the general power of competence.
Jim Shannon
I will not be the only MP who has received correspondence from the Country Land and Business Association. That organisation is quite clear that it fears that rural regions will be left behind, and is worried about mayors taking unprecedented control over transport, housing, planning, skills and economic development. How can the Minister assure all of us in this House that mayors will understand what uses of those powers will genuinely support rural businesses, which must not be left behind?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for raising the issue of rural areas. As we see mayors in more rural areas, it will be incumbent on them to respond to the priorities and needs of their local people. That is the beauty of the democracy we are putting in place—it is the beauty of the fact that mayors will be democratically elected. In areas where mayors cover rural areas, we are seeing that those mayors are absolutely clear about the challenges in the rural economy and are working to ensure that their economic and investment plans address those challenges. That is what I expect, because at the end of this process is a democratic lock, and if a mayor does not respond to the challenges in their local area, local people can vote them out.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
During the debate on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the Minister for Housing and Planning said that the Government would use the devolution Bill to strengthen the status of assets of community value. Will the Minister confirm that this Bill will indeed strengthen that status, so that we do not see such assets being demolished in pursuit of new housing?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We will be moving on to talk about community right to buy and assets of community value. We are clear that communities should be able to identify assets of community value and ensure that they are protected. We are looking to give communities greater power to take on those assets. We are clear that every community will have those assets that they value. This Bill will ensure that we give them the power and the tools to protect those assets.
I will move on to another key amendment that we are making on Report. I am sure that Members across the House would agree that London’s pubs and restaurants are the beating heart of our cultural life. They contribute to our capital’s world-class status and the growth of our economy, yet for too long hospitality businesses have been held back by a licensing regime that lacks proportionality, consistency and transparency. That is why we are bringing forward amendments to pilot a new licensing regime in London. It will give hospitality businesses greater confidence and create the conditions for London’s night-time economy to thrive.
The amendments will give the Mayor of London the power to publish a strategic licensing policy for hospitality venues within London’s night-time economy, which licensing authorities in Greater London will have a duty to “have regard to” when carrying out their licensing function. The Mayor of London will also be made a statutory consultee on licensing authority policies, and the Greater London Authority will become a responsible authority in the licensing process.
The amendments will also introduce a call-in power for the Mayor of London for borough licensing applications of strategic importance.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for outlining the new power that the Government are looking at. I had a meeting this morning with two of my neighbouring parliamentary colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). In some areas, we are seeing licensing policies that are having a detrimental impact on local communities. Does the Minister agree that in the proposals she is outlining there is still a crucial role for local licensing authorities, where our hard-working councillors are working with the community to determine which licensing applications come forward?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight this issue. We are clear that the local licensing authority will continue to be the key authority, and such things as licensing fees will flow to those local authorities. This measure creates the ability for the Mayor of London to call things in, in particular instances where we think that the licensing will work for areas of strategic importance. In so doing, the mayor will invariably have to work with the local licensing authority and the community, because whatever is done—the mayor is elected—must be done with the support of the local community.
I will turn to planning and empowering our mayors to unlock housing and infrastructure.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will make a little more progress, and then I will give way. The Bill provides mayors of strategic authorities with the ability to intervene in planning applications of potential strategic importance and to make mayoral development orders to better support growth in their area. Those powers are currently only available to the Mayor of London. When a mayor decides that they will become a local planning authority for an application of potential strategic importance, our amendment will enable them to choose between either a written representation procedure or an oral hearing, so that applicants, local planning authorities and other parties can make representations before a final decision is made.
To be clear, we want oral hearings to continue to be an important part of mayoral decision making. Applications of potential strategic importance that a mayor is dealing with will often be significant developments with wider ramifications for the area, so it is crucial that there is an opportunity to make direct representation to the mayor. However, an oral hearing may not be necessary for certain applications where planning matters may be less substantial, such as where an application deals with a variation to an earlier permission and the planning matter has already been established. We believe that this provision, which creates options and gives flexibility to the mayor, could save up to several months, such as by avoiding an unnecessary repeated oral hearing period.
Wendy Morton
I am concerned that this measure will result in a railroading of planning applications, which will impact on constituencies such as mine, on the periphery of the west midlands. What specific safeguards will the Minister be putting in place to ensure that ward councillors, local planning committees and local Members of Parliament continue to have a voice? At the moment, the Mayor of the West Midlands does not even reply to my letters.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are clear that where a mayoral development order is being put in place, there will be processes and procedures that the mayor will have to set out so that people can make direct representation. Ultimately, I come back to the fact that mayors will be democratically elected. Therefore, the need to consult will be critical, whether that is with their constituent authorities in order to deliver or, importantly, with their community, who can vote them in or out. We have set out and designed this measure to allow that representation and that consultation. Ultimately, there is a democratic lock if a mayor does not abide with that engagement.
Amendments to schedule 12 remove the need for the mayor to secure the local planning authority’s approval before making, revising or revoking a mayoral development order. I reiterate, however—this is important—that this change is not an attempt to bypass local planning authorities. Mayors will still have to bring those authorities along, as they will be crucial for delivering these orders. If mayors cannot build the consent and support of the local planning authority, it will be much more difficult to deliver the development and ensure that consents and approvals go through. The Bill is about empowering mayors, because we believe that they have a democratic mandate to provide that strategic leadership. Critically, they must and will do that in lockstep with their constituent authorities.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Can the Minister say a word or two about her expectations for this new arrangement that she is creating—it will have some plus points and some minus points, because no system is perfect—and the timeliness of decision making? Investors and others want timely decisions so that they can move things forward, and not get lost in the weeds of officialdom, strategies, papers, consultations and so on. If we are to power growth, time is of the essence.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I completely agree with the hon. Member. We want pace in planning and pace in development. One of the frustrations for us on the Government Benches is that we inherited a system where the development and the house building that should have happened did not happen under the last Government. We are trying to grip that, and through these mayoral development orders, we think we can deliver pace and strategic clarity so that our mayors can designate strategically important sites that are critical for investment in infrastructure and ensure that they happen, working alongside their constituent authorities.
Wera Hobhouse
The Minister mentioned the hospitality sector earlier, and I briefly want to come back to that. Bath council and I are seeking the power for local authorities to introduce a modest visitor levy, alongside our proposed 5% cut in VAT for hospitality. Does she agree that a visitor levy on overnight stays would generate a new ringfenced revenue stream for the hospitality sector, which would be beneficial?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Mayors across the country have been strong advocates for a visitor levy, but the hon. Lady will forgive me, because that is within the Chancellor’s remit, and I would not dare to pre-empt anything that the Chancellor may or may not say in the Budget, which is only 48 hours away. Suffice it to say, our mayors have been making the case vociferously for the benefits of such a levy and what it could do for their visitor economy while critically enabling them to unlock some of the investment that they want in their areas.
I have been clear throughout this process that the devolution framework is the floor, not the ceiling, of our ambition. Where there are sensible opportunities for us to go further and devolve more powers to mayors, we should take them. We have therefore brought forward an amendment to devolve the approval of lane rental schemes from the Secretary of State for Transport to mayors of strategic authorities, putting the decision in the hands of those with knowledge of their area.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. May I urge hon. Members to make short interventions?
Ruth Cadbury
Yes, I will do. I welcome the lane rental measure, which the Government put in the White Paper and is now in the Bill. However, why do the Secretary of State and the Minister not trust other authorities? Why does it apply only to elected mayoral authorities? Would it not be fair for all authorities to be able to use lane rental, which is so important in improving roadworks?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Lane rentals are there for all highways authorities. This is about the approval of lane rentals, which currently sits with the Secretary of State for Transport. We think that if we can devolve that to another democratic person, namely the mayor, that will be a good and quick way to do lane rental—and it will, critically, ensure that we are responsive to what is required locally. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) for his efforts in pushing an eminently sensible amendment.
Paul Holmes
May I begin by welcoming the Minister to her place? We spent a long time together on the Bill Committee, working cross-party, along with many other Members on both sides of the House. They included the Statler and Waldorf of the Committee, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and the hon. Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock), whose heckling of me throughout the sittings was very welcome. [Hon. Members: “More!”] A number of Members are saying “More!” from a sedentary position.
The Minister was bombarded with what I would argue are excellent amendments tabled by Members from all parts of the House, but I think she has been taking a leaf from the book of her colleague the Minister for Housing and Planning. Much of her response to amendments tabled by me—and by the Greens, the Liberal Democrats and, indeed, some of her own colleagues who wanted to see movement from the Government—was that she would “reflect”. She would reflect in order to make the Bill better, and she would reflect on whether she could make it better by accepting amendments tabled by Members on both sides of the House. Instead, she has reflected on nothing. Instead, she has brought us a Bill to which she has tabled a small number of amendments that the Government want, but any other amendments tabled by other parties have been completely ignored.
Just to show how unprepared the Government were today, let me point out that most of the Committee stage was taken up with discussion of Government amendments, because this Bill from a Government who wanted to govern in the interests of the people was so riddled with holes that they spent most of the time discussing their own proposals, rather than those of the Opposition.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Today the Government put forward 23 of their own amendments, which meant that the Minister allowed less than a minute for each one in her speech. That includes two new schedules. Moreover, we have still not seen a great deal of the regulation that will flow from the Bill, even in draft form. Is this Bill ready, in any way?
Paul Holmes
The answer is clearly no, because otherwise it would not have had as many holes as it had in Committee, and it would not have as many holes as it has today. If it were a Bill from a Government who genuinely sought cross-party co-operation on what could be a very exciting programme of devolution for local authorities and people throughout the country, the Minister and the Government would have looked more seriously at some of the excellent amendments and new clauses tabled by Members from all parts of the House, although not by the Minister’s own Back Benchers.
I am a big fan of the Minister, but when I intervened on her earlier, she showed some anger, which is not typical of her. She tried to object when I said that as a result of her local government reorganisation programme, councils across the country will be forced to reorganise, even if they do not want to. There is a backstop that the Minister said she did not want to use, but when she winds up the debate, I ask her to confirm what she refused to confirm in Committee—that if local authorities do not want to reorganise, she will force them to do so. It is about time the Government came clean about that, so that local authority leaders throughout the country know what they will have to deal with, and know that they will have a gun against their head and will be forced to reorganise, rather than getting on with delivering efficient services, as they try to daily.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
May I add my support for my hon. Friend’s opposition to compulsory reorganisation, which local authorities simply do not want? The people of Staffordshire Moorlands do not want to be in a greater Stoke-on-Trent; they want to have their own say.
Paul Holmes
My right hon. Friend absolutely knows her constituency. We have tried to ensure, both today and in Committee, that local authority leaders can choose who they work with. They should not be forced to do things by a Minister behind a desk in Whitehall, but that is what this Minister and this Department are doing. It is shameful. It is not what Members on both sides of the House want, and it is not what local authority leaders want—and they know best. I ask the Minister to look at that compulsion again.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am most grateful; my hon. Friend is being exceptionally generous.
I commend the Minister for being on top of her brief, but I did not have a chance to raise this question, which is directly relevant to the point that my hon. Friend is making. The regulations have not been written to show how the neighbourhood panels, or whatever they are called, will be created, but the Bill contains sweeping powers to direct how those neighbourhoods should be constructed. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we believe in devolution, this should be left to the local authorities to determine, rather than its being determined by Ministers?
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is entirely correct, and, indeed, in the Bill, there are plenty of other examples—which we discussed in Committee—of the Government not genuinely devolving to mayors, local authorities and combined authorities powers that they would actually quite like, but giving them the powers that they want them to have, while taking other powers away. That is not true devolution, and the Government should look again at delivering true devolution throughout the United Kingdom.
Wendy Morton
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is more of an English centralisation and community disempowerment Bill?
Paul Holmes
My right hon. Friend tempts me; I agree with her wholeheartedly. It is crazy that the Government are embarked on one of the largest sets of planning reforms in the country at this time. Fair funding formulas are being announced, and many planning reforms have been announced over the past few months, but the authorities concerned are being abolished and, essentially, reorganised. The way that the Government have approached their reforming agenda is topsy-turvy, and they need to go back to the drawing board.
Far from creating clarity, the Bill piles new combined authorities, new mayoralties and new boards on top of already overlapping local councils. The Government are introducing complexity at a moment when the public want simplicity—clear lines of responsibility, not an ever-changing maze of institutions—and they are doing all this while fundamentally changing planning laws. Residents should be able to know, without needing a flowchart, who is responsible for transport, planning, regeneration or housing, but the Bill fails that basic test of good governance. As I have said, there is a plethora of reforms at different stages and in different bits of legislation.
Many—I would argue—very good amendments and new clauses have been tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends, including new clause 39, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), and new clause 48, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), which I moved in Committee, and which would allow a mayor to benefit from the true devolution that the Government have spoken about by being allowed regulatory responsibility for ferries. Both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) have signed that new clause. I brought the matter up in Committee, and, to her credit, the Minister committed to ensuring that the Department for Transport would have another look at establishing the body that my hon. Friend was promised; that, I believe, has not happened yet. New clause 48 would allow mayors to ensure that they were acting, in respect of transport connectivity, on behalf of the people who elected them. I do not see why the Government are resisting the new clause, because they have allowed mayors regulatory responsibility for many areas across the United Kingdom, and not only geographically.
The Isle of Wight, which is just to the side of my Hamble Valley constituency, is a special case because of the desperate access needs of those living there. They have relied on a service that is basically being run into the ground. It charges extortionately high fares, it often has cancellations, its equipment has not been updated for a very long time, and the company has just been sold. I ask the Minister to look at giving true powers of devolution to mayors once again. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East will speak to his excellent new clause; I hope that the Minister will look at giving mayors true powers, on my hon. Friend’s behalf and on behalf of her hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West. I hope that the Minister will also consider new clause 39, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport, which would allow water taxi services to be regulated by a mayor.
The official Opposition tabled amendments 8, 16 and related amendments. They speak to a principle that should be absolutely fundamental to our system: changes to local governance should not be imposed from Whitehall without the consent of the councils and communities they affect. The amendments would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to create a combined authority or alter its composition without the agreement of the local authorities involved.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
Can the hon. Gentleman give an example of when a Conservative Government gave a veto to a local authority?
Paul Holmes
The last Conservative Government worked with local authorities to devolve responsibilities to them, but I can give the hon. Gentleman an example of when a Labour Government gave local people a veto on devolution: the former Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Prescott, asked people whether they wanted devolution. When they said no in the north of England, the Government dropped their plans. This Government are going forward with forcing devolution on local people, and are not even bothering to ask them. That is the difference between this Labour Government and the great Labour Governments of the past, which is why the hon. Gentleman should speak to his Minister. The last Labour Government was a very principled Government, led by principled politicians. Where are they? This Government certainly do not bother to ask local people about the devolution that they seek to impose on them.
Combined authorities are voluntary partnerships; they function effectively only when the constituent councils trust one another and have confidence in the structures in which they operate. If we grant the Secretary of State the unilateral power to reshape those structures, redraw governance arrangements or impose new members or functions without consent, we risk undermining that trust at its very foundation. Devolution cannot be delivered by coercion, and genuine partnership cannot be created by ministerial order.
It is worth remembering that combined authorities, unlike ordinary local authorities, do not arise organically; they exist because councils choose to work together, on terms they negotiate and agree among themselves. They are built on consent. If that consent is overridden or taken for granted, we risk destabilising the very institutions that we are trying to strengthen. That is not acceptable. This Bill, despite its lofty title, does remarkably little to empower the truly local level—the parishes, town councils, neighbourhood groups and civic institutions that understand their communities best. Instead, the Bill concentrates mayoral authority in the hands of regional leaders, who may be many miles away, both geographically and democratically, from the people affected by their decisions.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
My hon. Friend will be aware that the District Councils’ Network has been briefing Members on both sides of the House that if the Government go ahead and force these changes through, the very least they can do is to have district councils represented on the strategic authorities until all the changes have come to completion. Does he think that he might be able to persuade the Government to have that more limited aim?
Paul Holmes
My right hon. Friend and county neighbour is probably putting a bit too much faith in me. I have never been able to convince a Minister to change their mind and improve legislation, but he is absolutely right. [Interruption.] That time may come, says the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader). My right hon. Friend raises a very important issue: while district councils are in action and represent their local communities, they should have a place, because they know their areas best.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the shadow Minister for discussing the issue of council tax, which I am sure he will agree is one of the most regressive forms of taxation. If he is honest, he will recognise that successive Governments have dodged this issue by placing it in the “too difficult” box, including during the last 14 years. Does he agree that maybe this is something that the previous Government should have looked at?
Paul Holmes
If I am proposing a new clause to limit the increases that mayors can bring forward, then yes, I am happy to look at that. That is why I have tabled new clause 2, and why I argue that the Government should look at it. I agree with the hon. Lady that council tax has for a very long time been used as a natural model to try to raise more money. I have been honest with her before in saying that Governments of different stripes have not put in a long-term, sustainable funding model that does not just rely on council tax increases, but I say to her gently—she does an excellent job as Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee—that the Government are making it worse. Allowing central mayors to have no limit on the amount by which they can increase council tax will just encourage them to put more of their responsibilities on to the balance sheet by increasing people’s taxes, and that is not a good thing. That is why we argue that this new clause is proportionate and principled, and offers the certainty that residents deserve.
New clause 4 seeks to ensure that ordinary householders who wish to extend their own homes for their own use are not unfairly burdened with the community infrastructure levy. The purpose of this new clause is clear and sensible. It would insert into the Planning Act 2008 a straightforward principle that CIL is not charged on householder extensions where the property remains the family’s own residence and the development is for personal use, not commercial gain. The Minister knows that we have brought this up before, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) has long been campaigning for it. Too many local authorities across the UK are taking people for granted in charging CIL if people are just creating extensions. The Government, to their credit, and the Minister, to her credit, have said that they would do something about this, but there is no reason why she cannot back this new clause to enable what she has said she wishes to come true. If she cannot back it, I look to her to say in her winding-up speech, for certainty for the people affected by this, when the Government will bring forward measures to tackle what this new clause would do.
I will be very brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the last two amendments. Amendment 25 seeks to place clear, sensible and strategic priorities at the heart of the framework for mayoral development orders. It would ensure a rational, evidence-based approach, and does so by ensuring that development under MDOs is focused where it delivers the greatest public benefit—in areas of higher density, stronger transport accessibility and previously developed land.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way, especially as I missed the first few words of his speech—he can only imagine my disappointment. While promoting higher-density development near transport nodes makes a lot of sense, can he explain why subsection (3) of the proposed new section would require mayors to issue blanket planning permission for the development of all previously developed land, which includes all residential areas and, in some places, residential gardens? He has spent a lot of time talking about the rights of local councils, but this would take away their planning permission powers and mean issuing blanket planning permission by the mayor on all previously developed land.
Paul Holmes
Dare I say it, but I think the hon. Gentleman is probably being slightly naughty. We are trying to put into the legislation that we want to counter what this Government have been doing, which is to make it easier to build on rural areas where infrastructure is not deliverable, when we should be building first in town centres and high-density areas where most people in this country want to live, and that is why we will be supporting amendment 25.
Amendment 26 would place a simple, but vital restriction on mayoral development corporations: when they are designating land for development, they must not designate greenfield land unless there is no suitable previously developed land available. This principle has long commanded support across this House. Members on all sides, except for the Government, recognise that we must make the best possible use of brownfield land before contemplating the loss of undeveloped countryside.
Madam Deputy Speaker—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Mr Holmes, before you flick through any more pages, it is obviously very interesting to hear you speak, but over 25 Members are hoping to contribute.
Paul Holmes
The official Opposition have tabled other amendments, and I could speak about them all evening, Madam Deputy Speaker, but to reassure you, the officials in the Box and Members across this House, I will draw my remarks to a close.
We should not confuse amendments with progress, and we should not confuse this Bill with something that delivers true devolution. True devolution requires clarity, accountability and sustainability in funding, and this Bill offers none of those things. It is a patchwork of half-formed ideas, untested assumptions and powers handed out without the democratic scaffolding needed to hold them up. I believe in devolution done properly, but this does not do that. England deserves a coherent settlement, not a constitutional patchwork. Communities deserve real empowerment, not distant regional authorities replacing national ones. Taxpayers deserve accountability, not new structures that spend their money with little scrutiny. We urge the Government to look at this again and to accept the amendments I have outlined.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi
I congratulate the Minister on bringing this Bill back. On a happier note than that of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), I think this Bill does outline some of the powers going down to local communities. My understanding is that this is the first Bill to have “community empowerment” in its title, which shows the Government’s commitment to push on it. The Minister and I are fellow Labour and Co-operative MPs, and I am very excited about the community right to buy. I pay tribute to the many across the co-op movement who have been fighting for this for many years. I am mindful of the time, so I want to reflect on three specific areas.
First, new clause 25, tabled by my Select Committee colleague, the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on community infrastructure levy charges on homeowners, including on how local councils will respond to technical errors. Our Committee heard representations from the CIL Injustice group, which represents dozens of homeowners who have been unfairly charged CIL for home extensions, self-build and other small projects, even though CIL is intended as a levy for large-scale developments. Councils have seemingly issued the charges due to technical administrative errors such as paperwork being completed incorrectly, but the impact of these charges are life changing for some residents. We heard evidence of homeowners facing unexpected bills ranging from £40,000 to £200,000. We heard that some councils are applying a zero-tolerance approach, with the threat of imprisonment if these bills are not paid. Ultimately, we are seeing homeowners suffering real distress as a result. Some of them have been forced to sell their homes because they have been charged for something they should not have been charged.
To the credit of the Minister for Housing and Planning, he told our Select Committee that the CIL regulations are
“not intended to operate in this way”,
and that the Government are
“giving very serious consideration to amending them”
to ensure no one is unfairly charged. However, that was back in July, and in a letter to the Committee earlier this month, he was unable to provide an update on the plans to amend the regulations. He told us that the Department
“has not issued any formal or informal communications”
to councils about charging CIL. New clause 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Newbury, would require the Government to take the steps urgently needed to address the unfair CIL charges. It would be helpful if the Minister, when winding up, gave the House an update on when the review of CIL guidance is coming, or if we can expect any secondary legislation to address this. We understand that Ministers cannot intervene on individual cases, but a clear direction should be issued to councils that they cannot treat applicants in this way and that they should clear up the paperwork to stop more homeowners being pursued for thousands of pounds of charges.
Secondly, new clause 31, on the tourism levy, has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker). This new clause would give established mayoral strategic authorities the power to impose a levy on overnight accommodation in their area. Importantly, subsection (6) would require that money received from this levy is paid into the general fund of the authority, so it would be going directly to local councils. Our Select Committee has pressed the Government to go further with fiscal devolution. We welcome the empowerment of local councils in many areas, but we are very clear that the one omission from the Bill is fiscal devolution down to our local colleagues. Our report on the funding and sustainability of local government finance, which we published in July this year, included a recommendation to the Treasury to devolve tax-setting powers to local authorities, allowing them to set their own forms of local taxation, such as the tourism levy. I understand that, as the Minister outlined, anything to do with taxation is down to the Treasury and is not something for HCLG Ministers to look at, but I hope they are actively having such conversations with Treasury Ministers.
We acknowledge that visitor levies have pros and cons. Their benefits would not be equal right across the country, and the right approach must be taken in each local area. However, our Select Committee heard that, where it does work, it would be helpful as a new form of fundraising at the regional level. For example, Mayor Tracy Brabin, the mayor of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, told us that a visitor levy would give the authority an opportunity to become more self-sufficient.
Councillor Louise Gittins, the chair of the Local Government Association, told us that some form of the tourist levy would be really helpful to deal with the pressures that tourists can put on local economies. The Government’s explanatory notes state that the purpose of the Bill is to transfer power out of Westminster, but, as I mentioned, the fiscal devolution element has been very quiet. I hope the Minister will recognise that until Westminster is willing to let go of its tight grip on tax setting and revenue raising down to local authorities, we will not see the kind of independence, community empowerment and local accountability we all want. New clause 31 would grant local authorities the power to impose visitor levies. It would be a positive first step in that direction.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
It is a privilege to speak in support of the Liberal Democrat amendments to the Bill. They remain true to our party’s tradition of empowering communities, upholding democratic accountability, protecting the environment and defending the role of local government at all levels. Our amendments, numbering around 120, exist because the legislation as drafted falls short of the Government’s own declared aim for meaningful devolution. My colleagues and I on this side of the House have found ourselves needing to strengthen provisions, close loopholes, and introduce safeguards just to ensure that power genuinely flows outwards to communities, rather than upwards to centralised mayoral offices.
Before turning to the amendments, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) for her work in Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) for her efforts in both the earlier stages of the Bill and in Committee. The volume, detail and quality of the amendments they presented and defended have improved the Bill and clearly reflect the seriousness with which Liberal Democrats approach devolution.
As the MP for Guildford in Surrey, I feel that it would be remiss of me not to comment on what the Government have said about decisions on local reform being led by local people and local councils. I can state that that has not happened in Surrey. The Government have: overruled local people who indicated a strong preference for option three; ignored geography, natural place and communities; and clearly stated that the decision was led solely by the financial state of Surrey, which was created by a number of Conservative-led authorities. I will leave that thought there.
As drafted, the Bill would allow the mayors of combined authorities and county combined authorities to appoint unelected commissioners over substantial areas of public service delivery, from transport to planning, economic regeneration and even aspects of social care. It is astonishing that a Bill claiming to devolve power begins by concentrating it in the hands of one individual, with the authority to outsource major public functions to people who have never faced a ballot box. This is not localism. It is not devolution. It is centralisation masquerading as reform.
Let me be clear, this is not a minor administrative detail. It is the ability to hand over control of core public services that shape our constituents’ lives to someone who has not been elected, cannot be removed by the public, and whose appointment could be based on personal loyalty rather than competence. We have seen this in the past, with police and crime commissioners, where concerns have been raised about appointments of close associates or unelected political allies to influential roles. Even the perception of that is damaging to the public’s confidence in the role. It is extraordinary that the Government would open the door to repeating those mistakes on an even larger scale.
Liberal Democrat amendment 85 would stop that from happening. It eliminates the ability to make those unaccountable appointments entirely. It guarantees that important public roles cannot be delegated to individuals chosen behind closed doors, safeguarding the integrity of devolution by ensuring power is exercised transparently and by those answerable to the public. If the Government insist on pressing ahead with this centralising model—this top-down, trust-us-we-know-best version of “localism”—then the bare minimum is democratic safeguards.
That is where our new clause 14 comes in. It ensures that an elected representative must carry out any development or delivery of policy within a strategic authority’s remit. But let me be clear: new clause 14 is the fallback; amendment 85 is the safeguard. If the Government are genuinely trying to create democratic, community-led devolution, we must not allow unaccountable commissioners to be appointed to run major public services.
Turning to environmental protections, I welcome the Government’s concession on air quality—it is a meaningful win for public health. Once again, I thank my colleagues for their work in Committee lobbying for its inclusion, and the Government for engaging so constructively and now including it in the Bill. But we are still looking for one crucial assurance from the Minister: will nitrogen dioxide be explicitly included in the provisions, not just general air quality? Nitrogen dioxide is one of the most harmful pollutants we face. It disproportionately affects children, older people and those with respiratory illnesses. I hope the Minister can offer that reassurance today.
We also tabled amendment 75, which would require a review of the financial needs of local authorities in tackling health inequalities. Devolution without actual resources is not devolution, but rather the delegation of responsibility without the means to deliver. In my constituency of Guildford, for example, the difference in health outcomes between neighbourhoods just a short distance apart is stark. Life expectancy, rates of chronic illness and access to preventative services vary dramatically. Local authorities cannot hope to address these inequalities without the right resources, data and powers. Amendment 75 ensures that those needs are properly understood and resourced.
I also want to take a moment to recognise the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who has re-tabled important amendments on sports provision and the committee system. I thank her for doing so, and the Government for picking up the committee system amendment.
Finally, regarding town and parish councils, for a Government who have repeatedly assured me and others of the importance they place on these levels of local government, the Bill is surprisingly silent on their vital role. We, as Liberal Democrats, have consistently proposed amendments throughout the Bill process to address that gap, safeguard their role, and ensure they are not overridden or abolished without genuine community approval. Parishes are often the tier of government closest to our constituents—strengthening them strengthens democracy—yet the Government have generally refused our amendments.
Taken together, the Liberal Democrat amendments make the Bill stronger, fairer and more democratic. They turn a framework that risks re-centralising power into one that can, if implemented properly, deliver genuine community-led devolution by: protecting against the unaccountable concentration of power; ensuring environmental and public health commitments are meaningful; and giving local communities, right down to parish and town councils, the voice they deserve. We have already seen that when concerns are raised clearly and constructively, the Government can listen, as they did with the committee system and clean air commitments, but there is so much more to be done.
If we want devolution that the public can trust and that empowers rather than bypasses communities, we must ensure robust safeguards are in place. Amendment 85 is absolutely central to that effort. It would ensure that public services cannot be handed to unelected appointees, and that accountability remains where it belongs—with the people elected by the people. I urge Members from across the House to support the amendments that I have spoken to—and, above all, to support amendment 85—so that the Bill delivers the democratic, transparent and community-led devolution that our constituents need.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to speak to Government new clause 44 and new schedule 2. These provisions give powers to the Mayor of London to establish a pilot to set up a strategic licensing policy statement, which would cover sections 4 and 5 of the Licensing Act 2003. In summary, that is the sale by retail of alcohol, a licence for the “provision of regulated entertainment” under schedule 1 of the 2003 Act, and
“The provision of late night refreshment licences”—
within the meaning of schedule 2 of the 2003 Act.
I am proud to represent a borough that has some of the best licensed premises in the country. In Shoreditch, Dalston and elsewhere, we have some of the best restaurants in the world. I visited Counter 71 in Shoreditch a little while ago, and they told me how they had hit social media in Japan, which had led to a lot of visitors. If the Minister ever wants to do any outreach on licensing, she is welcome to come to my borough, where she will get the best of the best. But there are also people who chance it and try it on, so it is important that we have licensing rules that local authorities can enforce properly—and that they have the money to do so.
In Hackney, the hospitality industry is a growth area, boosting the economy in the way that the Chancellor wants to see. It is also facing pressures, as all Members will know from their own constituencies. There is a well-worn route on licensing in Hackney that is well understood. We need to support the licensing process, and ensure that there are fees available to cover the costs, while also supporting businesses and ensuring that they can do this with relative ease when they play by the rules—and if they do not play by the rules, ensure that enforcement kicks in.
It is important to lie this Bill alongside the joint industry and Government taskforce, which reported to the Department for Business and Trade on, I think, 6 November. That taskforce and its report plays into some of the proposals that are outlined in the Bill. Some of the concerns that we have in Hackney—I know other inner-London MPs share some of these—are around the potential impacts on pavement licences, which are important to support businesses that want to grow.
In covid, when there was a proposal to rapidly increase pavement licences—later solidified by the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023—we learnt that there could be real issues without the proper involvement of the community, police and licensing authorities. In that case, it was a rushed process—28 days—to change the rules in the Highways Act 1980 to allow licences to the same level as were provided for internal spaces. It was an unholy alliance of inner-London MPs that managed to eventually get that ameliorated in the Lords. That legislation was done at pace during covid; we have more time to think about it now. But new clause 22 and new schedule 2 have both been tabled at quite late notice.
The length of licences is also an issue, because if licences are allowed to run on too long it can be very complicated to rescind them—it can take 12 months. Although a licence that needs a regular fee, which can be rolled over relatively easily, is a cost on the business, overall, it can be a low fee if the business behaves well. There are measures that many boroughs have introduced to ensure that those that play by the rules are treated fairly.
Although not directly related to the Bill, fees could be part of the wider debate on licensing. Some fees are very low. Temporary events notices, for example, are still £21 each; that would be £37 if they had been uprated. That is still low—barely an hour of an officer’s time. There are examples in Hackney of some licensed premises regularly putting in for temporary events notices.
Florence Eshalomi
On the losses to the council, does my hon. Friend recognise that for many councils the costs of additional street cleaning, refuse collection, signage and lighting all add up when an event is granted a temporary licence, and for many councils there is no compensation for that?
Dame Meg Hillier
I absolutely understand and support the Government’s approach to supporting businesses, but good businesses are not supported if the fees for temporary events notices and other licences do not keep up with inflation. Where there is a flood of temporary events notices for extended hours by some businesses, it causes a huge burden on the local authority, for which it is not funded. In fact, in Hackney there is an annual deficit of around £16,000 on temporary events notices alone.
We need enough fees for enforcement while not overburdening business—we have to get that balance right. The best businesses will understand the costs of enforcement, refuse collection and the other issues related to areas with large numbers of licensed premises, and will see the importance of that balance being in place.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
I will speak today in support of new clauses 64, 65 and 66, all tabled in my name.
As I said on Second Reading, my concern is that the Bill does precious little to strengthen accountability of existing devolved bodies, especially the Greater London Authority. It establishes simple majority voting in combined authorities as the default decision-making process, but does nothing to bring other authorities in line with this new standard. The London Assembly will retain its two-thirds majority requirement. A two-thirds majority has proved impossible to achieve in the London Assembly, which is why no budget or strategy has been amended in 25 years.
New clause 64 would abolish the two-thirds majority requirement to amend budgets and strategies. By allowing a simple majority, it would give Assembly members the opportunity to debate changes realistically, bringing mayors back to the table and ensuring proper accountability. Unlike other combined authorities, the Assembly cannot call in mayoral decisions, and London’s 32 boroughs are excluded from decision making; as a result, the mayor does not need to seek consensus, negotiate or even listen to opposing views. In a city the size of London, that effectively alienates and disenfranchises millions of people, leading to disengagement and distrust of London-wide government.
Florence Eshalomi
We should declare an interest, as the hon. Gentleman and I both served as London Assembly members for south London—the best boroughs. He speaks about there not being accountability of the mayor. Would he recognise that even after the voting changes, our current mayor won an overall majority and was re-elected for the third time?
Peter Fortune
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I have tried hard to ensure that my new clauses are objective and would apply to anybody serving as mayor. If I could be cheeky, I can completely understand why she might not want to limit mayoral powers, being mindful of future ambitions that she might have.
New clause 65 would rectify the democratic deficit in London by giving the Assembly the power to direct that the mayor not take proposed decisions while they are under the Assembly’s review and scrutiny. It would also give the Assembly the power to recommend that the mayor reconsider a proposed decision. These powers should be standard for any devolved authority, and would ensure that the views of all Londoners are heard loud and clear by the mayor. The leaders of the 32 London boroughs have made a united cross-party call for a seat at the table as part of the devolution settlement for the capital, and I fully agree with them.
New clause 66 would start the process in delivering that new settlement, requiring the Secretary of State to consult on proposed reforms to the London Assembly, including proposals for greater involvement of London borough representatives in GLA decisions. I am firmly of the view that any new model must give the 32 boroughs a voice and a vote in London, so that not only my borough of Bromley but all London boroughs are able to contribute to and challenge decisions that impact them directly.
It is right that power is returned to our cities, regions and communities, but this must come with effective scrutiny and accountability of those who hold devolved power. There is a glaring democratic and accountability deficit in London, and anyone who is serious about the success of devolution in London will see that my new clauses are sensible first steps to rectifying that deficit. This is not political in nature. At this point, I note the excellent new clause 32, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), which also seeks to equalise that democratic deficit. As I said to the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), this is not political—indeed, the very make-up of the GLA means that these new clauses would return power to Assembly members of all parties, as well as empowering London boroughs and local councillors to do the job they were elected to do.
I urge the Government to embrace these new clauses, listen to London’s council leaders—the majority of whom are from the Labour party—and ensure that we have a properly accountable mayor in London and in all combined authorities up and down the country. It is difficult to see how anybody could seriously argue for less accountability.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
I really welcome devolution and look forward to a time when every local area really wants a mayor. I have tabled a number of amendments and new clauses, which I will go through in turn.
First, on the question of commissioners, I have to say that I disagree completely with the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) in her amendment 85 to clause 9. I really welcome commissioners being brought in; I think that if we want our mayors to do a good job, we need to give them tools that enable them to do that. I think of the commissioners coming in as the Magnificent Seven.
However, I have tabled amendments 161 and 162 on this matter, because my concern is how we got to the number seven. I have a gut feeling that we just went down the list and counted all the responsibilities that there were and came up with the number seven. As it stands, an individual commissioner can work in only one specific area, which I think gets rid of any sense of bringing in people with cross-cutting responsibilities. The Government talk a lot about governing in missions—what if mayors want to do the same kind of thing? We could get rid of the cap of seven or that list of responsibilities in order to enable people to look at different things. Of the responsibilities that mayors have at the moment, transport and infrastructure tend to be where they have the most. If we wanted to stick with the number seven, and a mayor wanted to look at somebody who was doing more of transport—an active travel commissioner, or anything like that—we should let the mayor decide.
New clause 60 is on the question of deputy mayors. This is, I think, a bit of an oddity. At the moment, the pool of people from which a mayor can choose their deputy is really limited, as it is made up of the people in their cabinet from each of the constituent authorities. That means that we could have a situation—as we already do in one part of the country—where a democratically elected mayor who stands on a political ticket is forced into choosing a deputy mayor who is not of their own political party. My new clause would open this process up so that they could choose a councillor who is also democratically elected, but from any of the different authorities that they represent. This would not solve the problem entirely—it would not help if an independent were elected, for example—but for the vast majority of people, whether the mayor is from the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, Labour or the Greens, or Reform, probably, it would solve that problem.
New clause 61, which brings in the concept of mayoral special advisers, is not going to be particularly popular, but I do think it would be useful. I just think this process needs to be more transparent; it happens at the moment, but it happens with a wink and a nod. I would like to bring out into the open the people who are providing political advice to democratically elected mayors.
On a more general level, it continues to concern me to some extent that all this devolution is based on the Greater Manchester model, and I think we need to look more widely than that. The Greater Manchester model is very different from other parts of the country, not least because it has a lot of councils that are all of the same political persuasion, and so the mayor ends up with a cabinet of people of the same political persuasion. That is not going to be the case as we roll out devolution further, and I think we need to think about that carefully.
Also, as local government reorganisation goes forward, we will have fewer councils from which cabinet members can be drawn, so it will be much easier for one individual to block something. Mayors need to be able to get on with decisive and responsive governance.
I turn to transport and clause 27. I often bore Transport Ministers because I really do think that bus stops, bus lanes and buses should all be looked after by the same individual. They are not at the moment, and that is down to the long-standing issue of a split between transport and highways. My area has a unitary authority, so those responsibilities are together, but they would be split up as soon as we got a mayor, as I hope we will, eventually. I very much welcome the power of direction on key route networks and—looking at that split—we could take that further.
I have some sympathy with amendment 23, tabled by the Conservatives, on micro-mobility. It seeks to ensure that there is enough parking for e-scooters. That, again, is a reason for looking at the highways and transport split. I welcome the Bill. It presents a real opportunity, and it could well be the most consequential Bill of this Parliament. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that we get devolution right by considering a few tweaks.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Let me begin with the title of the Bill; it claims, perhaps optimistically, to empower communities. By the end of this debate, we will see whether the Government truly intend to empower them. Community empowerment matters. I believe that my constituents and the councillors who represent them are far better placed to make informed decisions about their area than bureaucrats sitting in Whitehall. Every amendment I have tabled seeks to do one thing: empower communities. If Labour Members truly believe the Government’s rhetoric and intentions, I hope that they will support those amendments today.
I will focus primarily on my amendment to introduce a statutory requirement for referendums ahead of local government reorganisation, but before I do, let me briefly highlight my proposal on cross-boundary planning. New clause 33 seeks to fix a flaw in the planning system. My constituency straddles three local planning authorities. Too often, councils place the housing that they are required to allocate right on their boundary, knowing full well that the impact on services and infrastructure will fall primarily on a neighbouring authority that has little power to do anything about it.
Now, I am not a nimby. I recognise the need for better, affordable homes, but the system encourages siloed thinking. It enables councils to tick off the list their obligation to deliver housing stock, while residents living on the boundaries bear the brunt. Introducing joint planning committees for developments within specific distances of neighbouring authorities would at least bring about a dialogue that is currently absent. I ask the Minister to look at this anomaly in the planning system, so that local communities are better empowered over decisions in their area.
Amendments 104 to 106 offer the greatest opportunity to empower communities. We know that the Government will press ahead with local government reorganisation, and I understand the motives behind that; there is too much waste, and often there is duplication, and this would be one way of reducing it. But if the Government want to take people with them, including my constituents, residents must have the final say on their preferred reorganised boundaries through local referendums.
This is of real importance to the villages that I represent in Mid Leicestershire, where there is immense concern about being absorbed into the greater Leicester city council area. Residents in Birstall and Anstey have told me of their concerns that if reorganisation takes place and they are placed within Leicester city, they will face higher council tax. I thought that we in this place believed in the principle of no taxation without representation. Meanwhile, residents in Braunstone Town and Leicester Forest East are visibly and immensely concerned about the sad decline of Leicester city over the last few decades. After years of mismanagement, they have no desire whatsoever to see the Leicester city mayor have influence in their communities.
My constituents in Glenfield and Kirby Muxloe know exactly why the mayor wishes to extend his boundaries. After declaring a housing crisis, it is obvious that he would look at sites such as the old Weston Park golf course in Glenfield to meet the city’s housing stock requirements. The city mayor knows full well that this would place the burden squarely on the villages, not the city.
In conclusion, I commend the Government’s stated intention of empowering communities and reducing waste in local government. However, they should accept the amendments that I have tabled.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is giving a characteristically excellent speech. Does he find strange, as I do, the disjointed attitude that the Government have on referendums? The Government are happy to keep referendums for local authorities that want to change their internal structures, but when it comes to their forced local government reorganisation, they will not allow local authorities to have referendums—despite previous Labour Governments committing to them. What does my hon. Friend think about that?
Mr Bedford
My constituents are very concerned about that. It is a strange anomaly. In addition, under the current legislation, councils are required to hold referendums when they wish to increase council tax beyond a certain level, so it seems very strange that the Government will not empower local communities to hold a referendum when local boundaries are to be redrawn. In conclusion, let us empower our communities to decide their own destinies.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
I have to say, I had a great time on the Public Bill Committee. The Bill’s 400 pages were expertly navigated by the Minister, and our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), did an absolutely brilliant job. She unfortunately is not here today, but I should put on record how well she kept us in check as the Conservatives goaded us.
I must be cross-party in my thanks and say that I was very impressed with the hon. Members for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). Their ability to string out the 10 seconds of what they needed say into about 10 minutes to keep the Bill going was exemplary, and we saw some of that today; the hon. Member for Hamble Valley was cut short by Madam Deputy Speaker.
Paul Holmes
May I politely say to the hon. Gentleman that if he carries on congratulating Whips like that, he will go far?
Mike Reader
Fantastic advice from a very experienced politician.
To continue with my cross-party support, I very much thank the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), with whom I served on the armed forces parliamentary scheme. It was fascinating: no matter what the issue was, she always brought it back to local authorities. She wants to give a lot of power to these poor parish councils, and she spoke up so much for district and parish councils that we were told to stop intervening on her. I have 14 parish councils in my constituency, and I did ask them what they thought of the many Lib Dem proposals inviting them to engage in every single thing that a mayor may do, and overwhelmingly their view was, “Please leave us alone, and let us get on with doing what we are doing.” But I like the intention none the less.
I also want to mention the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). Before the Bill Committee, I did not know that she was a London Assembly member, but boy, do I know now. The experience she brought from being on the London Assembly went a long way. It was a really good Committee, so I do not accept what the hon. Member for Hamble Valley said about there being no constructive engagement. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion tabled amendments that sought to change how the mayoralties that have been brought forward by the Government think about the environment. I see the intention behind new clause 29, and with a bit more refinement of the Bill in the Lords, we may get to something really strong that ensures there is an environmental responsibility on our new mayors.
I thank the Minister for acknowledging the work that I and others have done on lane rental schemes, covered by new clause 43. They are a great way to control roadworks and make sure that they are delivered efficiently. The schemes are not a penalty; they are an incentive to make sure that utilities companies work in a way that minimises disruption. Where the companies do not perform, the money goes towards fixing more potholes and sorting out more roads. I particularly thank two of the big industry bodies, Clive Bairsto from Street Works UK and David Capon from the Highway Authorities and Utilities Committee UK. They supported me in my work on this.
I also pay tribute to our brilliant Transport Committee. The Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), is no longer in her place, but she did fantastic work on the Bill. It really goes to show that when we work collaboratively across the House, through Committees and through Government, we can make changes to legislation that make people’s lives better. If we can say nothing else about this Bill than that we have made sure that there are less roadworks and more potholes filled, I am sure all of our constituents will be quite happy.
The Minister and I have engaged quite heavily on upward-only rent reviews. I thank her for being constructive in her consideration of my challenge on how the Government have approached this. I repeat what I said on Second Reading and in Committee: the intention of the Bill is to protect the high streets. Even after amendment, the way the Bill is written means that it potentially impacts the whole of the commercial sector.
The UK is really fortunate to have a buoyant commercial property market, with double the investment seen in France and 50% more than in Germany. However, there is a real risk that the uncertainty caused by not putting a ringfence around how the upward-only rent review ban is to be brought forward will stifle investment. It could stop investment in data centres—a big data centre was announced for my constituency by the Government just last week—warehousing, which is critical to my constituents, as about one in five of them work in warehousing and logistics, new hospitals, healthcare and commercial offices—you name it. As we heard in evidence to the Bill Committee, we need to see more from the Government. Will the Minister confirm that before any ban is brought in, we will see a full consultation on the proposals? Off the back of that consultation, will restrictions be put in place, so that we do not see unintended consequences that stop the growth that our country desperately needs?
I said that I would talk to new clause 29. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for her tenacity. We met, and she explained that the Greens have to be selective about which Committees they join, owing to their small level of representation. She argued well for mayors to have more responsibility for air quality, environment and the like. It is really positive that the Government have already brought forward changes to that effect, and I am sure that the Minister will confirm that she will work with Members in the other place to bring forward further amendments to the Bill in due course, so that that is really well cemented and mayors do have the responsibility to protect our environment.
On some days, Northampton has worse air quality than London, Birmingham and many other towns and cities across the UK. Where I live in Northampton town centre, the effect of poor air quality is equivalent to that of smoking 80 cigarettes a year, so anything we can do to improve air quality in my town and across the country is critical.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I support my hon. Friend in his advocacy of new clause 29. The Minister mentioned that the Bill should be a floor on ambition, not a ceiling, and I am keen to seek reassurance on the climate duty, as I am sure my hon. Friend is. In particular, it is vital that local authorities can shape it locally, partly because they are responsible for a third of emissions, but also, interestingly, because organisations such as the Local Government Association, which is not known for wanting to increase obligations on local authorities, and UK100—I must declare my interest as its founder director—support giving duties to those local authorities. I am keen, as I am sure he is, for the Government to reassure us that they will seek such obligations in the future.
Mike Reader
I agree. I recognise that this is quite a challenge, because cross-Department working—in these first 16 months of government we have been exploring how siloed the previous Government left Whitehall—will be critical to getting the legislation right. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavillion for tabling the new clause, but it could be refined. Hopefully that will happen in the other place.
As a general observation, I listened to Conservative Members’ extensive contributions in Committee but could never quite get their position. At one point, it was that there should be more bureaucracy, more measures and more restrictions on mayors, but at the same time, they were arguing against powers, and wanted more freedom for mayors to choose. We even see that in the amendments before us. Some put restrictions on mayors and combined authorities, and others open up the stocks. Perhaps it is difficult to provide effective opposition in a party without real policy. I particularly appreciate the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) trying to bring in changes that would ensure support for oppositions that were ineffective in holding mayors to account.
I will finish my observations where I came in. I will talk about the south midlands and how my constituency is impacted. I have written about this publicly, so hopefully I am not overstepping the line. The south midlands region, which is critical to the Oxford to Cambridge arc, has been slightly forgotten in the devolution argument. We had a deal, but it fell apart, partly owing to political wrangling between my party, the Conservatives and a party that is barely here in the House. We need strategic leadership in the south midlands region to drive growth. The Government have centred much of the focus on clean tech, advanced manufacturing and the OxCam corridor. We see a lot of focus on Oxford and a lot of focus on Cambridge, but not a lot of focus on the middle.
While we may not be getting a mayor in the early devolution pilot, perhaps the Minister will consider whether an economic development area or something similar could be brought forward, as backed by the South Midlands Business Board and called for by those who want to invest in Northamptonshire, Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire. While I recognise there may not be political consensus on how a mayoral area should be formed—perhaps we will see gerrymandering from both sides—we need direction from the Government to ensure that we are not losing out on billions of pounds of investment that could come into the south midlands region and the OxCam corridor.
Overall, I am pleased to speak in support of the Government. The Bill is a great step forward. There have been many observations on the brilliant things buried in the Bill that will help our constituents. I look forward to seeing it further improved in the other place and coming back in due course, so that we can deliver devolution, simplify government and get the best bang for our buck in all our regions.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
I will speak to the amendments tabled by me and Liberal Democrat colleagues, particularly new clause 5 and amendment 27. If the Bill is to deliver meaningful and real devolution, it must involve the people who live with the decisions made by mayors and combined authorities. However, too much of the Bill as drafted keeps power in the hands of the Secretary of State or a small group around the mayor, with little scrutiny. Amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats, such as amendment 85, seek to put that right.
New clause 5, which I tabled, would place a clear duty on mayors to meet regularly with local councils, public service partners and, importantly, town and parish councils. In my rural constituency of Stratford-on-Avon, those councils are the closest form of local government. Rooted in their communities, they play a vital role in delivering services and supporting communities, and they have a depth of local knowledge that no regional authority could replicate. Requiring structured engagement would ensure that decisions are shaped by those who understand their communities best. What is currently a discretionary power to convene would become a mandatory obligation, ensuring that parish and town councils were explicitly recognised as part of the framework. Those councils, which will inherit assets from district councils when they are abolished, are indispensable partners for combined authorities and mayors, offering direct insight into local issues. New clause 5 would establish a structured forum for dialogue between mayors, councils and public service providers, ensuring co-ordination on shared priorities and improving co-operation across the region.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady made a number of excellent contributions in Committee. She will know that my party supported some of her amendments, and she has our support for what she has been doing. Is she concerned, as I am, that as the Government are pushing forward with local government reorganisation, while many more town and parish councils will be taking on assets from district councils and having a greater role in communities, they are being completely sidelined by the Government’s actions? Will she elaborate on what she thinks that might mean?
Manuela Perteghella
I thank the hon. Member for his support in Committee. We know that two-tier governments—district councils in the shires in particular—will be abolished, and town and parish councils will have to take on more assets and deliver even more services. However, as I said in Committee, the voice of town and parish councils is completely absent from the Bill. At present, decision making at regional level often feels remote from the communities it serves. Given the significant powers that mayors hold over transport, housing, skills and regeneration, it is imperative that local councils and community representatives are consistently engaged rather than consulted only at a mayor’s discretion.
Fundamentally, this measure reflects the very purpose of devolution: to bring power and decision making closer to the people whose lives are directly affected. It is a simple, practical step that would not require additional funding or alter existing powers but would deliver better communication, co-ordination and community engagement.
This also links to wider concerns about governance and geography. In Warwickshire, there is a strong case for two new unitaries for the north and south of the county, rather than one large super-unitary. Analysis has shown that the two-unitary model performs better in Warwickshire than a single county-wide authority, and public support is clear, with 73% of residents of south Warwickshire favouring two councils. Several Liberal Democrat amendments on today’s paper, including those I have tabled, would work to safeguard proper local engagement in any future devolution arrangements.
The Bill empowers local and strategic authorities to encourage visitors, yet it contains no statutory requirement to involve town and parish councils in this process. My amendment 27 goes to the heart of the need for our strategic authorities to work with places they represent. Tourism is not a side issue for Stratford-on-Avon; it is central to our local economy, our cultural life and our international reputation. Stratford town council plays a leading role in major events such as the Shakespeare birthday celebrations, which bring visitors from across the world, demonstrating the vital contribution of town councils to cultural exchange and soft power, yet the Bill includes no duty for any new strategic authority to engage town and parish councils when shaping tourism plans. That is a real risk for a place such as Stratford, which has so much to offer but depends on constructive partnership to keep thriving.
Amendment 27 would put that duty in law and require a published record of engagement, so that towns in my constituency are not overlooked in regional strategies. Taken together, these measures give local communities a genuine voice in tourism planning. Town and parish councils know their areas best: the attractions, the infrastructure needs and the opportunities for growth. This amendment also promotes inclusive planning. Too often, small towns, villages and rural areas are overlooked in broader strategies despite their vital contribution to the economy. By embedding their perspectives, we will support equitable growth across both urban and rural areas. In short, these amendments are practical, transparent and community focused. They would strengthen devolution by ensuring that local voices were heard, respected and reflected in tourism policy, thereby delivering strategies that are both effective and rooted in the communities they serve.
Briefly, new clause 74, submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), would be an important addition to the Bill to give local areas the ability to limit and regulate junk food advertising in their communities. The new clause would make a positive impact on health, especially that of our young people. If the Government truly want devolution to succeed, they should accept these proposals, along with the wider set of amendments tabled by my Liberal Democrat colleagues.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
One of the advantages of this Government’s plan for devolution is that it offers the opportunity to address the country’s many regional inequalities. Indeed, strategic authorities, particularly those with mayoralties, have the ability to address inequalities within individual regions. The Bill’s original clause 43 addresses health, wellbeing and public services reform, and it is Government amendments 116 and 118 and amendment 172 that I wish to discuss.
This section of the Bill confers a new duty on all combined authorities and combined county authorities to have regard to improving the health of persons in their area and reducing health inequalities between persons in their area. Amendment 172 outlines the requirements for a health inequalities strategy, which may include the metrics for healthy life expectancy, infant mortality rates and poverty, including child poverty. My constituency of Stoke-on-Trent South and the villages has the interesting profile of sitting across a number of councils: the two unitaries—Stoke-on-Trent city council and Staffordshire county council—as well as Stafford borough council and Staffordshire Moorlands district council. I was also a councillor in neighbouring Newcastle-under-Lyme for several years, so I have the advantage of a broad view across the long-recognised area of north Staffordshire. I should add that there is a road in my constituency, Uttoxeter Road, that has five lots of bins from five different councils, which is quite an achievement.
There are clear inequalities across all areas, and of course there are pockets of wealth and deprivation in all. However, the health statistics outline a harsh reality. When we compare Staffordshire county council and Stoke-on-Trent city council’s female healthy life expectancy, we see that in Staffordshire it is 63, compared with the national average of 61.5, but in Stoke it is just 55. Men in Stoke can expect a healthy life until they are 56, compared with 63 in Staffordshire, with the national average being 61. We see the same for overall life expectancy, with Staffordshire above average and Stoke below average. I have on many occasions raised the shocking fact that Stoke-on-Trent routinely scores highest for infant mortality rates, and the shocking statistic that a baby born in Stoke-on-Trent will have half the chance of surviving to their fifth birthday than the national average.
Mike Reader
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this, because we have a similar issue between in Northamptonshire. We have a 15-year difference in life expectancy between Northampton town centre and rural areas such as Brackley. We are talking about an area of 20 or 30 miles. Does she agree that, although it is positive to see changes already in the Bill to address this, more could be done in the other place to improve the Bill further?
Dr Gardner
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is with great sadness that I see this fight between cities and rural areas that demonises the city areas. Around Stoke-on-Trent we have a doughnut economy. Stoke generates wealth for north Staffordshire and it filters out to the rural areas, yet we hear people saying, “No to Stoke, no to Stoke.” People need to understand that we are all one in north Staffordshire.
I offer a new fact: the under-75 mortality rate from all causes for Staffordshire, as of the 2023 statistics, was 319.5, compared with an England national average rate of 341.6. However, in Stoke the under-75 mortality rate from all causes was a whopping 474. It is understandable that any devolution has to address this disparity, and I look at this broadening to help us to do that. I stress that this does not mean that improving Stoke’s outcomes means we are going to take away or reduce Staffordshire’s. This is often a knee-jerk fear reaction for some, and a tool for the Conservative and Reform parties to use for political scaremongering. I am saddened to hear the views on this of the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), who I greatly respect and personally like. I wish that there could be some understanding and cross-conversation on this issue.
I also wish to speak in support of Government amendments 116 and 118, which address health improvements, health inequality duties and health determinants. The Government are right to add environmental factors including air quality and access to green space and bodies of water. We have talked about boundaries. In my own constituency, the Meir tunnel has high levels of poor air quality in an area with high levels of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, but fixing that issue is extremely difficult as it is on a boundary with neighbouring councils.
The value of green space is also an issue close to my heart. When Meir park, a much-loved green space, had all its trees knocked down, out of the blue, it caused some residents genuine fear, upset and hurt. Also, Trentham gardens are in the border area covered by Staffordshire county council, Stafford borough council and Stoke-on-Trent city council, with ensuing traffic problems. It has the most beautiful lake, and I one day I hope to find the time to go paddle boarding on it again. The quality of our environment is vital to mental and physical health, and I hope that the value of green space, good air quality and access to the advantage of bodies of water will always be central to any policy.
In Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire, we are looking to achieve an enhanced north Staffordshire unitary authority under local government reorganisation, and I am particularly supportive of the broader proposal submitted by Staffordshire Moorlands district council, which sensibly outlines travel-to-work areas, economic functional areas, cultural links and transport links. We sit at the beginning of a north midlands growth corridor to Derby and Nottingham that offers this country a huge opportunity to create a strategic centre for growth across the middle of England.
While we have still to decide a devolution model for North Staffordshire, southern Staffordshire and Staffordshire as a whole, I ask that we think radically and consider our east-west links to the east midlands and the potential of a north midlands strategic authority. Whatever we end up with, I ask the Minister for more details for Stoke and Staffordshire as to the plans and timelines for devolution.
Paul Holmes
I am slightly disappointed with the tone the hon. Lady is taking. If we are talking about devolution in a devolution debate, she should respect the right of an hon. Member elected by their constituents, and of councillors elected by local people, to say they do not want local government reorganisation. Why is she supporting a gun-to-the-head mentality when local authority leaders do not want to go through with it?
Dr Gardner
I reject the emotive use of terms like “gun to the head”. The Stoke-on-Trent city council and Staffordshire Moorlands district council proposals on LGR have been approved, and they are the democratically elected councils for those areas. The wider Staffordshire county council, which is now under Reform, had one proposal out of the blue, and now does not want reorganisation either; it is chaotic.
We cannot keep having this. This is something that will happen, and I say to my constituents, “This is going to happen, so we need to make it work for us.” I need people to start saying yes to the opportunity, yes to growth and yes to the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before I call the next speaker, I remind Members to address their comments to the business in front of the House, which is the remaining stages of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I support several new clauses and amendments to the Bill, but, frankly, I am fundamentally opposed to the changes it would impose on our constituents. That is why amendments 104 to 106 are so important, as well as new clause 1, which is due to be discussed tomorrow.
Before strategic authorities or any other new bodies are created, the amendments would ensure that local people have the power to decide the future in their area. In Committee, the Minister for Devolution used some very creative language to ensure that councils were not being forced into reorganisation. The Minister spoke of “inviting councils” and “having a conversation” with residents, but that is doublespeak. If the Government really wanted to give councils and local people a proper say, they would pass these amendments, but I fear they will not. That refusal strikes at the heart of the contradiction of devolution.
There have been lots of warm words from the Government about giving people a stake in the place where they live and in their life and transferring power out of Westminster. But this Bill, and what we are already seeing in the priority areas, keeps real decisions with Ministers and civil servants in Whitehall. In Surrey, which has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), we have seen the Secretary of State decree at the stroke of a pen that there will be two new unitary authorities, probably with a strategic authority on top of that, rather than three unitaries, which most councils have supported.
For all the talk from this Labour Government about a bottom-up process, it is clear that no matter what existing councils decide following extensive public consultations such as we have had in Hertfordshire, new local government structures will be whatever best suits the Minister and civil servants in Whitehall.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend made a number of excellent contributions in Bill Committee. Is he concerned, as I am, that the Minister consistently said that there would be consultation and that this would be up to local people and councillors, but at every stage the backstop was mentioned and the Minister said that this would go ahead anyway? There is no choice in this reorganisation. Does he agree that the Government need to look again and listen to local people who disagree with what is happening to their councils, and who know their areas best?
Lewis Cocking
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he has done on the Floor of the House putting forward our case on where the Government have got it wrong on devolution. He raised an important point about the Government having instructed local councils to come up with proposals for devolution and unitarisation. There has been no choice in that, as I know from speaking to my fantastic councillors at Broxbourne council, which is Conservative led under Councillor Corina Gander. She does not want to reorganise, does not want devolution and does not want it forced on the areas that she and I represent. When I go out on the doorstep, no one has ever said to me, “You know what, Lewis? This is what we need to do in our area—we need to reorganise. We need to have an elected mayor, a strategic authority and a new massive unitary council representing up to half a million people.” No one has ever raised that with me on the doorstep, and it just goes to show that this Government are not listening to the priorities of the British people.
Paul Holmes
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way once more; I hope he forgives me. Has the council leader he mentioned given that feedback to Government on the fact that they do not want reorganisation, and what answers were given to them?
Lewis Cocking
The council leader has fed that back to Government and the answer has been, “Tough—get on with it. This is what we are doing, and this is what we propose to happen. You have to come up with a proposal that you think works in your area, regardless of whether you want to do it.” I have spoken to many councils and council leaders across the country, and that is the message they have given us loud and clear, and that is the message I have received locally from my local council leader.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
The hon. Member talks about people in his community not wanting the measures in the Bill. I do not know about his constituents, but my constituents often talk to me about the many abandoned shops on the high street, and there are measures to tackle that in this Bill through the community powers, right to buy and the rent review powers. My constituents are frustrated about the lack of economic growth over the last 14 years and the lack of house building over a number of years. Again, there are a number of measures in the Bill to tackle those issues. Is it not true that the issues that people care about are directly addressed by the additional powers that local areas will have from the Bill?
Lewis Cocking
I can take the hon. Member to my constituency if he wants to see a pro-growth local council that has delivered a local plan and delivered housing. What has held us back is the fact that we do not have the infrastructure in place because of that. We have been punished; we have been a good local council and met our housing targets, yet this Labour Government are forcing more housing on us with no powers to get the infrastructure that people need.
My constituency borders London, and when the Bill came out, my constituents said to me on the doorstep, “I do not want to be part of the Greater London area and to be under the Mayor of London”. We have seen the disastrous effect that devolution has had on London, and my constituents definitely do not want to be a part of that. I gently push back on the hon. Member that I do not agree with his analogy of the current state of play. If the Government really wanted to empower councils—I stray a tiny bit away from the topic—to help them improve town centres and create economic growth, they could give powers to the councils we already have. They could get on and do that tomorrow, rather than waiting for this Bill to go through the House, with all the amendments the Government put down, because this Bill is clearly not ready to receive Royal Assent. We tabled a number of amendments in Committee. It just shows that the Government have got this wrong and should go back to the drawing board.
Danny Beales
I thank the hon. Member for his generosity and am happy to take him up on his offer to visit his constituency, have a drink and discuss local issues. He is welcome to come to my constituency, too.
I listened carefully to the 20-minute speech of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), but did not hear many proposals for the functions of devolution—the powers that could be given and the extra devolution empowerment that could take place. I heard a lot about the form of devolution—whether the county or regional mayor structures are right, for example. It is no wonder that we failed to grasp the issue of devolution and community empowerment in the previous 14 years, given that the Conservative party is still so obsessed by the form of devolution rather than by its function, which is to give away power and empower communities.
Lewis Cocking
I do not think that the Bill does that. It enables Ministers to force councils to reorganise. It keeps power in Whitehall. It does not devolve powers to councils. I have mentioned a number of times in questions to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government that my council is crying out for more powers over the houses in multiple occupation that are affecting our town centre. As I said in Committee, a tiny part of the Bill is good and deals with the licensing of e-scooters. We all know what a scourge e-scooters represent across our constituencies up and down the country. That is the tiny good thing in the Bill, but the Government do not need a Bill to do that; they could legislate very quickly to give councils the powers to deal with that issue. Instead, we have to wait for months on end to solve a small issue through this Bill.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend understand why my Isle of Wight constituents reject the idea of a new mayor being imposed upon them under the name of “Hampshire and Solent”, with the Isle of Wight name disappearing? My constituents do not live in the Solent. Indeed, nobody lives in the Solent other than fish.
Lewis Cocking
My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for his constituents. We had a long discussion about that issue in Committee. I completely agree that “Isle of Wight” should be in the name of that combined mayoral authority. The Isle of Wight has a good local identity. It is important, when we create these new strategic authorities, that we take local people with us. We will not take the people of the Isle of Wight with us if we do not include such a significant community in the name of that combined authority.
Lewis Cocking
As he is a Hampshire MP, I will give way to the shadow Minister.
Paul Holmes
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way once again. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) will be pleased to note that we raised that matter in Committee, but our arguments were resisted by the Government.
In relation to the assertion of the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) that we are not concerned about the functions of devolution, does my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) recall that we pressed a number of amendments, including on the devolution of transport regulations—powers that the Bill does not hand down to mayors—but they were resisted by the Government? That assertion is just not correct, is it?
Lewis Cocking
I agree. We tabled a number of constructive amendments in Committee, and we worked across parties, with Members of all stripes, to improve the Bill and get these powers out into the community, where they can best be used. As my hon. Friend quite rightly points out, the Government would not even listen to logical arguments about how the Bill could empower local communities. As I have said, “community empowerment” might be in the Bill’s name, but it is not what is in the Bill.
Dame Meg Hillier
I thank the hon. Member, who is making some interesting points. On his point about a referendum, the balance of numbers in a villages-versus-conurbation vote means that there might well be an obvious outcome to such a referendum. We have seen really good work in devolution in Greater Manchester. Previously disconnected towns and villages—terrible for young people trying to get to education and for people trying to get to work—have benefited from improved transport, thanks to a desire to see the region as part of an overall whole without damaging the character of those towns and villages.
Lewis Cocking
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point with which I have great sympathy. We have to try to take different communities together, but we should not compare the rural county of Hertfordshire with a significant number of large towns that are not interlinked naturally by roads and railways or by people’s jobs. Lots of my constituents work in London and would never, or hardly ever, make the journey of about an hour along the A414 to Watford or Hemel Hempstead. The situation is very different. I can understand how devolution works when there is a single city centre and why in some respects it works in our towns and city regions where there is a single space, but I do not understand how it will work in practice when there are a number of towns all of the same size.
Dr Gardner
In Staffordshire, which is quite rural—I have Stoke-on-Trent city centre in my constituency—we have that shared interlinking, and it is very important to the development of north Staffordshire. Staffordshire Moorlands council has shared services with High Peak in Derbyshire. Much of Stoke-on-Trent city council service provision is in the neighbouring town of Newcastle-under-Lyme, and likewise with Stafford borough, which uses Cannock Chase services. Shared and interlinked services exist in rural areas and can work together.
Lewis Cocking
I was talking about the physical aspects of the transport currently in place, and the transport in Hertfordshire makes it very difficult for such interlinking services. The hon. Lady makes an interesting point around shared services of councils. The Government have said on a number of occasions that they have brought forward this community empowerment Bill and devolution in order to make councils more efficient and save loads of money. I do not believe it will save lots of money, for the reasons the hon. Lady has rightly pointed out: many councils already have those shared services. There are lots of councils with shared planning departments or shared audit, and indeed combined authorities also have shared back-office functions.
Paul Holmes
One of the other issues we were concerned about on the Bill Committee was the fact that the Government have not given any indication of what will be happening with debt in the context of local government reform. Does my hon. Friend agree that that adds to uncertainty in the progress of this Bill and does not give any certainty to local government leaders?
Lewis Cocking
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The Government must come forward on that, as we are yet to hear solutions for councils with large amounts of debt. Councils are being forced into reorganisation and to have conversations about who they want to be joined with, but some of them have no choice, because it is a matter of geography, and sometimes they might not be able to join with the partners with which they have strategic and shared services.
In summary—
Lewis Cocking
I will not take any more interventions, as I have been more than generous—
Joe Robertson
My hon. Friend is very kind to give way, perhaps with a little pressure from more senior Members sitting just in front of him. He poses the question of whether there is a combined area where all the unified communities link well together. Sadly, I can give an example of a forthcoming area where they do not: Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. The only link between the Isle of Wight and Hampshire is through the ferry companies which are entirely privatised, unregulated and controlled by private equity groups. This was the perfect opportunity for the Government to ensure that fare regulation was given to the mayor, so the mayor had that strategic transport authority across the whole area, but the Government have so far failed to do that, which is why I brought forward an amendment that I will speak to later. Does my hon. Friend have a view on this missed opportunity to bring ferry companies within the regulatory framework of, say, rail and buses, which is perfectly consensual among parties in this country?
Lewis Cocking
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I signed his amendment, as that issue is important. It goes back to what I said at the beginning of this debate: the Bill is not ready to go any further. The Government should have thought about this. The amendment is logical and seeks to achieve what the Government want to achieve on, for example, buses; it seeks to achieve lots of the same things around other strategic transport and other active travel routes, so it should be in the Bill. It has cross-party support from both Members representing the Isle of Wight, and goes back to the cross-party working on the Bill Committee, where we put forward logical amendments that seek to benefit the strategic authority that the Government want to create in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. The new mayor who is elected for that authority is going to have one hand tied behind their back, because he or she will not have the powers to join those communities together and really create the economic growth.
I am against the principle of what the Government are trying to do in this Bill; just because they have “community empowerment” written at the top of the Bill does not mean that it will empower local communities, and I urge the Government to think again.
Danny Beales
I welcome the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill that the House is considering again this evening. I must make a confession: I was not on the Bill Committee. It sounds like I missed out, according to some of the descriptions of the fun that was had. It is not the first time I have heard that a Bill Committee was such an enjoyable cross-party affair.
Many of us across the House had extensive experience in local government prior to entering this place—I had 10 years’ experience of local government in a London borough—and will all have seen the fantastic role that local government can play, connecting communities, responding to concerns, and understanding, often before national Government, emerging economic and social issues that require action and a response. However, as well as seeing that potential, those of us who served in local government will often have seen it held back and felt frustration at communities lacking powers and often funding to respond to social and economic challenges.
Our country differs greatly: local areas and communities are not all the same and they face different challenges. My Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency in Hillingdon in west London is very different from the constituencies of and challenges faced by many other hon. Members. It is right that cities, areas and regions of our country have the ability and the powers, and the funding when necessary, to respond to those issues.
Dame Meg Hillier
My hon. Friend highlights the challenge. London is often described as a series of villages, yet we have one elected Mayor of London, whose post was created 25 years ago with the London Assembly. Does he agree that, being strategic, the mayor can serve both an inner-city London borough such as mine in Hackney and one such as his in outer London, through measures such as the Superloop? I am sure my hon. Friend has other examples of how a mayor can serve all communities while having a strategic view of the whole.
Danny Beales
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution and wholeheartedly agree. We should be guided by the principle of subsidiarity. Power should be given and exercised as locally as possible. Clearly, some powers have to be exercised in this place, at national level, and also at regional level it makes sense to act, and the mayor rightly has the ability to co-ordinate our transport system in London. We do not want multiple decisions about transport infrastructure such as our tube network.
Dr Gardner
I wanted to intervene on the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), but he had on his feet for over 20 minutes and I decided to give him a break. However, I want to raise that issue now. Much has been made about the conflict of planning—local planning going right to the boundaries, creating issues for infrastructure planning, which often sits at the wider unitary level. Devolution and wider strategic authority oversight, including greater planning oversight, will help to address some of the challenges and stresses we can face. Is that something my hon. Friend sees in the London boroughs?
Danny Beales
That is almost certainly true. There are strategic issues that need to be considered, and whether they are strategic powers for planning or licensing, as we are discussing in some of the amendments, there is the need for a greater role for regional mayors and authorities. It is right that local communities can respond to local issues, but there is a need for guiding infrastructure decisions on things such as heating networks, energy networks and data centre networks, and co-ordinating them at regional level makes a great deal of sense. Despite the need for greater decision making at a local and regional level, we still live in one of the most centralised political systems in the western world.
Our communities must be able to meet the challenges that they face, and that is why I welcome the raft of new powers in the Bill and the Government amendments. They will drive growth and provide opportunities to respond to new local challenges, now and in the future.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Many of us agree with the concept of genuine devolution and bringing power to communities, but is the real problem not that the measures in the Bill will mean a power grab away from communities, and that Whitehall will be giving directions to local government? That basic contradiction at the heart of the Bill causes so much trouble.
Danny Beales
I respectfully disagree. One of the challenges of having one of the most centralised decision-making systems in the world is that we have to decide, in this House, how we give power away and devolve it. To be frank, while hopefully being respectful, we hear a lot from the Conservatives about the desire to empower communities, but their record speaks for itself. The last Labour Government set up the first mayoral authorities, including the Mayor of London and the London Assembly, and devolution to our nations, which has been built on over the years. With this Bill, we are taking another step forward on devolution. The Conservatives talk a good game on this issue, but they had 14 years to act.
Lewis Cocking
The last Labour Government, which was elected in 1997, established devolution and moved powers away from Westminster under the premise of a referendum result. However, this Labour Government are choosing not to undertake such a referendum. Which does the hon. Gentleman support: having a referendum or not having a referendum?
Danny Beales
The hon. Gentleman did not respond to my offer to come to his constituency for a drink, but he would be welcome in Uxbridge and South Ruislip at any time. It is a lovely place, with many fantastic options for drinks. I do not agree with the Conservatives that every structural change to local government requires a full referendum of current or potential constituents. As far as I am aware, no one voted for the establishment of the current London borough arrangements, or the county council arrangement. Apart from some less positive ones at a national level, I do not remember many referendums undertaken or proposed by the Conservatives about devolution or structural changes to our political system, so I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. There are different ways of consulting residents and engaging with communities.
Lewis Cocking
The hon. Gentleman says that the Conservatives did not have referendums on structural political changes, but we did have a referendum to change the voting system; I voted against a change. That is a prime example of the Conservatives seeking the consent of the British people for a political change.
Danny Beales
I also voted against, in the alternative vote referendum, so we are united in our agreement on that.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I am a member of a new combined authority in the east midlands and there was no referendum on that. I do not believe that there was a referendum on the North Yorkshire combined authority either. Does my hon. Friend agree that there are different ways of engaging on this issue, and that putting councils with local representatives at the heart of that process is a good thing?
Danny Beales
I wholeheartedly agree. My hon. Friend’s comment speaks for itself. We can look at the Conservatives’ record, and at what they now preach in opposition.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman referred to the powers that are being devolved to mayors, but does he accept that the mayors referred to in clause 38 and schedule 19 have different powers from the London Mayor? In effect, those mayors will become puppets of central Government, because their local growth plans will have to be signed off by the Secretary of State, whereas the London Mayor is not answerable to the Government. Is that a matter of great concern to him?
Danny Beales
I thank the hon. Gentleman, my friend from the Health and Social Care Committee, on which we have had many good and fruitful discussions, but I disagree with him on this point. There are significant steps forward in the Bill in devolving powers to communities at different levels—at individual and community level, as well as at regional and mayoral level. I would say that if we look at devolved regional arrangements, we see that the Mayor of London’s powers have not kept up. Arguably, greater progress has been made with the Mayor of Greater Manchester, given his range of powers and the number of areas in which he operates. There are different arrangements in different parts of the country, so I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation.
I speak in support of a number of amendments that will give local government, particularly in London and my constituency, new tools. These will improve the lives of residents in Uxbridge and South Ruislip. New clause 31, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), to which I am a co-signatory, will allow mayors to implement a tourist levy on overnight stays. For many years, many councils have been calling for this change; during my time in local government, I remember calling for an overnight stay levy. There is a range of reasons why one might want such a levy, and I note the welcome support from Labour Mayors Sir Sadiq Khan and Steve Rotheram. Clearly, tourism has huge benefits for our communities, including jobs, the cultural enrichment of visitors coming to our cities, support for existing and new businesses, and the revenue that tourism brings to our country.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend about the overnight stay levy, but I would like it to go further. Cornwall relies a lot on our tourism trade, but it brings with it a whole series of costs that are not recognised in any local government settlement. Cornwall is very long and thin, but by geography, it is the largest unitary authority in the country, and it is a very stable unitary authority, having been established for 15 years or so. A lot of visitors come for not one night, but a few days. Does he agree that by restricting the levy to an overnight stay, we would lose the opportunity to build revenue from those tourists who are coming for longer?
Danny Beales
Communities in Cornwall, Dorset and Devon, in common with many in London, have experience of the overnight stay and tourist economy, and of the impact on local communities. They know about the powers, budgets and fiscal freedoms that councils and mayors have to respond to the issues. I agree that the levy should be charged per night of travel. One challenge that I have often heard is that if the levy were to apply to the hotel sector or formal visitor stay sector only, and not to the informal sector or the short-term let sector, that might disadvantage important businesses, jobs and institutions, and not tackle that more informal visitor economy that can pose challenges in London, and in places like that represented by my hon. Friend.
Dame Meg Hillier
Talking of the informal economy, Airbnb is a big issue in London. The old-style Airbnb, in which you simply stayed with somebody, has been overtaken, and people are now purchasing flats just to let them out through Airbnb. I believe Airbnb is within the scope of the Bill, but does my hon. Friend have any thoughts about how this issue should be captured? There are whole developments near my constituency that have been bought just to be let through Airbnb, but we desperately need that housing. We want the levy, which could increase income for councils, but we also need the homes. Does my hon. Friend have any thoughts on that?
Danny Beales
I wholeheartedly agree that that is an issue. As my hon. Friend points out, the short-term let sector is included in the amendment, although I do not think that the amendment will be enough to regulate the short-term let sector more generally; that is a slightly separate matter. The previous Government’s deregulation in this area, with the 90-day rule, has not worked in practice. We all know that, and it has impacted our communities. Lots of data and evidence has been gathered by councils to show the loss of thousands of homes in our country, which were used by families and are now used as professional tourism accommodation. While that is good for the tourist economy, it is bad for our local housing system.
Dame Meg Hillier
In my constituency, as well as in Camden, Islington, Southwark and other inner-London boroughs, schools are closing, apparently partly because of short-term lets. This does not apply so much in my constituency, but in some areas, the homes are there, but people do not live in them full time, or sometimes at all. Families do not stay there. That has a detrimental impact on the ability of our schools to stay open.
Danny Beales
My hon. Friend describes perfectly the impacts that we see. Even in outer London and Hillingdon, we see the impact of the short-term let sector. We see it near Heathrow, which is very proximate to my constituency.
New clause 31 would enable differential charging. It does not mandate what the charges would be, or that one charge would apply to all sectors, so there would be the potential to charge the informal short-term let sector more per night or day than the formal stay sector.
Dr Gardner
I am quite interested in what my hon. Friend says about the differential approach. As a councillor, I know that Stoke-on-Trent is not necessarily known for its tourism industry, although that is absolutely a failure on the part of the country and of everybody, because we have great tourism attractions in Stoke. I have seen that when we have Airbnbs on family estates, and different people come and go, it creates an awful lot of unrest, antisocial behaviour and real concern about the revolving door of different people, which upsets local residents. [Interruption.] My apologies. Does he agree that the proposed approach would be of benefit?
Danny Beales
I certainly agree. The costs that result from the visitor economy are not adequately met by the tax revenue for local authorities or mayoral authorities.
Joe Robertson
My constituency is popular with tourists. In the spirit of the hon. Gentleman’s conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), I invite him to visit my constituency; I think he missed our Health and Social Care Committee visit last year. Airbnbs are a big challenge, and are detrimental to the business of some small hoteliers, who are really struggling to keep their businesses going. Can the hon. Gentleman offer a small thought on that?
Danny Beales
I thank the hon. Gentleman, another colleague from the Health and Social Care Committee, for his offer to come to the Isle of Wight; I would be very happy to do so. I could experience the ferry issue, which I am sure he will talk about. I agree with his comments.
Revenue derived from tourism often goes directly to the Treasury, rather than funding the local services needed to create and respond to the tourism economy. The tourism levy proposed in new clause 31 would be a relatively small charge on visitors to our cities, and would create a new source of revenue for local growth initiatives.
A tourist levy would not be unique to London; British tourists regularly pay a tourism levy when we visit other high-profile cities across the world, including Paris, Rome and Berlin, to name just a few. Many will not even have noticed the charge of a couple of euros a night on their bill, but this funding source makes a positive difference to those cities, so why not have one in our cities in the UK? The creation of a tourism levy in those places has had no significant impact on visitor numbers, and none of us would be put off from our trip to Paris, Barcelona or Rome because of it.
A tourist levy would also be fairer to the residents of London. We all know that mass tourism brings disadvantage and pressures, as well as many benefits and advantages. A tourism levy would ensure that visitors paid their fair share for the upkeep of our city, just as British tourists do when travelling abroad. With 38 million visits to the UK every year, half of which are to London, there is a clear opportunity to raise a substantial pot of revenue to improve the experience of residents and visitors alike in London. It could fund and support cultural activities, such as the Christmas and other light displays that we want to see around our city, but that have become more difficult to afford. It could pay for additional security for our town centres and high streets, whether it is Oxford Street or major town centres in our boroughs. It could pay for the much better public realm investment that we often clearly need, but that has not been delivered for many years.
Through this measure, which has been long discussed but which we have failed to deliver or grasp time and again, we could let areas decide whether to levy such a charge and enjoy the proceeds of that revenue.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. The hon. Member cannot speak from where she is seated.
Danny Beales
If the Minister feels unable to accept new clause 31, I hope that they can provide a route that allows us to consider such a measure later in the Bill’s progress, at the Budget, or through future legislation.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is speaking eloquently about the length of time people have been lobbying for this power. I felt that when I was a councillor. Does he agree that the right to request in this Bill will help mayors to identify these issues, and provide a pathway for them to request such powers much more quickly?
Danny Beales
That is an excellent point well put. Far too often, we see these trends emerging at a local level. We see a new industry using new technology, and we will be tearing our hair out trying to respond with our limited and restricted powers. We try to come up with creative ways around the system to do that and traditionally bang on the door of Government to try to make changes to legislation—as we all know, that can take a long time—while communities struggle with the impacts. This right is an excellent provision in the Bill that will enable Government to work smarter, quicker and more collaboratively with local communities.
Let me turn to the issue of licensing reform, which is also proposed in the amendments before us. London’s hospitality and cultural life is at the very heart of our economy. It is a huge industry and has driven a great deal of creativity and growth throughout our history. Our hospitality, culture and nightlife sectors are critical to the capital’s success and national economic growth, with London’s hospitality industry alone generating £46 billion annually and accounting for one in 10 jobs in the city. Those jobs are right across all our constituencies, in London and the UK too. I have had offers to visit great pubs in the Isle of Wight and in other places, which I look forward to doing.
However, these vital industries are under increasing pressure from rising costs and outdated systems, including our licensing system, which can be inconsistent, lack transparency and be overly weighted towards objections. That is why I welcome Government new clause 44 and Government new schedule 2, which will allow the Mayor of London to set strategic licensing policy that local licensing authorities must take into account when making licensing decisions and setting their own policies.
Lewis Cocking
Does the hon. Member support my proposal that councils, particularly local district councils that currently have planning powers, need more powers over the licensing of houses in multiple occupation? They cause terrible antisocial behaviour issues and parking issues right across the country, and we need more powers to stop HMOs where they are not wanted. What are his views on giving local powers to councils to stop HMOs?
Danny Beales
HMOs are an increasing challenge in all our constituencies—certainly in my own—and they are a symptom of the broken housing market. The fact that people can make so much money from subdividing family homes and selling out rooms—they are even subdividing rooms and making thousands of pounds—is a symptom of 14 years of failure to deliver the homes we need.
I welcome the Government’s measures to address the root cause of the problem, but in immediately responding to those concerns I agree with the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) that we must take more steps to regulate the HMO sector. Councils have some powers—my own council is reluctantly and eventually getting around to consulting on those proposals after many months—but we need to enable councils to go further and act faster and not have to consult as quickly, or at least to speed things up by allowing shadow licensing conditions before or while consulting.
Dame Meg Hillier
I cannot help but note that earlier the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) was concerned about 21,000 new homes being built in Enfield, which is not in his constituency, but on the edge of it. He made some sensible points about infrastructure, but does my hon. Friend agree that we need new homes because individuals in houses in multiple occupation need their own homes? Does he also agree that there may be a contradiction in what the hon. Member for Broxbourne has just said?
Danny Beales
I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. I do not want to get in the middle of a disagreement across the Chamber, but she has made her point expertly.
Greater strategic oversight of the licensing system is vital, and authorities must take strategic policies into account when making decisions. These amendments will not get rid of licensing decisions and powers at local level, but they will provide a better strategic framework. They will help to unlock the full potential of London’s hospitality, nightlife, culture and events economy, helping venues to stay open longer, expand and succeed where they are well managed. That is often the case, but they are held back by restrictive or outdated policies that have not been kept up to date. This approach will be good for business, good for the taxpayer and good for Londoners, helping to maintain London’s global reputation as a leading city for arts and culture. We also have to recognise that certain areas and sectors are often of strategic and cultural importance for our city and our nation, whether it is the music scene in certain parts of our cities, the live performance areas that have developed over many years, or areas such as Soho that are particularly important for the LGBTQ population. It is right that those areas have strategic oversight and protection, and that there are strategic policies to guide their futures.
I will also speak in support of the reforms on lane rental schemes, and to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader), who is now not in his place, for his contributions on this in Committee. Londoners, including my constituents, often express frustration—I am sure many of us hear it—about seemingly endless roadworks, with roadworks left unfinished while teams move on to the next place down the road and dig up another road before finishing what they have started. It often feels like there is a real lack of co-ordination and a lack of incentives in the system to work together, move quickly and resolve these issues. Lane rental schemes are a proven way of reducing such inconveniences to the bare minimum. Such schemes allow a highway authority to charge utility companies per day for works on the busiest roads at the busiest times. They work because they reduce the amount of time that roadworks occupy the network and encourage companies to carry works out collaboratively, minimising disruption to road users.
Joe Robertson
The hon. Member is speaking about an important issue—that of utility companies seemingly closing roads without due consideration. Indeed, Southern Water tried to close the main road into Bembridge in my constituency from 1 December to 21 December; it did not consult with the local community, and only backed down after I intervened in my role as a Member of Parliament. It is the same for Ventnor on the Isle of Wight, so the hon. Member is speaking about a very important issue that probably affects every constituency, or nearly every constituency.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Before I call the hon. Gentleman, I remind Members again to keep within the scope of the Bill and the amendments.
Danny Beales
I agree with the hon. Member, and recognise those examples. I hear many similar comments in my own constituency.
I welcome the Government’s new clause 43 and new schedule 1, which seek to devolve the power to approve lane rental schemes to mayors of strategic authorities. Locally, we have far too many examples of endless delays to works, such as the recent major road closure scheme on Cowley Road in my constituency, caused by Cadent gas works. That closure caused chaos for weeks on end—a work site left with no works taking place on evenings and weekends while a crucial part of the network was left closed, causing huge disruption. Companies must be held to account, and must be encouraged to carry out works as quickly as possible. Lane rental schemes would make it economically essential for them to conduct out-of-hours works and reduce delays. Armed with new powers, mayors will also be able to incentivise highway authorities to bring in additional lane rental schemes targeting high-priority areas. Crucially, revenue from lane rental schemes can be reinvested to benefit local road users—for instance, by improving the condition of roads and pavements, improvements that are much needed after more than a decade of decline under the Conservatives.
Lastly, as hon. Members will be pleased to hear, I support the new powers to issue mayoral development orders to boost house building. These measures are another step forward in enabling areas to get on, unblocking house building and sites, and to take a more strategic approach to fast-tracking development. In my own constituency, a number of key potential growth areas have stalled in recent years, whether in Uxbridge town centre, near Hillingdon station or in West Drayton. Hundreds if not thousands of homes are stalled at various stages of development, so a more strategic approach to development, enabled at mayoral and regional level, is vital.
I welcome this Bill. I hope the House will agree to the amendments I have spoken to, which will begin giving powers back to communities that will empower them to act and tackle the challenges we all face, now and in the future.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I am sure my hon. Friends will be relieved to hear that I will be making a very focused speech.
My new clauses 7, 8 and 9 address missed opportunities in the skills devolution elements of this Bill. Skills are the foundation of economic growth, which is supposedly this Government’s overriding mission. We have 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, with too many others trapped in poverty, and we face a future that will require training and retraining throughout working life. Critically in the context of this Bill, local areas understand their skills needs better than Whitehall does. That is why skills devolution matters, and it is why the amendments I have tabled are essential to making it work.
In Committee, the Minister gave assurances that the Government “remain completely committed” to strengthening the role of strategic authorities in local skills improvement plans. After all, the White Paper promised “joint ownership”, but it is not in the Bill. Not to worry, the Minister said; new statutory guidance would deliver it. That guidance was published last Tuesday. I have read it carefully, as has the Local Government Association, and guess what? It does not deliver joint ownership. The guidance actually says that employer representative bodies retain “overall responsibility”, while strategic authorities merely set out
“sector skills priorities at the outset.”
That is not joint ownership—it is just a consultation. New clause 9, which is endorsed by the LGA, fixes this. It would require both the strategic authority and the employer representative body to agree before the Secretary of State can approve a local skills improvement plan. Elected mayors are accountable to constituents and responsible for delivering adult skills fund spending. Surely, democratic accountability should not be controversial when devolving substantial public funding.
New clause 7 would require strategic authorities to consider existing 16-to-19 and higher education provision when exercising adult skills functions. Again, the Minister said in Committee that schedule 10 already “allows” this, but allowing is not requiring. Without a statutory duty, we risk exactly the same fragmentation that this Bill should prevent: three parts of the education pipeline potentially working to three different plans, with no co-ordination mechanism. Employers need coherent pathways, and young people need clear progression routes from school through college to work. Making that happen should not be controversial, either.
Finally, new clause 8 would require strategic authorities to publish annual reports on their adult education functions—how funding is deployed, co-ordination with providers, and outcomes for learners and employers. Again, I emphasise that we are talking about substantial public funding with a significant local impact.
Without reporting requirements, how will we know if skills devolution is working? How will we know if employer needs are being met? How will we identify problems before they become failures? Unfortunately, the Minister offered zero response in Committee to such an amendment, so I remain somewhat in the dark about why the Government think that basic transparency and accountability are unnecessary.
The three amendments are precision fixes. They do not reorganise institutions, create bureaucracy or move funding; they would just ensure that elected officials have genuine joint leadership and not simply consultation rights, that the skills pipeline is co-ordinated, not fragmented, and that public funding is transparently accounted for. If we believe in effective devolution, we must give devolved institutions the frameworks to succeed. Warm words and non-statutory guidance are not sufficient when devolving substantial powers and public funding. The new clauses would deliver on key parts of what the Government promised in the White Paper. They would provide an accountability framework that any effective public policy requires, and I urge the Government to accept them.
Perran Moon
I rise to speak to new clause 70 in my name. The case for this new clause is clear, because Cornish national minority status must be respected and upheld. Article 16 of the Council of Europe’s framework convention for the protection of national minorities states:
“The Parties shall refrain from measures which alter the proportions of the population in areas inhabited by persons belonging to national minorities and are aimed at restricting the rights and freedoms flowing from the principles enshrined in the present framework Convention.”
It is perfectly evident that unless new clause 70 is accepted, this Bill is in direct contravention of the convention.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I tabled new clause 28, which would make provision for a new form of regional governance. The explanatory statement specifically mentions that it would make provision for a Cornish assembly. I understand that when the hon. Member was on the Bill Committee, he might have abstained on such a measure. Can he elaborate on his thoughts about what he would like to see at a Cornish level?
Perran Moon
What we are looking for is not necessarily the creation of a Cornish assembly, but to ensure—I will come on to this a little later in my speech—that the established, mature unitary authority has the powers of a mayoral combined authority. If we look at what we have done at Cornwall council over the past few years, we have managed tens of millions of pounds of economic development funding incredibly effectively, first through objective 1 funding and then through shared prosperity funding. We have created our own housing development company that manages and creates housing across Cornwall. We have been successful in recent years in creating housing across Cornwall. The council manages the cultural identity and the promotion of the Cornish language across Cornwall. I am not necessarily looking for an assembly—frankly, I do not care what the body is called—but for the powers to come back to our primary body, which is Cornwall council.
Cornwall is a large and stable unitary authority. It is the largest in geography, as I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), and the third largest by population. Cornwall must be treated as a single strategic authority with the powers of a mayoral combined authority. In 2022, the advisory committee of the Council of Europe called on the Government to
“devolve the appropriate powers to Cornwall Council to ensure effective implementation of the Framework Convention at local level”.
It also called on the Government of the time
“to work with Cornwall Council to address the housing crisis affecting persons belonging to the Cornish national minority, and to collaborate with devolved administrations to tackle this problem in areas of concern.”
Our Government’s support for Cornish national minority status was made clear by the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box on 5 March, when he said:
“We do recognise Cornish national minority status—not just the proud language, history and culture of Cornwall, but its bright future.”—[Official Report, 5 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 278.]
Similarly, on 19 November he said:
“We will ensure that Cornwall’s national minority status is safeguarded in any future devolution arrangements.”—[Official Report, 19 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 776.]
However, the Bill does the opposite.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech on behalf of his constituents. He will remember that, in Committee, members of my party tabled amendments to try to protect the integrity of Cornwall. He said then that a Minister had given him assurances on the place of Cornwall, but his tone has changed distinctly. Can he tell us whether he was satisfied with those assurances, or, indeed, whether he received them at all?
Perran Moon
I was given assurances that conversations with Ministers would continue, and they have continued. I will say more about that a little later. Now, though, I have to say that I find it disappointing that a party I love could produce a Bill that ignores the wishes of Cornwall and what national minority status actually means. To those who mock, disparage and denigrate Cornwall’s constitutional position on this island, I say, “If you try to ensnare us in an unholy alliance with a part of England, that will rebound negatively.” The impact and consequences of an unamended Bill would be felt across Cornwall for decades—perhaps for 50 years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) suggested earlier. The relationship with Westminster would decline, and the current simmering resentment and disillusion would be baked in. Regrettably, it will not surprise me if the calls for full fifth-nation status for Cornwall simply grow if the Bill is passed unamended.
Joe Robertson
The hon. Member speaks very eloquently, and many of the issues that he is raising resonate with me and with my constituents on the Isle of Wight. We are being forced into a union with Hampshire, where 93% of the new electorate in the new combined authority will live and where some powers currently exercised by our unitary council, Isle of Wight council, will instead be exercised by someone whose largest responsibility rests with the 93% of the population who do not live on the Island. If the hon. Member cannot achieve what he seeks to achieve on the Government Benches I worry about what I might be able to achieve, but it is good to hear another voice speaking about those same issues.
Perran Moon
There is a fundamental difference between the position of the Isle of Wight in relation to the mainland and the position in Cornwall. It is the difference between identity and legally binding national minority status. One can identify with a football team, a pop band or a place, but that does not give it legally binding provision as does national minority status. That is the basis of my argument.
Andrew George
Meur ras! I just wanted to address the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s speech. All six Cornish Members are clear about the fact that, for us, this is not about cutting ourselves off, but about cutting ourselves into the celebration of diversity. It is a positive, forward-looking proposal on behalf of Cornwall, based on our unique cultural and historic past, and it is not born out of anger and resentment: it is important for that to be understood.
Perran Moon
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that we, as a Chamber, do enough to celebrate the diversity of the islands in which we live, and we do not do enough to celebrate the different nations within those islands. It is wonderful to share our cultural identity, our language and our national minority status with people who move to Cornwall and embed themselves in our culture and language. I would encourage them—when, hopefully, they are given the opportunity in 2030-31, if we get that magical tick-box on the census—to tick “Cornish” to denote who they are.
It does not have to be this way. We just have to consider the consequences of a mayoral combined authority shared between—God forbid, although I love them dearly—Devon and Cornwall. How will the taxpayers of Devon feel about funding Cornish language lessons in Cornish schools, Cornish language road signs or Cornish cultural events? I doubt that they will be doing cartwheels.
We stand at a crossroads. I urge Ministers to be bold, be flexible and empower our communities. They should not impose their ideological governance template on us. If the Bill is unamended, its impact will be that Cornwall will be the only part of the United Kingdom locked out of access to the highest levels of devolution, based solely on who we are. That is rank, blatant discrimination, and I cannot and will not accept it. Ministers know all this, because we have had several discussions and meetings to look at the risks. To that end, and with a heavy heart, I have to say to Ministers that I will not support the Bill in its current unamended state.
This should, and I believe still could be, a historic moment for the relationship between Westminster and Cornwall. I urge Ministers to listen to us. Let us make this a historically positive arrangement.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I was fortunate to be part of the Bill Committee for this monstrous Bill—monstrous in size, I should clarify—so my summer was spent digesting each and every clause, and seeking to understand whether it does fulfil its ambitious title and move powers closer to communities. I must be clear that the last Government started the process of creating regional mayors and limiting the ability to access funding through this mechanism. I recall visiting the former Secretary of State in his office in Marsham Street, alongside my then council chief executive Graham Farrant and the former Member for Bournemouth West, to seek the zoning of Bournemouth town centre as the first retail-led investment zone, only to be told that unless I presented it as a devolution programme, there would be no money. We have been here before.
Devolution was expected in this Parliament, though perhaps not in this form, and it does have the potential to improve lives. A problem arises with this Bill, because for many people in England, it gives with one hand and takes with the other. Yes, it shifts some power and money from Westminster to the regions, but it abolishes the very councils that deliver vital services and completely ignores the hyper-local councils that residents know best: their town and parish councils. I know that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), loves hearing my references to towns and parishes.
This Bill could and should be so much stronger. As noted by the shadow Minister, the Bill Committee tabled many sensible amendments, and it is disappointing that so few have been accepted. Let me highlight just a few that sit in today’s grouping. I welcome new clause 29, in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), which would require mayors and strategic authorities to act in accordance with the Climate Change Act 2008 and other environmental laws.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
May I invite the hon. Member to move new clause 29? I do not know if that is possible at this stage.
Vikki Slade
I am very happy to move new clause 29, should the hon. Member not have the opportunity to—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Ms Berry, if you need some information on how to process procedure, please ask the Clerks or the Chair—you can come to me in a minute. We are speaking to all the amendments. Ms Slade, continue.
Vikki Slade
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Without new clause 29, my concern is that a mayor who does not honour the net zero commitments of the councils that sit within their area may undermine those councils’ principles and hard work, which will have been done over many years.
New clause 4, in the name of the shadow Minister, and new clause 25, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), relate to the community infrastructure levy, which is an important measure that councils rightly need to mitigate the impact of new homes. When residents come to me worried about developments, they are always asking about what will happen with new roads, schools and services, which is why CIL matters so much. However, in Dorset and elsewhere, homeowners have been wrongly charged CIL for extensions and self-builds, with £1.6 million taken in error. Ministers say that the system works, but if so, what do they say to homeowners out of pocket by tens of thousands of pounds? Accepting these two simple amendments or introducing clear and robust regulation would reassure homeowners that they will not be facing unfair bills.
Siân Berry
I, too, was pleased to sit on the Public Bill Committee, but sadly I cannot spare the time to review everyone’s performance, so I will get straight to the point.
My amendments for new combined authorities in parts 1 and 2 of the Bill include amendments 91 to 93, which add action on poverty and socioeconomic inequality to the areas of competence of new mayors in clause 2. The Government have promised again and again to enact part 1 of the Equality Act 2010 in respect of a socioeconomic duty for England. If that were done, these duties would need to be created in the Bill. To leave them out for brand new authorities is such a gap, and I find it hard to understand why the Government are resisting. I hope that either this will be taken up in the other place and debated again or the section will be enacted for England imminently, such that it has to be done through Government amendments there. I would like to hear that promised by Ministers today.
I mainly want to focus on and propose my new clause 29. This would help every new mayor support the principles in the Climate Change Act 2008 in a fair way. The Climate Change Committee has noted the yawning gap between national ambition and local action, and the Local Government Association has called for that gap to be closed through the Bill. We need every mayor agreeing on the action they will take—their fair contribution to national targets—and being empowered to deliver for our crucial carbon budgets and lifesaving climate resilience.
My new clause would also help every new mayor to support the principles in the Environment Act 2021 for nature protection and restoration, and action on pollution, wildlife and the ecosystem that is our only home. It would also help every new mayor to support the principles in Ella’s law, the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill. The Bill awaits Second Reading and comes from cross-party work with campaigners from the Healthy Air Coalition and Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, the mother of Ella, whose death from asthma was the first to be recorded as due to air pollution.
New clause 29 is supported by the UK100 group of local authorities, the Climate Emergency campaign, the Better Planning Coalition, Wildlife and Countryside Link, the Healthy Air Coalition, Friends of the Earth and a host of others. An open letter has been signed by over 450 local councillors from all parties and by council leaders. Hundreds of businesses have written in more than once to Ministers and many of our constituents have been contacting MPs, too. I am very grateful to every hon. Member, cross party, who has signed it. The case is clear. I intend to press new clause 29 to a Division, so that we can, on all sides of the House, vote for the climate, nature and clean air duties that are so vital. I hope that the Government will pledge clearly today to introduce them all as full duties at the next stage in the other place.
In Committee, I also worked with campaigners to fill a big gap in health determinants set out in the Bill, to which new mayors would have to plan action under clause 43, the health improvement and health inequalities duty. The Government left out of the Bill any environmental impacts on health. I argued strongly for that in Committee and have again tabled amendments 87 to 90 to fix that. I am pleased and grateful to see that Ministers have listened to the evidence and added their own Government amendments 116 to 118 naming environmental factors, including air quality and access to green space and bodies of water as the health determinants they are.
However, my original amendments have not been withdrawn, as they spelled out that environmental factors should also specifically include water pollution and land pollution. This would have brought the goals of Zane’s law into the work done by new mayors to document and plan strategically to avoid horrific problems with contaminated land of the kind that led to the sudden death of Zane Gbangbola, when floods brought poisoned gas from contaminated landfill into his home in Chertsey in Surrey. I would like to hear explicitly from the Minister today that the phrase “environmental factors” in the new Government amendments includes that kind of contamination, and that the amendments therefore bring parts of Zane’s law into the Bill.
Finally, I want the Minister—and the Lords in the other place—to look seriously at the need for amendments 159 and 160, which aim to ensure that the local growth plans from new mayors will help protect culture in a strategic way. I have worked with the Music Venue Trust on the amendments, and its annual report each year makes awful reading, as our grassroots music venues suffer and close due to business pressures, unfair business rates valuations and planning and licensing issues. Those issues could be tackled effectively using the new strategies and powers of combined authorities and mayors.
The amendments cover not just music but cultural and community spaces of all kinds, including theatres and other performance venues. I believe that all areas of the country will benefit from the amendments being added at a future stage of the Bill.
Joe Robertson
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in that I am a serving Isle of Wight councillor. I want to speak to new clause 48 in my name and new clause 39 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage). The two new clauses seek to do similar things.
I thank Members across the House who have signed new clause 48, not only Opposition Members but those on the Government Benches, as well as from the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. It is my position that this support shows that new clause 48 is an objectively reasonable amendment to seek. It is about the principle of fairness: it ensures that the ferry services that connect communities all over this country of islands connect those islands, and the communities that live close to bodies of water, including rivers, under the same fare framework that trains and buses operate under.
New clause 48 sits in the following context: for generations, for decades, there has been a political consensus that train operators, whether they be state providers or private businesses, operate under a framework of regulation and licensing, and that Government have a say in how train fares and timetables are structured. The same goes for bus services. Indeed, even trains and buses in the private sector have, to a greater or lesser extent, been subsidised by the public purse.
Ferry providers in this country sit outside that consensus of regulation and licensing in public transport, so there is no comprehensive regulation that sets down how ferry operators may work. That has led to my constituents on the Isle of Wight relying on privatised, unregulated, unlicensed, foreign-owned, debt-laden companies for essential travel. Those companies are so profitable that they are regularly exchanged from private equity group to private equity group, including the Canadian pension fund. That is because private equity understands that it is a predictable form of income generation, as the service users—Isle of Wight residents—have no alternative but to use the ferry companies they control.
There is no effective market, as the private sector operates properly only when there is competition. However, the bar to entry into the ferry services market is so high—a company would need to buy land and ferries, and ensure compliance with all maritime law—that there is no alternative to the existing providers. I use my constituency as an example. One provider, now called Wightlink, used to be part of British Rail, when British Rail was a public service; the provider was unfortunately sold off without any obligation on it, and it is private equity investment that has benefited from that.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is giving a characteristically modest speech, given how much he has campaigned on this matter for his constituents, and is being very moderate about the aims and ambitions of the Government. It is a clear stated aim of this Government that local people should be able to demand local regulation and services, and powers for use by mayors. My hon. Friend will know that the local Conservative mayoral candidate, Donna Jones, has actually asked for these powers; if she is elected mayor, she would like to use them. Does that not provide a greater incentive for us to work together to ensure that the Government can give those powers to the new mayoralty?
Joe Robertson
It absolutely does provide that incentive. I thank the shadow Minister for remarking on my tone; I have always tried to work with the Government on this matter. I acknowledge again that this is more than a campaign—it is a core issue for my constituents, and for constituents on the other side of the island that I share with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West. Indeed, we are working jointly on it.
The measure would achieve unity around the idea of a mayor having responsibility for integrated transport locally. After all, local transport powers are a key plank of the Government’s plans for devolution. However, when the Government consulted my constituents—among the wider residents of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight—on transport, the consultation document that they put out to spark debate and consultation returns devoted 1,000 words to transport for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight on trains, buses, taxis, pavements, cycling and walking, but it did not include ferries or any mention of crossing the Solent, which every single one of my constituents needs to do at some point to access health services and educational opportunities that are not provided on the island, and to access employment and see friends and family, as everyone on the UK mainland would expect to do. I remind the House that in order to do those routine daily things, my constituents are reliant on the private equity groups that own and control ferry companies, and that have no obligation whatsoever to the residents of the Isle of Wight. They have no democratic accountability at all, and no responsibility to Government.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about his constituents’ need for joined-up transport. He spoke about the ferries, and about buses and trains. This is not just an economic argument; he talked about the importance of people being able to move around and connect with each other, and that has huge impacts for their mental health. I urge my hon. Friend to talk about the importance of democratic accountability, and getting strategic transport plans for our constituents across the country.
Joe Robertson
My hon. Friend mentioned two key words: democratic accountability. That is fundamentally what underpins this issue, and it is a principle that we expect to apply to all forms of public transport—except ferries.
I urge the Government to use this opportunity to create regulation and devolve it down. That way, they will not have ongoing responsibility for administering this issue, and the decision making will be made as close as possible to the individuals affected by the decisions. I am speaking for my constituents, but I could also be speaking for those elsewhere in the country. This is also about the economic wellbeing of the area. My constituents are heavily reliant on tourism. Indeed, the benefits of tourism are felt by 38% of our economy, but to visit the Isle of Wight, tourists must pay the price of the ferry. That is on top of everything else that they might want to spend when they are on the island.
Let us remember that the money paid to the ferry companies goes off to private equity investors, many of which are abroad, and some of which are foreign pension funds. Not only does that mean less money to spend in my area on businesses that employ local people, but it will put some people off travelling to the Isle of Wight at all. The Minister may want to see ferry prices as a large tax that people can avoid by simply visiting other places for their holidays. That is the tragedy of this situation. Indeed, tourist footfall has fallen on the Isle of Wight more than it has for anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
Before I end, I will back up my argument with facts. Earlier this year, the highest price somebody paid to bring a car back and forth to the Isle of Wight was £400. That is £400 for a sea crossing of 5 miles. The timetables have diminished since private equity took control. Once there were half-hourly services, but it is now more than an hour between services. Ordinarily, a company would not get away with doing this, because the consumer—the passenger—would go elsewhere, but the only “elsewhere” option is another ferry company that is also controlled and owned by private equity. It is no wonder that one of those companies was sold last month from private equity to private equity. The website of the new controlling group does not talk about the uncompromising pursuit of passenger experience. It boasts about the uncompromising pursuit of capital investment. That is capital investment for people who want to invest in that holding company.
I thank again all those who have supported this proposal. It was a particularly significant moment to hear the shadow Minister confirm that His Majesty’s official Opposition backs the regulation of ferry companies through my amendment.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am trying to calculate the time; I hope that we have more than one speaker bobbing.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Marvellous. As we have four more speakers and we definitely have to finish business by 10 pm, Back Benchers are on a speaking limit of 10 minutes.
Andrew George
It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson). I also have ferries in my constituency, but I have not tabled amendments to deal with them in a Bill about devolution. I will return to the Cornish question raised by the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon)—I will call him my hon. Friend. I will concentrate on whether it is appropriate to deal with the idiosyncrasies around the country in the way that he proposes in new clause 70, or in the way that I have done in amendments 175 and 176—our amendments would treat Cornwall as an exception—or whether the issue should be treated as a matter of principle, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) has done in new clause 28.
I accept that everywhere is special and unique. The question is often asked: why is Cornwall asking for more consideration than other places? The answer is in part, as my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth said, that special legislation and regulations apply to us; there is our national minority status, recognition of the Cornish language, the existence of the duchy, and its separate constitutional relationship with the Crown. Of course, all places are the result of the accidents of history and geography, and in Cornwall, there is a confluence of the two. If we are not to go in the direction of breaking down all barriers and having one world government, with no distinction between one place and another, we must recognise the tipping point—the difference between English counties and Cornwall, which is a rather unique place that, as he and I believe, needs to be given special consideration.
Like my hon. Friend, I describe myself as Cornish and not English. That is not being anti-English; I am proud of my relationship with England, as all Cornish people are, but we as a people have a separate history. We start our contributions to these debates by saying “Meur ras”, to introduce the Cornish language. Although not many people in Cornwall speak the Cornish language now, not many people in Scotland speak Scottish Gaelic, but that is not to say that Scots are less Scottish because of that. The fact is, the last person who could not speak English died nearly 200 years ago.
There has recently been a great deal of coming together to recognise the importance of identity and our Celtic past. Indeed, I have spoken about the Cornish language with Breton friends, and found that there is a stronger association between Cornwall and Brittany than between Cornwall and Wales, from which we were separated by the Saxons some 1,500 years ago. Indeed, Athelstan drew the line between Cornwall and England in 936 because he felt that the Cornish were not worth the effort of inevitable annihilation.
All that history is interesting and relevant, and feeds one’s understanding of who one is, but as I said in an intervention, I am not interested in being backward-looking or insular. Rather than cut ourselves off, we need to cut ourselves into the celebration of diversity, and use our identity as a strength that helps us to look forward.
Indeed, we had a very welcome statement earlier on the Government’s critical minerals strategy, and Cornwall can and should be looking forward with all our strengths in the space sector, critical minerals and green energy. We have a lot to look forward to, but we need to have a basis of confidence on what to do.
Perran Moon
I totally agree with what the hon. Member is saying. The challenge that I have—he may have found this when he first came to this place—is that I am staggered at how few people here on these Benches understand Cornish national minority status or how important it is to us in Cornwall. I make these references not for him or for people in Cornwall who know this stuff, but more to ensure that the people here get a better understanding of who we are, why we have this separate culture and language and why we are keen for people to come and celebrate it. Does he agree with that approach?
Andrew George
I do indeed. It is the desire of a centralised state to render its dominion homogeneous, and in a nation such as the UK, where the culture has been so centralised for centuries, it is difficult to understand that the process of devolution is about letting go, not about holding on to power. In effect, the purpose of my intervention on the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) was to point out that, within the Bill, there is still that desire to hold on. In other words, directly elected mayors could become puppets of central Government under this Bill. I fear that that may be the case as a result of clause 38. There is a weakness there, including the possibility of the Government still holding on and controlling the way things go.
I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches and by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), and I hope that the Minister will listen. Even if she does not accept these totemic amendments now, I hope that the Government will be listening to Cornwall’s case as the Bill proceeds through the other place.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
It has been a long afternoon. I thank my Lib Dem colleagues in Committee who bravely stood up for towns and parishes and would like the role of town and parish councils to continue. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as I am still a sitting district councillor. District councils play an interesting role when we have town and parish councils because they form the connection between the towns and parishes, the district and the county. Those three layers work together, and they pull in a similar direction when it is working well. I could regale the House with the achievements of Dawlish town council, Newton Abbot town council or Teignmouth town council, or of the various parish councils. They have done fantastic things for their communities, but they can only do that when they are part of the process and are able to talk and act with the higher councils as well. What is missing from this Bill is anything like a duty to co-operate between the unitary, the town and the parish councils. Were that in place, there would be a much better conversation.
We have no set idea in Devon what the best layout of unitary councils would look like. There are six, or possibly 10, options coming up to the Government for consideration, which is clearly entirely unreasonable. One of the options is a single large unitary replacing the footprint of Devon county council. Something like that would take a localised idea of what was going on in the district councils, for example with five district councillors in Dawlish representing the people in that area, to a far distant control, where there could be two unitary councillors trying to deal with those issues. It would be difficult to persuade residents that that unitary council is working with their best interests at heart. That duty to co-operate is important.
We went through all the process, and the former Secretary of State, or Under-Secretary—I am unsure of the best form of address.
Martin Wrigley
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; it has been a long day. The previous Minister was talking about neighbourhood area committees, and yet I was surprised when I looked at the Bill that there is nothing in there about neighbourhood area committees. They are not mentioned in any way, shape or form. Devon is very big at saying, “We’re going to make these neighbourhood area committees, and it is going to really work for you,” but it is not. This is why I have tabled new clause 71, which sets forth the need and requirement for neighbourhood area committees and to make them a statutory consultee within unitary councils because they currently are not.
Sam Carling
I used to be a councillor in an authority that had area committees, and we ended up scrapping them because they were not really doing a good job. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that mandating particular governance arrangements of that sort and at that level within councils in legislation undermines the principle of devolution and that actually we need to let councils do what is best for their areas?
Martin Wrigley
I agree that we should not be mandating those details. However, we were promised that these committees would perform that function. I say again that a simple duty to co-operate with towns and councils would actually take the place far better.
The other issue in the Bill, again, relates to the larger unitaries not having that localism built in. Should we end up with, say, a single large unitary within Devon, we will end up with Dartmoor national park entirely surrounded by a single unitary council. People might say, “So what?” At the moment, the local authorities surrounding Dartmoor national park appoint 10 people to the authority board, and central Government appoints nine. Consequently, if it is surrounded by a single unitary council, that council will appoint a majority to that board, losing the distinct identity of that agency for managing the national park, with the danger of the unitary’s desires overturning those of the national park with nothing to stop them. Amendments 164 to 167 would address that issue and require attention to the national park governance in the process of creating the new unitaries.
Sam Carling
I am glad that those governance arrangements work, but they sound like a nightmare based on hearing that information. Would the hon. Member not agree again that under one unitary council, there can be much more strategic oversight of such a situation? If local residents are not happy with the way that is being managed, they can elect different councillors. It should be a simplification, not causing problems like that.
Martin Wrigley
No, the park authority looks after the park with the park’s interests at its heart, and it is not tied to any other overriding interest. For example, if the new unitary needs another road, it might think, “The easiest thing is just to go through the edge of the park,” or “We need some new housing. We’ll just put it in the park.” At the moment, the park is responsible for its own planning; it is responsible for its own destiny. That identity is so important, and that was supposed to be maintained in this local devolution Bill.
I would have loved to have seen the new unitaries have a statutory duty to provide adequate public toilets, but that one was just too far out the way to even try to get it in. At this point, having taken up enough of your time, Madam Deputy Speaker, and having sat through a lot of interesting conversations—I will leave it at that—I will call it a day.
Tom Gordon
I rise to speak to new clause 28. I thank my Liberal Democrat colleagues who tabled a similar amendment in Committee.
New clause 28 would effectively allow a new form of regional governance. One thing that frustrates me at the moment—it is quite bonkers from a fairness perspective—is that Yorkshire has almost the population of Scotland, the economy of Wales, and a strong sense of identity, but unlike those countries, we do not have anywhere near the level of power. For too long, Westminster has handed Yorkshire crumbs and called it a settlement. There has been lots of talk this evening about regional mayors and powers, but Yorkshire was technically chopped into four different constituent components. Westminster has taken our ability to build across the region and be the real powerhouse that we could be.
My new clause would allow the creation of a Yorkshire regional body, on a par with Scotland and Wales, and empower it with provision of health, education and transport. That would stop holding Yorkshire back and give us Yorkshire folk the tools to do what we know we need to do for our areas. Put simply, it would give Yorkshire solutions to Yorkshire problems.
Currently, the mayoral arrangements across the area are disparate and vary wildly. The Labour Mayor of West Yorkshire, Tracy Brabin, has been elected twice on the promise of delivering a franchising of buses, which is yet to happen. We recently got a new mayor for York and North Yorkshire, but we are yet to see any meaningful investment on the ground for local people. I do not want mayors who are empowered to be glorified lobbyists in Westminster and Whitehall; I want to see real regional forms of government that empower people on the ground. Compared with other European countries that have meaningful forms of devolution and regional governance, we have a democratic deficit, so why not think big?
On transport, we need to integrate across the entirety of Yorkshire—a transport for Yorkshire that does not simply stop at the borders of West Yorkshire and North Yorkshire. Investment in mass transit for Leeds, for example, involves the West Yorkshire area. People who live in my Harrogate and Knaresborough constituency commute, work and learn there, so giving a new regional body that power over transport would make sense. If Yorkshire had those powers and funding already, and people on the ground were in the driving seat and had a stake in the project, a Leeds mass transit system might have actually happened, rather than being endlessly promised, kiboshed, re-promised and then knocked on the head again.
Devolving health powers to a local region such as Yorkshire makes massive sense. Yorkshire Cancer Research, which is based in my constituency, talks endlessly about the poor life outcomes of our region compared with places in the south of England. Why not have people who know best make the key decisions about what health interventions would make sense for our area?
All those points about transport and health seek to fix something that has gone wrong in our system: Whitehall brings us to this place when we would be better off empowering people in our communities to take them forward. The naysayers will say, “It’s just a new form. There’d be more elections and more people involved.” We have seen that in the creation of combined authorities and mayoral authorities. What worries me is the fact that we have ended up with endless strategic directives and chief executives of new organisations. They often kowtow to diktats from Whitehall anyway, so where is the devolution?
I want Yorkshire answers to Yorkshire problems. I hope that other people support that too.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I will focus my attention on my amendment 174, which would ensure that rural, remote and coastal areas are properly considered when preparing a local growth plan. As it stands, rurality is not mentioned once in the Bill, and the concerns that I raised on Second Reading remain.
The Bill’s overly centralised approach to devolution will once again neglect rural communities. It remains unclear how the specific needs of rural communities will be highlighted and addressed. Eighty-five per cent of England’s land area is classified as rural, but only 17% of the country’s population lives in those areas, and unfortunately that often means that rural areas can sometimes be ignored and left behind.
But these areas have specific needs and challenges, and they require strategic support and investment to ensure that they thrive. Rural areas are the grassroots drivers of economic growth, the home of farming, food and drink production and tourism. My constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton is home to over 800 family farms, and much of the wider local industry is intertwined with food production. Therefore, there needs to be a strategic focus on rural growth to identify what enabling infrastructure is needed to support rural communities with the recent and incoming planning reforms. But this Bill will fail to capture the huge growth opportunity these areas offer unless the Government change track and pay them due regard.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
In Somerset, we were set back enormously by six years of council tax freeze during the early 2010s, under the Conservative-led council—[Interruption.] Council tax was frozen for six years, way in excess of what the Government had anticipated, leaving council finances in Somerset in dire straits.
Sarah Dyke
My hon. Friend will know that Somerset county council was near bankrupt in 2018. Indeed, we suffered a lot under the previous Conservative-led county council’s tenure because of its financial neglect. The rising costs and demand for essential services have put budgets under severe pressure, despite the significant transformation and savings now being delivered by the Liberal Democrat-led unitary council.
The lack of funding for local government is not unique to Somerset. It is a national problem that requires a national solution, with councils still waiting for the delayed details of the local government finance settlement. The current funding model is broken and it needs fundamental change. That has not been achieved in this Bill, but amendments 61 and 62, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, would ensure that councils designated as a single foundation strategic authority receive appropriate funding to facilitate their transition, and combined authorities receive adequate funding to facilitate their establishment. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to support such amendments to the Bill.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate. I thank Members from across the House for their thoughtful, robust and, at times, rather lengthy contributions to the debate.
The hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) asked if the Bill is ready—absolutely, the Bill is ready. What we are doing is exactly what he accuses us of not doing: we are listening, responding to the scrutiny we received in Committee in interventions on the Minister for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), and making amendments where we think they make sense. That is the way in which we think that we should drive through legislation, but we are clear about the core premise of the Bill.
The hon. Members for Hamble Valley, for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) and for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) all played around the theme that this is a centralising Bill that is looking to impose on places. I categorically reject that. The Bill will implement the biggest transfer of power that we have seen for a generation, which is something that the Conservatives did not do in 14 years. Let us take the example of local government reorganisation, which was raised by Members from across the House. This is a bottom-up, local-led process, where places have come up with proposals—[Interruption.] The proposals have come from places where there has been consultation with constituent authorities and local people. We are then judging the proposals that have been submitted against clear, transparent criteria that we have published.
Candidly, Conservative Members have some cheek asking us to retain the status quo—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hamble Valley says that he has two cheeks, but this is a serious matter. Frankly, we are not doing this reorganisation for fun, but because the Conservatives failed to grip the situation for 14 years. They under-invested in local government and stripped out capacity, so we now need to do the job of reforming local government so that it is fit for purpose and can deliver the local services that people across our country want to see.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
No, I will make a little more progress.
We are clear that this work has to be done with consultation and engagement, and that is what we are doing. To the point raised by the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) on a proposed referendum, let me say that we think that is disproportionate. The approach we are taking to consultation and engagement is the right one.
On the point about a referendum, let me turn to new clause 2, on a referendum on mayoral precepts at the same time. We are really clear that the democratic lock sits at the heart of this matter. Mayors who are democratically elected by their people are no more immune to the impacts of raising taxes than we are as national politicians, so the democratic process will ensure that mayors are balancing the need to raise a precept and invest in their community against the need to protect their people from tax rises.
I completely agree with the hon. Member for Hamble Valley that devolution works best when it is predicated on strong local partnerships. The strongest mayoral combined authorities are the ones in which the constituent authorities work in lockstep with the mayor; that is the model we have seen in Greater Manchester. We are very clear that partnership must sit at the heart of this matter, and that is the approach we are looking to support and enable through this Bill.
Paul Holmes
This honestly feels like groundhog day. Once again, the Minister has come here and said that this Bill is doing local government reform and devolution from the ground up. Will she therefore answer my question once again? She has heard many Members tonight say that local authorities do not want to reorganise. If they do not want to go ahead with it, will this Government force them to do it? The answer is yes, isn’t it?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The clear thing for authorities across the country is that they recognise the status quo is not working. Conservative Members are criticising, yet they have no alternative. The status quo is not sustainable, because we had 14 years in which the Conservatives stripped local authorities of investment and denuded their capacity, so local authorities across the piece recognise that reform is necessary. I come back to the fact that we are reforming for a purpose; we are reforming to deliver stronger services at the appropriate level so that local authorities can deliver the outcomes that their people want.
Let me take the point around devolution and resources, which the hon. Members for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) and for Guildford raised. We recognise that if devolution is going to be successful, our mayors and strategic authorities absolutely need the resources to do it well. That is why a new burdens assessment will always come in place where new responsibilities are placed on devolved authorities.
Critically, where we are devolving power—for example, to our priority areas—we are providing capacity funding. The principle that we will always ensure that places have the resources they need to do the job is absolutely right, because we care as much as our mayors and the Opposition parties care that we get devolution right and that it is delivering for people across the piece.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will make progress.
The hon. Member for Guildford pushed back on commissioners, and I disagree with her amendments. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) that mayors need to be able to bring in additional expertise to do the very hard job that we and their voters ask them to do. Commissioners will be appointed by and accountable to mayors, and they will be subject to scrutiny. They are there to bolster the capacity and expertise of the mayor. All we are doing through the Bill is allowing the flexibility for the mayor to build the right team with the right skills and expertise in order to deliver the priorities for local people.
Let me turn to the strong advocacy by my hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for the tourism levy. Our mayors are advocating strongly for this measure. They have made an impassioned and effective case, but as I said in my opening remarks, I will not pre-empt the Chancellor. Tax decisions are for the Chancellor, and we will have a Budget in 48 hours.
Let me pick up on the issue of CIL, which my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green and other Members spoke very powerfully about. We recognise that there is an issue here, one that needs to be addressed. We are committed to finding a solution; we will move quickly to do so, and we will set it out in due course. A number of Members also raised the question of the GLA powers, and I reassure my hon. Friend that the GLA already has an explicit power to acquire land for housing and regeneration. Existing safeguards remain in place, and the Bill does not change the current framework.
Peter Fortune
Again, the Minister is giving an example of an area in which the Mayor of London’s powers are expanding. The point I tried to make earlier—in an objective, non-political way—was that as the powers of the mayor expand, the power of the scrutiny body needs to expand to match that. Can the Minister reassure me that she heard what I suggested earlier and will take it forward?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I heard both the point that the hon. Member has just made and the point he made during the debate. The model we have in London has been a successful one for 25 years. We will continue to work with the mayor and the constituent councils to build that partnership, and to look at ways in which we can strengthen not only the powers and responsibilities of the mayor, but their accountability.
Moving beyond London, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton South (Mike Reader), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip for highlighting the opportunities of devolution. It was great to hear that from Government Members—what we heard from Opposition Members on this topic was pretty disappointing—because we recognise the need to create strong institutions within a functional geography. We understand the opportunities in the south midlands and Staffordshire, and we want to see devolution across the country, whether through foundation strategic authorities or through mayors.
Let me directly address the point that was made by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella), who has been a consistent and powerful champion for town and parish councils. We are very clear in the Bill that the objective is to take power out of Whitehall and Westminster and push it to the appropriate level, and there is absolutely a role for town and parish councils in that—I said that in Committee, and I will say it again. We are clear that certain powers must sit at the functional geography layer, where the mayor of the strategic authority is the right level. There are also powers that absolutely must sit with our local authorities, and there are powers that will sit with our neighbourhoods.
Members have mentioned that neighbourhood governance provision is unspecified in the Bill. That is deliberate, because we think that neighbourhood governance should be driven locally. We will set a series of principles in statutory guidance, but ultimately we want places to come up with the neighbourhood governance structure that works for them. In some places, that will mean building on the strength of town and parish councils; in other places, it will mean building on neighbourhood committees and neighbourhood forums. It is right that we allow that process to be led locally.
I will now turn to new clause 33, which the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire spoke to, and the subject of joint planning committees. We do not think that the new clause is necessary, because provisions already exist to ensure joint working across authorities, including the creation of joint committees for the purpose of planning.
Finally, I will pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) about the importance of skills. Skills have a critical role in driving economic development, and our strategic authorities and our mayors should grip that. We want to ensure that they are planning adult education provision. They are already working with employers and others to develop skills improvement plans, and we will look to build on that. I come back to the fact that we are creating provision for a right to request. I already know from conversations with our mayors that they are clear that they want more purchase and agency over adult skills. I anticipate that we will build on this area.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I heard the word “finally”, and that moved me to intervene. I offer my support and thank the Government for amendments 116, 117 and 118 on air pollution, which render redundant the Government’s announcement tomorrow on the expansion of Heathrow. Before the Minister moves on, what is the Government’s attitude to new clause 29? It seems to embody many of the Government’s policies. If she will not accept that new clause tonight, will she work on some of the issues within it for the Bill’s next stage of consideration?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising new clause 29, which I was just coming to, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) and other hon. Friends for championing the issue. We are clear that mayors and strategic authorities have an important role to play in the fight against the climate and ecological crisis. That is why climate and environment are included in the competences that will sit with strategic authorities under the Bill. We already have mayoral strategic authorities that are subject to the biodiversity duty. They are required to work with their constituent authorities to deliver air quality action plans. We are already seeing on the ground that our mayors and our strategic authorities are in the vanguard and are pushing, and I imagine they will continue to build on this area as they accumulate powers and more levers over this area.
We support the intention behind the poverty and equality duty, as I said in Committee. We think it is a thread that runs through the Bill. Any mayor and any strategic authority will fundamentally care about poverty and reducing inequality, and the functions within the Bill are the enablers of that.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will not give way, because I think Members are getting rather irate and everyone wants to go home. I will finish with Cornwall and the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon). He has been a passionate and consistent advocate for Cornwall. We recognise Cornwall’s minority status and we will continue to safeguard that. We cannot accept the amendment, because it cuts across the powers that we want to put with mayors. I reassure him and other Members from Cornwall that we are committed to working to strengthen the devolution deal that we have already done with Cornwall to ensure that we are unlocking opportunity in the area.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will conclude. We are clear, despite the naysayers on the Opposition Benches, that this Bill is a fundamental step forward. It is the biggest transfer of power to our mayors, our local authorities and our communities. The driver behind the Bill is the principle that if we push power out and locate it in local people, we can drive the change that people want.
I end by saying this: the Bill is a floor, not the ceiling. We are determined to continue building on the devolution journey that we have started, putting power, agency and resources in the hands of local leaders and communities, because that is how we drive local change that can drive national change. I urge the House to support the Government’s amendments to this Bill to ensure that we can unlock the potential of devolution.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 43 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 44
Licensing functions of the Mayor of London
“Schedule (licensing functions of the Mayor of London) amends the Licensing Act 2003 to confer licensing functions on the Mayor of London.”—(Miatta Fahnbulleh.)
This inserts new Schedule NS2 into the Bill conferring licensing functions on the Mayor of London.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 2
Council tax: CAs and CCAs to be subject to same increase as most county and unitary councils
“(1) The Local Government Finance Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 52ZC, after subsection (4) insert—
‘(4A) Where, for the purposes of this section, the Secretary of State determines categories of authority for the year under consideration, one of the categories determined by the Secretary of State must include all mayoral combined authorities and CCAs (‘the CA and CCA category’).
(4B) Where the Secretary of State has determined a category that includes the majority of county and unitary councils (“a county and unitary category”), a principle that must be applied to the CA and CAA category is that the means of determining whether the relevant basic amount of council tax is excessive is the same as any means set out in a principle applied to the county and unitary category (but for the purposes of the determination references to any referendum principle for county and unitary councils that specifically relates to expenditure on adult social care should be discounted).’”—(Paul Holmes.)
This new clause would limit increases in the mayoral precept according to similar principles limiting council tax increases.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Business without Debate
Sale of Disposable Barbecues
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I rise to present a petition about the sale of disposable barbecues. The petitioners and I ask the Government to note that 2025 has been the worst year on record for UK wildfires, with Dorset seeing over 900 of them. Disposable barbecues have been the initial cause of many, so we are calling for a ban on their sale to protect our precious landscape, people and wildlife.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Mid Dorset and North Poole
Declares that there is a growing threat of wildfires across Dorset and the UK; further declares that disposable barbecues have been the initial cause of multiple wildfires in the UK; and further that the sale of disposable barbecues should be banned to reduce the number of wildfires that will occur in the UK in the future.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to introduce legislation to ban the sale of disposable barbecues.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003134]
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the course of the previous debate, I waited over four hours to speak. In the Minister’s winding-up speech, she did not acknowledge any of my contribution or the amendments. I believe I was the only Yorkshire MP to speak in the debate, and this underlines the point about how decisions are made about Yorkshire people and how they might be better made by a Yorkshire Parliament. What advice would you give me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how I might pursue a response from the Minister?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for prior notice of his point of order. I can say, as a Yorkshirewoman, that that is not a matter for the Chair, but he has put his point on the record.
HMP Downview: Female Prisoners
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
I am grateful for being granted this debate on the safety and wellbeing of women in HMP Downview. Women prisoners are some of the most vulnerable in our society, yet very few people give much thought to the conditions in which they are being held. Today I want to draw attention to an unacceptable situation, one that not only places these women at risk of harm but that fails to recognise their basic rights. The law is being broken and it is being broken by our public institutions.
It was in 1823 that the Gaols Act was passed, mandating sex-segregated prisons. Before then, women in prison faced sexual assault and exploitation on a daily basis. Elizabeth Fry brought about important reforms that improved conditions for women, but she would be turning in her grave at where we now find ourselves over 200 years later.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this debate forward; I spoke to her beforehand in relation to it, and I thank her for raising the issue. Reports have shown that there has been a 90% increase in the number of mentally unwell women at Downview, who face extended delays in getting the support they need. The situation is the same back home at Hydebank Wood in Northern Ireland. In addition, prison staff are not trained mental health professionals, so the necessary healthcare support is not in place. Does the hon. Lady agree that there must be provision to properly train prison staff to support them in supporting prisoners who are faced with long delays and deteriorating mental health?
Rebecca Paul
That is absolutely right and the situation at HMP Downview is a great source of concern to me, which is why I am raising it with the Minister.
However, I want to move on to another issue. Once again, we have mixed-sex prisons—inclusion trumping safety, ideology winning out over reality, the feelings of a man holding more weight than the fears of many women. HMP Downview is a women’s prison in Banstead, near the Sutton border. It includes a wing, E Wing, specifically for biological males who identify as women. E Wing local policy sets out that it is for transgender women with or without a gender recognition certificate where risk indicates they cannot be safely held in the general women’s estate.
Over the course of the last year, between five and seven males have been housed in this wing. The Minister in the other place has said that these males are vulnerable. Before I look at the facts, I have a warning: some may find the data difficult as it yields an uncomfortable truth, but one that it is incumbent upon this House not to ignore.
In 2024, of the 245 transgender males—biological males with a trans identity—in prison, 151, or 62%, were convicted of a sexual offence. This is a far, far higher rate than that for the overall male prison population, which is only around 17%. And it is not a one-off either: a similar rate can be seen for 2023—a rate of 56%. So sexual offences are massively over-represented in this specific cohort of biological males.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)
Will the hon. Lady make it clear again for anyone watching this debate that what she is saying is that those biological males—fully intact biological males—housed on the women’s estate are overwhelmingly convicted of violent sexual offences?
Rebecca Paul
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. This is the reality of the data; we must not ignore what the data tells us. I did warn that it makes for an uncomfortable truth, but I can verify all of it and provide hon. Members with the data—I would not come to the House and give hon. Members incorrect data. Accordingly, we can conclude that the male transgender prison population poses a much higher risk to women and girls.
When people parrot the line that transwomen are not a threat to women, in the case of the prison population, I am afraid that that statement does not hold up. Zoe Watts, a biological male who identifies as a women, was jailed for eight years and six months after trying to use a 3D printer to make a gun that had the capacity to cause mass casualties. He was arrested by armed officers and a stockpile of weapons and materials was found at his home. There was a disturbing video on social media of him smashing a watermelon with women’s faces on it using a glass shard-encrusted baseball bat. He was put in HMP Downview.
Joanna Rowland-Stuart, a biological male who identifies as a woman, who stabbed his partner to death with a samurai sword, was put in HMP Downview too. John Dixon, now known as Sally, is a paedophile who was found guilty of 30 sexual assault charges involving seven children, some as young as six years old. He may have been held in HMP Downview too.
There are also more well known transwomen prisoners who have hit the headlines, such as Isla Bryson and Karen White, both incarcerated with women. Isla Bryson, from Scotland, was jailed for raping two women, but only after being charged did he come out as transgender. This dangerous rapist was remanded in a women’s prison. Holyrood, it seems, is even worse than Westminster for drinking the gender Kool-Aid. The case of Karen White is even more appalling. A transwoman convicted of rape and a knife attack, he was remanded in HMP New Hall, a women’s and young offenders’ prison, where he sexually assaulted two inmates. Thankfully, this dangerous predator is no longer in the women’s prison estate.
I hope hon. Members understand why I have grave concerns about such violent males continuing to be incarcerated with women. Not only is it against the law, the Supreme Court clarified back in April that single-sex provision must be based on biological sex alone, not anything else, but it is irresponsible and dangerous. Women prisoners deserve better than this. They should feel and be safe.
I now want to get into a bit more detail about E Wing within HMP Downview. Ministers have said many times in response to written questions that E Wing is not part of the general women’s estate, which is an odd statement for them to make. E Wing is a wing within HMP Downview, and HMP Downview is a women’s prison, ergo E Wing is part of the women’s prison estate. I have visited it and seen it with my own eyes.
Why might Ministers be at pains to say that it is not part of the general women’s estate? I believe they are using a play on words to obscure the fact that the single-sex provisions of the Equality Act are being breached. The current policy for managing transgender prisoners, introduced by the former right hon. Member for Esher and Walton when he was Justice Secretary, prohibits male prisoners who retain their birth genitalia or have any history of sexual or violent offences from being held in the general women’s estate, unless an exemption is granted by a Minister. So this ministerial characterisation that E wing is not part of the general women’s estate appears to be a tenuous effort to argue that they have complied with the policy and the Equality Act after all.
E Wing is physically located within a women’s prison. It is subject to the same policies and procedures as the rest of HMP Downview. It has the same Governor. Its funding comes out of the same pots. Its inmates are supported by the same health services. It beggars belief that Ministers think that we will believe that this wing is not part of the women’s estate.
Putting to one side this blatant breach of the Equality Act for now, let us consider whether the males held in E Wing are truly segregated from the rest of the female prison population. Again, Ministers keep saying that they are, but E Wing is like any other wing.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
On that point, will the hon. Member give way?
Rebecca Paul
I will not. E wing has sleeping quarters and bathrooms, along with some living room space. Everything else that these prisoners need, like work, education and health services, are only available in the main estate. They therefore spend their days mixing with the women. So what supervision arrangements are in place to protect the women from these dangerous males?
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Rebecca Paul
I will not.
In September, the independent monitoring board published its report on HMP Downview and shed some light on this matter. The report makes it clear that there had previously been
“a requirement for constant sight and sound supervision of E wing prisoners by a dedicated prison officer on a 1:1 basis whilst in activities…alongside prisoners in the general population.”
However, the report notes that that was changed earlier in the reporting period. It says:
“The previous 1:1 supervision arrangement was replaced”
by staff having
“general oversight of the E wing residents off the wing, as they do for all other prisoners”—
in other words, nothing additional.
To be completely clear, we have violent males housed in a women’s prison, which in itself is against the law. These males are not segregated from the women in the daytime; they use all the same services and communal spaces. These violent males are not supervised any differently from the female prisoners, with the previous one-on-one supervision by a dedicated prison officer being stopped. That is gross negligence and shows a complete disregard for the safety and wellbeing of female prisoners at HMP Downview.
What have been the responses of Ministers to the supervision issue raised in the report? Are they horrified? Have they committed to look into this issue? No, of course not. What they did do was remove the chair of the independent monitoring board the day after publication of the report highlighting the safeguarding failure.
Before I bring my speech to a close, let me comment on assertions that these males have not caused any issues for female prisoners. In reality, I really do not know if that is the case, because my question about how many of the prisoner-on-prisoner assaults at HMP Downview were committed by males has not elicited a response. Ministers simply say that the information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Why is that information not being provided? A failure to respond to that straightforward question does not fill me with confidence.
I would be grateful if the Minister could answer the following questions. When are the biological males being moved out of HMP Downview and all other women’s prisons, in accordance with the Equality Act? What immediate action is being taken about the inadequate supervision of these males in HMP Downview and any other women’s prison where it is relevant? How comfortable is the Minister with the removal of the chair of the independent monitoring board the day after the publication of the IMB’s September 2025 report highlighting the changes to supervision of E Wing inmates? How many assaults of female prisoners and prison officers by biological males in the women’s prison estate have taken place since the inclusion of males in women’s prisons? What percentage of total assaults do they make up?
I thank all Members for their participation in the debate this evening. Those who notified me in advance that they would like to make an intervention were granted said intervention—courtesy needs to be paid to these things. I also thank the Minister for listening to what I know is probably a difficult speech to listen to. I hope the issue at hand is now clear.
I urge the Minister finally to grasp the nettle on this shocking scandal and ensure that women’s prisons become single sex once again. We managed to get this right more than 200 years ago. Please restore our faith that this country is not going backwards on basic safeguards and rights for women.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on securing this debate. This is an important issue that inspires much emotion from both sides of the debate, and it is vital that we handle it sensitively and with care.
Women make up only a very small proportion of those in custody, yet, as the hon. Member said, they often have some more complex needs than men. Some 68% of women in custody have reported experience of domestic abuse, and more than half have suffered abuse as a child.
As the Minister responsible for tackling violence against women and girls, I am very aware of these issues. It is for those reasons that I was delighted that the Government created the Women’s Justice Board, which will help to reduce the number of women in prison. That is also why I was proud that the Labour manifesto committed to continuing the support for single-sex exemptions available in the Equality Act.
Rachel Taylor
May I ask the Minister whether the violence experienced by women, in prison or not, is generally committed by cis men, not by transgender women? Does she agree that this is simply a way of fuelling culture wars and is not helpful in protecting women or any LGBT people, who are experiencing an increase in violent hate crime?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention—it is important to put on record the nuance in this area. It is also important to recognise that levels of violence in prison are untenable and need addressing, whoever is committing that violence. The level of violence in the male estate is incredibly high and needs addressing, and my priority as the Minister for victims and for tackling violence against women and girls is getting on top of all this, because anyone who feels unsafe in prison needs our support. That is exactly what we are trying to ensure.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I listened to the speech made by the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul). Tackling violence against women in women’s prisons is on all of us, but a huge part of this debate is missing, which is the self-harm that women are inflicting on themselves. Some 20,000 incidents of self-harm have taken place in women’s prisons alone. How much of that is attributable to overcrowding in prisons, past experience of trauma and abuse, and a lack of training and resources for prison staff? If we are trying to tackle violence against women and girls, should our biggest priority not be the incidents that we see higher numbers of?
Alex Davies-Jones
My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, is absolutely right. That is why, as I have outlined, this Government are committed to the work of the Women’s Justice Board, which is looking at how we can get women who should not necessarily be in prison out of prison, particularly mothers. That is not the right place for them. That is exactly what the Women’s Justice Board—led by my hon. Friend in the other place, the Minister for Prisons—is working on with the Lord Chancellor.
However, this evening’s debate is complex because, as we have heard, transgender women can have similar vulnerabilities. That does not necessarily mean that they need to be granted access to the space for biological women, but these matters require thought and tact if they are to be resolved in a fair and balanced way. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service’s approach to allocating transgender women to prison has been through several iterations over the past decade. It balances the risk that transgender prisoners may pose to others if placed in a prison that aligns with their gender identity with the risk posed to and by them if they are placed in a prison that aligns with their biological sex.
Emily Darlington
Does the Minister think it is really important to understand the context? We have just talked about how many women are in prison because of the abuse that they have suffered, but many trans women are also put in those vulnerable positions, and they are even more likely than cis women to be victims of crime. Does the Minister agree that it would be useful for us to use the facts? Could she explain exactly what the position is at HMP Downview? Having some clarity on that, rather than just reiterating rumours that are being written about in newspapers, is probably a better way to deal with quite a sensitive issue, given that people can be both perpetrators of crime and victims of it.
Alex Davies-Jones
My hon. Friend is right, and I hope to put on record some clarity and facts this evening, rather than just fuelling misinformation.
The current policy, which was brought in by the previous Government, is that no transgender woman charged with, or convicted of, either a sexual or a violent offence or who retains birth genitalia can be held in the general women’s estate, unless an exception is granted by a Minister. I would like to state this evening that no such exemptions have been granted under this Government.
Rebecca Paul
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have just been accused of misinformation, and I want to make the point that the information and data I cited was obtained through written parliamentary questions. I can provide that data, so it is not misinformation; it is information that has come from the Ministry of Justice.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Minister, you may want to clarify that remark.
Alex Davies-Jones
I will happily clarify it. I was not accusing the hon. Lady of misinformation; I was saying that there is a lot of misinformation out there regarding this issue, and that it is important that I put on record the facts of the case, which is what I am doing.
I want to reassert my last point: no exemptions have been granted under this Government. Exemptions that allow transgender women to be housed in the general women’s estate are recommended only when there is a compelling reason, such as a suicide or self-harm risk, or a risk to the prisoner from others, and where a specially trained multidisciplinary panel has carried out a comprehensive risk assessment that concludes that it has a high level of confidence that the prisoner poses a low risk to other prisoners. Again, though, no such exemption has been granted under this Government.
Rebecca Paul
The Minister mentions risk assessments. The independent monitoring board report seems to suggest that no such risk assessments have been provided. Can she put on the record that those risk assessments for every single biological male in HMP Downview are on file somewhere, and that she is comfortable that they exist?
Alex Davies-Jones
I will ensure that the Minister responsible writes to the hon. Lady to inform her of that. In terms of managing the risk posed to biological women, these policies have been a success. There have been zero assaults and zero sexual assaults committed by transgender women in the women’s estate since 2019. To answer her point, there have been zero assaults.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) on securing this important debate. The Minister may be aware that Scottish Ministers are waiting to see the Equality and Human Rights Commission guidance, following the Supreme Court ruling. Does she believe that it is tenable for Scottish Ministers to not implement the law as it is written, while waiting on the guidance, and can she give any advice on when it will be published?
Alex Davies-Jones
It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the devolved competencies of another legislature—this is something for the Scottish Government to determine—but I can outline what will be doing as the Government responsible for England and Wales. More than 95% of transgender women are held in men’s prisons. Of the small number held in women’s prisons, the significant majority are held on E wing at HMP Downview, a women’s prison in the constituency of the hon. Member for Reigate. It is a stand-alone 16-bed unit, where the prisoners are accommodated completely separately from biological women, in a discrete building behind a gated fence.
Like the hon. Member, I have visited HMP Downview and E wing. I have spoken to the prisoners and the staff there. E wing was introduced by the previous Government in 2019. The reason it was created, and the function that it serves, links directly to the vulnerabilities of many transgender women. Those held in men’s prisons are disproportionately likely to self-harm, as we have already heard, and they face bullying and harassment. They are also disproportionately likely to be victims of sexual assault. Between 2016 and 2021, transgender women were victims in 3.4% of all sexual assaults reported in men’s prisons, despite never making up more than 0.3% of the population there.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I know the Minister is a reasonable person, and I am trying to find some common ground here. I could understand it, if the transgender males held in this particular unit had at least undergone reassignment surgery. They would definitely be vulnerable in a male prison. The argument for them to be held in a truly separate unit is strong. It seems from what we heard from my hon. Friend that the people who are causing concern are those who are biologically intact. In other words, they are any male who chooses to identify as a female.
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome the intervention by the right hon. Gentleman. He always tries to be helpful in debates, and I welcome that. Some of the prisoners held on E wing at HMP Downview have had full gender reassignment surgery. Some have not. However, full risk assessments are carried out before anyone is placed at HMP Downview. As I have stated, no prisoner has been placed there under this Government, and no exemptions have been made under this Government.
The allocation criteria rightly set a high bar for transgender women to be held in the general women’s estate. However, failing to meet that high bar does not mean that a transgender prisoner can necessarily be managed safely in a men’s prison. For those who are particularly vulnerable, such as those who have undergone full gender affirming surgery, E wing can, where appropriate, provide an important option.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
The Minister may or may not be aware that prior to coming to this place, I ran a homelessness and support charity for the general population, including young women. It was always possible in that context, even as a charity, to find support and housing for transgender women, as well as to incorporate sex-segregated spaces for women, who had often gone through difficult experiences at the hands of biological males. Does she agree that it should always be possible, however it is done, to create provision in the prison estate for transgender women and for sex-segregated spaces?
Alex Davies-Jones
I totally agree with that, and I thank my hon. Friend for his work, both inside and outside this House, to help women in incredibly vulnerable positions. He is correct, and we feel that HMP Downview, with the separate E wing, which is on the estate but not part of the general women’s estate, is the solution. It does work and it is working, as is shown in the data.
There has been no change in the requirement that E wing prisoners must remain under constant supervision at all times, but there has been a change in relation to who provides the supervision. Following that change, a dedicated prison officer now escorts E wing prisoners on and off the wing, and if the risk assessment deems it appropriate, the member of staff running the activities in which they participate must supervise them for the length of the activity. The prison implemented the change on the basis of a stringent local assessment of the risks to prisoners, and no risk concerns have been raised about the regime access of any E wing prisoners since the supervision policy changed. The prison will keep the arrangement under strict review, and we will make an operational decision to revoke that access if it is deemed necessary.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Alex Davies-Jones
I will, but only briefly, because I am conscious of the time.
Kirsteen Sullivan
I thank my hon. Friend, and I thank the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) for securing the debate. At the beginning of her speech, my hon. Friend said that there were many vulnerable women in prisons, that over half of them had experienced domestic violence, and that many had experienced emotional, physical or sexual abuse. That being the case, does she appreciate that having anyone other than biological females on the female estate risks re-traumatising already vulnerable women?
Alex Davies-Jones
My priority is ensuring the safety of all prisoners on our estate. That requires a strict regime and a strict policy. I have met far too many female prisoners who—as my hon. Friend has rightly mentioned—are victims of crime themselves, who have been through the most horrific circumstances, and who have ended up in prison when they should not have been there. They should be in women’s centres, or work should be done in the community to prevent them from reoffending. Prison is not the right place for the vast majority of women, which is why the work of the Women’s Justice Board is so crucial.
I welcome the interest in this issue expressed by all the Members who have spoken, and recognise the importance of ensuring that prisons are operating safely and effectively. We will continue to keep the policy under review to ensure that it continues to be effective. As the Hon. Member for Reigate would expect, we are reviewing all aspects of transgender prisoner policy, following the For Women Scotland Supreme Court ruling handed down earlier this year. We need to ensure that our approach remains lawful, effective and fair. The ruling confirmed that references to “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 relate to biological sex, while making it clear that protections for transgender people remain. That landmark judgment brought much-needed clarity, but the hon. Member will understand that it is imperative for everyone that we get this right.
Following the Supreme Court ruling, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has submitted its draft updated code on single-sex spaces to the Government for approval.
The Government are considering the draft updated code closely, and if a decision is made to approve it, the Minister for Women and Equalities will lay it before Parliament. While I recognise the frustration and the desire to expedite this process, we must bring clarity to service providers. The proposed code of practice is more than 300 pages long, and it is important that the correct process is followed. The hon. Member will appreciate that getting decisions wrong could carry potentially grave consequences, endangering either the safety of biological women or that of transgender women. The Ministry of Justice is working closely with the Office for Equality and Opportunity to understand the implications of the Supreme Court ruling, and we look forward to saying more in due course.
I thank all Members for taking part in the debate, but I particularly thank the hon. Member for Reigate. This is an important subject, and while I realise how emotive it can be, I hope that my setting out the facts and assuring Members of the policy directions that exist—along with the fact that there have been zero sexual or other assaults on any female prisoner by a transgender prisoner since 2019—has made clear the balance that we seek to strike in the way in which we allocate transgender prisoners, and has also helped to add some balance to this debate. I can assure the hon. Member for Reigate that as we continue our review of transgender prisoner policies, our approach will always be to seek to ensure the safety of all prisoners, and that I seek to work with her and anyone else with an interest in this important topic. The Government will provide an update once the review has ended.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Collective Money Purchase Schemes) (Extension to Unconnected Multiple Employer Schemes and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
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?
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.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gaza: Humanitarian Obligations
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 700682 relating to humanitarian obligations and Gaza.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. The petition was started in January 2025 and is titled “Urgently fulfil humanitarian obligations to Gaza”. It reads:
“Act to ensure delivery of fuel, food, aid, life saving services etc. We think this shouldn’t be dependent/on condition of Israeli facilitation as the Knesset voted against UNRWA access to Gaza. We think if military delivery of aid, airdrops, peacekeepers etc, are needed, then all be considered.
Israel does not agree to ceasefire and does not permit UNRWA access. We think the UK must find alternative means to deliver aid. We believe this must done urgently with urgent deadlines, with or without Israeli support.”
The Government responded to the petition in August, noting that the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification had issued an alert warning that the worst-case scenario—famine—was unfolding. They also noted that
“All routes to deliver humanitarian aid into Gaza are controlled by and must be approved by the Government of Israel.”
And, therefore, the UK
“has collaborated with regional partners on alternative routes for aid to get into Gaza, including air drops and a maritime corridor.”
I believe that this conflict has touched many people across the world. I am sure that every Member in this room will have received high numbers of correspondence from constituents about the ongoing situation. I know this is a topic my constituents care about deeply, and I am proud to be representing their views, as well as those of the nearly 200,000 people who signed the petition.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for introducing this debate. She has mentioned the number of people who signed the petition, which includes 715 people from my constituency. They will have given money to many of the UK aid agencies that are trying to get this aid in urgently. Does my hon. Friend agree that all the aid getting that urgency is a measure of the success of the British Government’s work with the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre?
Irene Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting those important facts, and I agree with the points she raises.
I was contacted by a constituent on Friday who said:
“We are still not seeing enough food, medicine, tents or machinery required to clear roads, excavate bombed buildings to recover the dead, restore water and electricity and sewage treatment facilities being allowed through the Israeli blockade. I implore you to use all the influence you have to pressure the Prime Minister to at the very least publicly call out the atrocities that continue in Gaza.”
I receive many emails with that sentiment.
Since 7 October 2023, approximately 2,000 Israelis have been killed, including civilians and Israel Defence Forces soldiers, and more than 20,000 IDF soldiers have been injured. The Palestinian figures are as follows: almost 70,000 Palestinians have been killed in the Gaza strip, and more than 170,000 have been injured. A UN impact report found that nearly 53% of those fatalities have been women, children and elderly people.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
The hon. Lady touches on the burden that women and children are facing. Does she agree that, with 123,000 pregnant women across the west bank and Gaza living with severe malnutrition, inadequate medical care and soaring risks to themselves and their babies, it is incumbent on the Government to provide as much aid as possible so that those 123,000 pregnant women are supported?
Irene Campbell
I thank the hon. Member for raising that important issue, and I fully agree with him.
It is important to remember that this situation is fast moving and can change from day to day. The humanitarian aid reaching Gaza has been intermittent and has started and stopped repeatedly. It is vital to note that, since the ceasefire, only a fraction of the promised aid has actually reached Gaza.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Many of my constituents believe that the United Nations Relief and Works Agency is best placed to deliver aid in Gaza. Given that the International Court of Justice determined that Israel is under a legal obligation to facilitate the aid operations of UN agencies, including UNRWA, in the state of Palestine, does my hon. Friend agree that the UK Government need to take urgent action to ensure that its close ally acts in accordance with that determination?
Irene Campbell
I agree with the points made by my hon. Friend. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to this debate.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for leading this important debate. She is quite right that nearly 200,000 people have signed this very important petition at relatively short notice. The reality is that, as well as humanitarian aid not getting in, Israel continues to breach the ceasefire. Hundreds of Palestinians continue to die. Starvation and famine remain a reality for millions of Palestinians. Even basic needs like tents are not being provided, with children having to sleep in contaminated water. Many thousands are already at risk of disease.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK Government and the international community cannot continue to look on as though the whole situation has been resolved? As the Government have, quite rightly, imposed widespread sanctions against Russia for its war crimes in Ukraine, they need to do the same against Israel for its war crimes and continued genocide in Gaza.
Irene Campbell
Some of what my hon. Friend has raised will be said later in this debate. As I said previously, it will be important to hear the Minister’s response to today’s debate.
Humanitarian aid reaching Gaza has been intermittent, starting and stopping repeatedly. Since the ceasefire, only a fraction of promised aid has actually reached Gaza. I agree with the conclusion of the UN independent international commission of inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel, which stated:
“Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.”
On 22 August 2025, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification confirmed that a famine is taking place in the Gaza governorate, and that more than half a million people face
“catastrophic conditions characterised by starvation, destitution and death.”
It also found that restricted access to humanitarian and commercial supplies of food and other essentials was a key driver of famine, saying:
“Since mid-March, access to both humanitarian and commercial supplies of food and other essential goods—including water, medicine, shelter and fuel—has remained critically restricted. A ‘tactical pause’ announced on 27 July failed to improve conditions as violence continued throughout the Strip—including airstrikes, shelling, and shooting.”
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
In October this year, I was pleased, along with other parliamentarians, to meet a senior member of UNRWA as part of our work with the British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. He told us how vital it was that UNRWA’s programme of aid be fully restored, given the conditions that my hon. Friend and others have described. Would she agree that it is vital to restore the programme in full?
Irene Campbell
I fully agree with that point.
The director general of the World Health Organisation stated:
“There are no fully-functioning hospitals in Gaza, and only 14 out of 36 are functioning at all.”
He also said:
“If you take the famine and combine it with a mental health problem, which we see is rampant, then the situation is a crisis for generations to come.”
The public health report of 13 November attributed the weakened healthcare system to ongoing attacks and resource shortages. The World Health Organisation also found that there is a chronic shortage of essential medical equipment and medicines. Additionally, ongoing fuel shortages in Gaza have restricted the mobility of humanitarian aid and healthcare workers.
As we approach winter and the weather gets colder, the need for humanitarian aid is intensifying. The United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs says that heavy rain has already affected over 13,000 households across the Gaza strip, including hundreds of tents and makeshift shelters. As time passes, the need for items such as tents, blankets and tarps will only increase.
On 6 November, the United Nations stated that the Israeli authorities have rejected more than 100 requests to bring relief materials into Gaza since the ceasefire began. The UN further stated that:
“Since 10 October, more than 6,490 MT”—
metric tonnes—
“of UN-coordinated relief materials have been denied entry into Gaza. Of these, over 3,700 MT were rejected on the grounds that the organisations were not authorized to bring relief items into Gaza.”
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
To enable the safe transfer of aid, we must uphold the right to provide humanitarian relief to people in need. My constituent, Louie Findlater, was on the recent aid flotilla that came under drone attack. Louie returned safely, but other volunteers were kidnapped and wrongfully detained.
My other constituent, John Chapman, was delivering food with World Central Kitchen when his convoy was struck by an IDF missile. There has been no formal apology for his death, no compensation for his family and little accountability for what happened to him and the other British aid volunteers who have died. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that humanitarian norms and red lines are not set in concrete, so if we fail to secure accountability for those crimes, and all the horrors of the last two years, the legacy of genocide in Gaza will be a concerning shift to a more dangerous world?
Irene Campbell
I agree with my hon. Friend.
Importantly, the United Nations update noted:
“Many international NGO partners continue to face difficulties in being registered in Israel, preventing them from bringing supplies into Gaza and operating at scale, and UNRWA continues to be banned by Israeli authorities from bringing in food and other supplies into Gaza.”
That refers to the October 2024 vote by the Israeli Parliament that banned UNRWA from conducting any activity or providing any service in Israel, including the areas of annexed East Jerusalem, Gaza and the west bank.
Another UN impact report found that, as of 5 November, 38% of households in the Gaza and north Gaza governorates relied on humanitarian aid as their primary source of food, and that figure was 54% of households in the Deir al-Balah and Khan Yunis governorates. Shockingly, it also found that more than 90% of children under two years old consumed fewer than two food groups a day, with high-protein foods and micronutrient-rich items extremely scarce.
In his 20-point Gaza peace plan, President Trump specified:
“Upon acceptance of this agreement, full aid will be immediately sent into the Gaza Strip… Entry of distribution and aid in the Gaza Strip will proceed without interference from the two parties through the United Nations and its agencies, and the Red Crescent, in addition to other international institutions not associated in any manner with either party.”
It is worth noting that the Prime Minister welcomed that news, adding:
“This agreement must now be implemented in full, without delay, and accompanied by the immediate lifting of all restrictions on life-saving humanitarian aid to Gaza.”
Sadly, that has not happened.
Israel and Hamas have accused each other of violating the ceasefire agreement since 10 October, but I will highlight a case that constituents have written to me about. Just eight days into the ceasefire, the Israeli military fired on a civilian vehicle, killing members of the Abu Shaaban family—seven children and three women who were simply trying to check on their home. The areas still under Israeli occupation beyond the yellow line are not demarcated and, with limited internet access, civilians in Gaza may not know which areas are in or out of Israeli military control. Such cases show how crucial it is that aid reaches Gaza and that peace is allowed to come to the region.
The July 2024 ruling of the International Court of Justice is key. The advisory opinion sets out various obligations in respect of third states, including the obligation to ensure that Israel complies with international humanitarian law. It is very important to consider the International Development Committee’s June 2025 report on its inquiry into UK humanitarian obligations, which states:
“The UK has a legal obligation to both respect IHL and to ensure that it is respected in all circumstances”,
and:
“Once impartial humanitarian relief schemes have been agreed to, the parties (whether or not parties to the armed conflict) must allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of these relief schemes, subject to their right of control.”
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is talking about the appalling impact of the lack of humanitarian aid in Gaza, especially on children. More than half the population of Gaza are children, and they have not only been missing food; they have missed two years of education. I recently met Save the Children and was told that 97% of Gaza’s schools are in rubble and the remaining 3% are used to house homeless people. Does my hon. Friend agree that the future prospects for peace depend on not only getting lifesaving humanitarian food in, but giving those children a future? We must get those schools reopened as fast as possible.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has mentioned children. Last night I met Dr Mohammed Tahir, the doctor featured in the film “The Mission”. In that film, he is shown operating on children without anaesthesia, with dead children at his feet. Only 10%, at best, of medical supplies are getting through to Gaza at the moment. Can our Government not do more to enforce a greater supply?
Irene Campbell
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention; I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response in relation to these points.
As the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs notes,
“UNRWA continues to be banned by Israeli authorities from bringing in food and other supplies into Gaza.”
That further complicates matters, because it is important that aid is delivered by those trained to do so. Humanitarian aid is a specialist area, and organisations with experience cannot simply be replaced by others. We need co-ordination on access to aid to ensure that no single party has a monopoly or veto on what can enter Gaza.
The UK is a leader on the world stage, and British citizens are simply asking that we use our position to influence what needs to be done. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and I ask him to use the significant diplomatic and economic leverage that the UK possesses to do as much as possible to allow aid to those desperately in need and to alleviate suffering.
Several hon. Members rose—
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that, should they wish to speak in this debate, they need to bob. I know there are a lot of Members wishing to speak, but I believe there will be enough time for everybody.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I will be brief, Ms McVey. I simply say this: anyone who has observed what has happened in Gaza over the past 18 months must be disgusted and appalled at what they have seen—the deaths of children, the deaths of adults and the continued bombardment—and at the role that Britain has played in supplying arms to Israel that have contributed to all that. It is an utterly disgusting situation. History will be very harsh on European and north American politicians who stood by and allowed those weapons to be supplied, knowing full well what was happening to them, while we were watching genocide on live television.
Whole families have been destroyed. I have friends who send me stuff from the west bank and Gaza, and this weekend I was reading about one man who has been left looking after 26 grandchildren because all his children, his partner and his immediate family have been killed. He is an elderly man looking after 26 children, but that is not an unusual situation. He has no money or home, so he is trying to build a tent to house them all. That is the reality of what has happened because of this bombardment.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is vividly explaining the reality of what is happening in Gaza and the west bank. Does he agree that the Government of Israel are treating the international community with contempt, as well as the public the world over who are concerned about the genocide? Rather than treating the Government of Israel with kid gloves, this Government have a moral and legal obligation to introduce sanctions on Israel on the scale of those that have been rightly brought on Russia. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a failure to do so will go down as a real abdication of moral and legal responsibility at this crucial time?
Jeremy Corbyn
By any measurement of humanity, the people of Gaza have suffered as grievously as anyone has ever suffered in any conflict in the world. More than 60,000 are already dead, with the rest living among rubble, starving and unable to get the basic needs of medical attention. That also affects children, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) pointed out.
We are looking at an utterly devastating situation, which the British Government have been told about many times. They resisted the calls for a ceasefire at the very beginning; we even had the now Prime Minister saying that it was a legitimate act of self-defence by Israel to deny food and water to people in Gaza. Both the Conservative and Labour Governments have a pretty bad record on this, and I would have thought that the very least we could do now is say that there can be absolutely no arms sales of any sort or any military co-operation with Israel.
The so-called ceasefire in the Trump plan basically ensures Israel’s continued occupation of substantial parts of Gaza. It does not say very much about the abominable behaviour of Israeli armed settlers on the west bank, who are destroying villages and killing people as we speak. Surely this House needs to send the strong message that we recognise the right of the Palestinian people to live in peace, as well as recognising the importance and primacy of international law—the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) made that point very strongly.
The hon. Member and I have visited the International Court of Justice at The Hague, and I sat through the entire hearing when South Africa made its application—a moving and fascinating experience. The case was made brilliantly by South Africa, which was condemned by Members on both sides of the House for even bringing the case of genocide against Israel. While it put its case, I was looking at the wonderful ceiling in the Peace Palace and thinking back to when all South Africa’s current leaders were called terrorists and denounced for undermining and upsetting the apartheid regime. They finished apartheid, and then they gave their support to the people of Palestine—well done, South Africa, for having the bravery to do that.
We need to understand the importance of international law. If we believe in international law, as this Parliament and Britain always claim—we helped to write the European convention on human rights and the United Nations universal declaration of human rights—we must stand by it and ensure that the Israeli Government are taken to task for their breaches of human rights around the world.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
I reiterate the right hon. Gentleman’s words: we cannot speak of recovery without first seeking and speaking of justice and accountability. Does he agree that all alleged breaches of international law, including accusations of genocide, must be investigated; that those responsible must be held to account; and that the people of Gaza deserve not only immediate relief but a future built on justice? Does he agree that peace is impossible without justice?
Jeremy Corbyn
The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer himself and far better qualified than me on these matters. I absolutely agree that justice requires us to act, otherwise we undermine the whole principle of international law. The long arm of international law might even reach to us—yes, to Britain—because we knowingly supplied weapons. We did that knowing that a genocide was going on, which makes us complicit in that genocide.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
This issue has a huge reach. Here we are in London discussing it, but I know that since I was re-elected in the summer of last year, every week a vigil has been held for the people of Gaza by concerned, decent people in Ullapool in Wester Ross, very far from here. The milk of human kindness still flows, and we should take courage from that.
Jeremy Corbyn
I welcome the hon. Member being returned to the House, as well as the comments that he has just made. The support for Gaza has been incredible, despite the denunciations of all the national demonstrations, which were called “hate marches” by the then Home Secretary. I have been on all 36 of them; I have spoken at every single one and I will continue to do that.
I also recognise that all over the country, small and medium-sized demonstrations are being held in often very small communities. I think that well over 2 million people in this country have shown some degree of support for the Palestinian people through meetings, marches, demonstrations, emails, petitions, letters—a whole lot of things. This issue has moved people deeply, and those demonstrations have made a difference. The rhetoric by both the Conservative and Labour Governments started to change as the demonstrations got bigger; things have begun to change, and people have begun to understand the horror of the life of the Palestinian people.
I will finish with this point, because other Members wish to speak. It is becoming winter in Gaza and the west bank, and despite their latitude, it is actually very cold there in winter. Long before the current bombardment, I recall once being an election observer in Gaza in January, and the weather was bitterly cold and horrible—I thought it was terrible then, but it is a thousand times worse now. People will be dying of cold and hypothermia when there are stacks of tents on the other side of the border in Israel that are not being allowed in. People will be dying because of operations conducted without anaesthetic when plenty of anaesthetics are available just across the border, waiting to get in from Egypt.
This is an abominable situation. Can we not as a House say quite bluntly to Israel, “You’re wrong. What you’re doing is illegal and immoral. History will judge you for being the people who committed genocide against the Palestinian people”?
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this debate.
I would like to turn the debate back to what it is supposed to be about, which is the suffering in Palestine. For the people there, there is no ceasefire. Bloodshed, slaughter and starvation remain the reality on the ground. Since the ceasefire was supposedly agreed, 63 children have been killed, according to UN sources—that is two children every day who have been murdered under the so-called ceasefire agreement. Those children who are alive are almost certainly suffering in some other way. They are injured or grieving, having lost their parents, friends or loved ones.
Regardless of the constant violations and airstrikes, and the continued starvation, the illusion of a ceasefire has allowed many to take a moral holiday from the crisis in Palestine. They are patting themselves on the back for having solved this international crisis. Meanwhile, children are still paying the price and most families in Gaza remain trapped in crowded makeshift camps with little or no aid.
We must be under no illusions: as we approach winter, the situation for civilians will only get worse. In the last few weeks, rainstorms and flooding have plunged Gazans into further misery, destroying the little shelter they have left. Tents have been broken; mattresses have been soaked. Because Gaza’s sanitation system has collapsed, much of the water saturating tents, mattresses and even food supplies is contaminated with sewage. There is virtually no dry land left; there is no new safe space to create new camps—there is nowhere else to go.
We cannot allow the pretence of a ceasefire to slow our efforts to fulfil the humanitarian obligations to Gaza, or to excuse a lacklustre approach to supporting civilians. The humanitarian degradation and destruction in Gaza and the west bank remain as urgent as ever. I know that the Minister cares immensely and works tremendously hard. Does he agree that we have entered a situation where the Israeli Government can claim the moral high ground of operating under a ceasefire deal while continuing their assault on Gaza? If so, what representations has he made to Israel and our American partners to urge Israel to act in accordance with its moral obligation under international and humanitarian law and let aid flow into Gaza?
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair for this hugely important debate, Ms McVey. I begin by thanking everyone from every corner of the UK who signed the petition and forced us into having this debate. It is another perfect example of just how far ahead of the Government and, unfortunately, of this place generally the people of these islands are when it comes to the plight of the beleaguered civilians of Gaza, and demonstrates once again their desire to see peace with justice for the Palestinian people.
Never before have I witnessed such a sustained coming together of people and communities who are determined to show solidarity with the victims of what can only be described as one of the greatest injustices of our time. The people have decided that if 70,000 deaths, 200,000 injuries, Gaza being reduced to an uninhabitable wasteland, the population being in the midst of a man-made famine, the medical infrastructure being obliterated and the occupying power using water and electricity as means of coercion and punishment are not enough to make their Government act decisively, they are going to do something themselves. The people can see that, by denying food and medicine to the starving and the dying, and repeatedly forcing the displacement of millions of civilians, Israel is, beyond any dispute, in flagrant breach of the genocide convention. They also see that the UK has failed abysmally in its legal obligation to both prevent and punish the crime of genocide. By their actions, the people from across these islands are saying to their Government, “Not in my name.”
I pay tribute to the groups in my constituency of Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber that have organised, petitioned, prayed, raised awareness and raised funds for the people of Gaza over the past two years. Events take place every single week. I thank every one of the individuals involved for their humanitarianism and their determination not to turn a blind eye to the suffering and the injustice, as I fear far too many of us have been persuaded to do. In the past three weeks alone, community-led events have taken place in Oban, Dunoon, the Isle of Bute and the village of Ardentinny. I put on record my appreciation of the astonishing efforts of Kathryn Wilkie, Graham McQueen, Marion Power and Dr Anna Leerssen from Oban Concern for Palestine, who raised more than £11,000 for medical aid for Palestinians at one fundraising event in the town a couple of weeks ago. A population of just 8,000 people raising that amount of money is absolutely remarkable.
They are not alone. Last week I spoke at an event organised by Father Roddy McAuley and the parishioners of St Mun’s in Dunoon, where, following a mass for justice and peace and a lively discussion about how we can advance justice and peace in Palestine, a collection was taken for the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund’s Gaza appeal. The same evening, in Rothesay, the Isle of Bute Palestine Solidarity Group held a sold-out music event, raising almost £1,200 for humanitarian projects in Gaza. The following day, in the tiny village of Ardentinny, Dina Macdonald organised an afternoon of music with Rickeera Kaur of the Argyll and Bute Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign where villagers raised funds for humanitarian aid. Those are just the events that I know about; I am sure there have been many others across Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber.
People and communities are refusing to sit back and, by their silence and inaction, allow the suffering of the people of Gaza to be conveniently forgotten about. It confirms what I have known for the past two years: when it comes to supporting defenceless civilians from genocide, the people of these islands are miles ahead of the current and the previous Government. They know that, however welcome the arrival of a ceasefire might be, the crisis has not gone away. There are still millions of people suffering who desperately need our help.
Given the shameful track record of successive UK Governments over the past two years, they have to be held to account and never be allowed to give up on their moral responsibility to the people of Gaza. The people of these islands recognise that, unlike other one-off appeals made at times of humanitarian crisis, this is not a natural disaster. This is an unnatural disaster being perpetrated by one of the UK’s closest allies while the UK Government continue to provide them with political and military support.
It is not that the current Government or the previous Government do not know what Israel is doing. In May the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), openly acknowledged Israeli war crimes against the civilian population when he said,
“the Israeli Government’s denial of food to hungry children…is wrong. It is appalling.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 927.]
But not, it would appear, appalling enough to stop the supply of weapons and end military co-operation, for the UK to make available the contents of reconnaissance flights over Gaza to anyone bar the Israeli military, or for meaningful sanctions and a co-ordinated effort to end the siege and have aid flood into Gaza free from Israeli control.
It is inconceivable that the UK would have allowed any other state to act with the impunity with which it is allowing Israel to act. The UK rightly sanctioned Russia, but now stands rightly accused of allowing a two-tier system of international law to operate. The UK Government’s failure to put significant pressure on Israel to lift the siege is nothing new. Last year, as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I visited Al-Arish on the Egypt-Gaza border, where I saw warehouses full of donated medical equipment, including wheelchairs, crutches, incubators, individual birthing kits for women in labour, medical cold storage boxes, generators and water storage bladders. They were in warehouses because the Israeli authorities had rejected out of hand the Red Crescent’s application to deliver them to those most in need in Gaza. There were warehouses full of food and miles and miles of lorries parked up waiting for permission from Israel to deliver that food aid.
That is what I mean when I say that this is an unnatural disaster—unnatural because it is deliberate. It is a man-made catastrophe in which people are not starving; they are being starved. The Prime Minister recognised that in September when he said,
“The Israeli Government are preventing urgently needed aid from getting in, which is why we are now seeing a man-made famine”.—[Official Report, 3 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 286.]
Yet despite recognising that the Israeli Government are responsible for creating this man-made famine by using food as a weapon of war, that same Prime Minister and his Government have steadfastly refused to do anything other than impose performative sanctions against a couple of individual Ministers, while continuing to provide the military and political support the Netanyahu regime needs to continue doing what it wants. That is why the people of the United Kingdom have over the past two years come together to support the civilian population in the way that they have.
By signing this petition, people in every corner of the UK, including the great folk of Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber, are demanding that the UK Government do much more to hold Israel to account for its actions, to force Israel to lift the siege, and to assist the United Nations in flooding Gaza with whatever assistance is required to end the appalling suffering. I sincerely thank them, commend them and applaud them for their efforts.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms McVey. I thank all the petitioners for their efforts, as well as my constituents who, as the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) also highlighted, have for decades been campaigning on this and standing with the people of Gaza and across the occupied territories of Palestine.
The critical humanitarian situation in Gaza must remain the focus of this Government. The demand for medical and surgical facilities, for equipment, for clinical staff and interventions, is as great as ever. The consequences of famine and war alongside the more recent surges in violence after the so-called ceasefire, which continue to require an acute response, need to be considered alongside the chronic need to manage disease, poor sanitation and malnutrition and, as we heard earlier, the particular healthcare needs of often incredibly frail women and children. There is also the issue of maternity provision, when 130 babies are born every day into this horrendous situation—a fifth prematurely or with enduring complications—and, of course, that constant need for good public health.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
UNICEF has highlighted that the Israeli blockade is preventing nearly 1 million bottles of ready-to-use infant formula from reaching babies in Gaza at risk of malnutrition. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must impose widespread economic sanctions on Israel unless and until that aid is let through?
Rachael Maskell
I thank my hon. Friend. It is an obscenity that mothers cannot feed their infants and have only filthy, disease-ridden water to give to their children. Of course we have to use every lever we have to address that injustice—including sanctions on the Israeli Government. As we have already heard about in this debate, we have applied those to other nations; we must apply them to the Israeli Government too.
In the light of the makeshift, ready-to-erect hospitals sitting on the other side of the border, it is vital that there are negotiations to bring them across, so that such facilities can be erected rapidly and provided with the support needed, whether that is equipment, pharmaceuticals or, crucially, medical staff. I understand that the number of health service points has risen from 197 in October to 219 today, but the levels of staffing and equipment have to match the need. With so much reconstruction of medical facilities needed, how are the UK Government ensuring that an assessment of sites is undertaken so that construction can be prioritised around healthcare? Likewise, what are the health needs for the workforce to be taken into Gaza? How can we support that effort, both in this transitional period and in the long term—and with the equipment and pharmaceuticals required as well—so that we can support the supply required at this time? We have already heard about anaesthetics not being available and operations taking place without them; we cannot imagine the suffering that people continue to endure. This is urgent, and we need to be able to address those health concerns.
As we have witnessed in wars across the world, it is women and girls who are targeted; sexual violence has further wounded survivors, and we should increase support services for them, alongside rigorous safeguarding to ensure that children are protected from those who, tragically, may prey on them. What has the Minister done to raise that specific issue with the Israeli authorities and to ensure that children are safeguarded?
Regarding the health workforce, are we confident that medics and other health professionals taken captive by the IDF have all been released? If not, what is the Minister doing to press that point? Their skills are needed, and it is important that they are given safe passage back into Gaza to support their community.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that journalists must also be given free access to Gaza and that it is important that international reporting resumes immediately?
Rachael Maskell
Of course. Journalists are the eyes of the world, and they open all our eyes to the suffering and the scale of what is happening. We need to ensure their safety and security, as well as the free access that my hon. Friend calls for.
I understand that 16,500 people are currently registered for medical evacuation, with many more yet to make the list. Those long lists are posing serious risk to life. The UK has evacuated 51 children, plus family members, for medical treatment, yet the need for lifesaving interventions is overwhelming. How will this Government ensure that that need is addressed proportionately? We can do more, and we must do more.
Médecins Sans Frontières rightly highlights that priority should be given not just by age, but by medical emergency. Are we ensuring that patients are properly triaged and that we are taking those most in need? I also believe that we could do a lot more to scale in the region. I trust that the Minister can set out exactly what is happening to ensure that people can cross the border and receive the healthcare they need, as well as to allow the aid to flow—it cannot be impeded at the border any longer, whatever that requirement is.
Beyond that, I would like the Government to consider how we can assist in the training of medical and other health professionals from Gaza. Our medical, nursing and allied health professional schools are first class. With all the universities in Gaza decimated, there is a clear need to ensure that the Palestinian healthcare workers of the future are given the right training and the opportunity, alongside those currently practising, for remote supervision and interventions to support them. How can we further help support those programmes? Are we doing everything we can to ensure that vaccination programmes are in place, particularly given the significant risk of disease?
The trauma is unimaginable and enduring. We need to ensure Palestine has the opportunity to heal. Many of us talk about mental health support in our country, but we cannot imagine the scale at which it is needed in Gaza. What are we doing to ensure that the right mental health support is given to heal that nation?
It used to be that, when we saw injustices across international borders, and the world order was not working, we called the world together to ensure that we changed the world order and justice was served. To this date, it seems that we follow the rules and do not set them any more. I ask the Minister to dig deep at this time and say, “What more can we really do to ensure that we are once again the convening voice for changing the world order, to see that justice is served and people have the aid and resources they need to move forward from this tragedy, which will mark us all in years to come?”.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is a real honour to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank all the individuals who signed the petition.
So much has already been said in this debate, so I will concentrate solely on the casualties of this horrendous conflict, particularly children. We have all heard powerful testimonies today, and we have all seen the images on our screens, but we must never forget that the numbers are not just numbers. Behind each and every one is a child, a human being—somebody’s flesh and blood. In the words of a Palestinian grandfather, it was the “soul of my soul” who he buried.
Save the Children recently highlighted that, in 2024, an average of 475 Palestinian children suffered lifelong disabilities. We have heard that potentially more than 30,000 children have been killed and more than 1,000 people have been murdered in the west bank, of which 217 were children. Those children have passed on, but I want to concentrate on the ones who have been left behind. Every month, because of the war, many children suffer traumatic brain injuries and burns, and Gaza has become home to the largest cohort of child amputees in modern history. The question is what we can do about that.
Using private donations, Project Pure Hope has managed to evacuate a grand total of three children so far for urgent treatment in the UK, while 10 children have been brought over by the UK Government for urgent care. We have brought refugees to this country before—we rightly brought more than 200,000 Ukrainians here—so I am sure that we could find the heart, the means and the ways to bring our Palestinian children here if we really wanted to.
I have a constituent who we, along with the University of Leicester, managed to bring over from Gaza as a postgraduate student. Sadly, she contacted me three weeks ago to say that her family home had been bombed by the Israelis; her brother was killed, while her niece Nour Abrahim and her sister-in-law Ronza Muhammad were badly injured. Even with little things such as shrapnel in their legs, there are no antibiotics, so they are getting sepsis. I have written to the Minister about that case, and I know that he would help in any capacity to get these children over here if he could; I am pleading with him to see what his Department can do to bring that family to safety.
Finally, I want the UK Government to commit to two practical steps. First, they should advocate for and help to deliver safe, protected medical evacuation routes for children and other vulnerable civilians. Secondly, they should establish a clear, compassionate commitment to receive a defined number of the most critical medical cases in the UK, particularly where the individuals have close family already here. We cannot overturn what has happened, but at least we can prevent the tragedy from becoming even worse for those who have survived.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairing, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee.
Gaza’s healthcare system has been severely depleted. Israel’s campaign has destroyed health facilities, killed health workers and restricted vital medical supplies. The UN independent international commission of inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territories reported in September that Israel’s actions, including the systematic destruction of the health system, amount to genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Although the recent ceasefire has allowed a greater flow of aid, including vital health supplies, more must be done to ensure that the level of supply meets the scale of need.
As winter approaches, the health needs of Gaza remain dire. Israeli authorities continue to impede full humanitarian access—which is a legal obligation under international law, not a concession of any ceasefire.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
Given the ICJ ruled last year that there is a “plausible” case of genocide in Gaza, and given that the humanitarian situation has drastically deteriorated since then, does my hon. Friend agree that the UK must actively support efforts to ensure that every rejection of aid and refusal to allow trucks in for spurious reasons is documented, so that it can be put before the ICJ in the South Africa case to hold Israel accountable for breaches of international humanitarian law?
Martin Rhodes
I agree. It is vital to have proper documentation of what is happening, and the point was made earlier about the need for journalists to have access, so that they can report on what is happening and we can hold people to account.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
In addition to those who have plausibly been found to have endorsed or committed acts of violence against journalists, many have endorsed or committed acts of violence against aid and health workers. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) just said, urgent work is needed to record all those crimes and ensure that there is a reckoning for all those who have endorsed crimes against humanity and that justice is done?
Martin Rhodes
I agree. We have a ceasefire—a very fragile ceasefire—but, even if it is successful, we must ensure that people are held to account for what has gone before. We should not allow progress with the ceasefire to take away from accountability for past actions.
Mr Adnan Hussain
I recognise what the hon. Member says about past actions, but blocking food is also a war crime—does he agree?
Martin Rhodes
I agree. I was referring to past actions, but this is not just about what has gone on in the past. People must be held to account for what is happening now. As I have said, the withholding of humanitarian aid is itself an act in breach of humanitarian and international law, and those responsible for it must be held to account.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
Israel recently voted to deny access to UNRWA, the primary aid agency with the deepest operational footprint in Gaza. That is a move to end humanitarian relief for Gaza. The ICJ ruled, in its advisory opinion on 22 October, that Israel’s allegations that UNRWA lacks impartiality are unfounded, and that Israel’s obstruction of the agency’s outreach work is at odds with international law. Does my hon. Friend agree that we, the United Kingdom, must now shift to acts of consequences and activate every available alternative, with or without Israel’s support?
Martin Rhodes
I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of UNRWA in ensuring the co-ordination and delivery of humanitarian aid. Its access must be unfettered; it must be allowed in and allowed to do the work that needs to be done on the ground.
Last week, the UN reported that more than 13,000 households across Gaza were affected by heavy rain and severe flooding, with sanitation systems having collapsed as a result of intense bombardment and siege. Rainwater no longer drains properly and—now mixed with sewage—has flooded people’s tents. Save the Children staff report seeing children sleeping on the bare ground, with no shelter, in clothes sodden with sewage water. The already high risk of preventable disease is growing and health workers on the ground see sustained rates of malnutrition, diarrhoea and pneumonia.
Such conditions and ailments are entirely avoidable in the modern world. Responsibility for those awful conditions lies with the restrictions and delays imposed by the Israeli authorities. Therefore, the UK must prioritise humanitarian access in all our diplomatic engagement on the future of Gaza.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
We know, and we have heard this afternoon and evening, that Palestinian children have paid the heaviest price in this devastating conflict. Many children in Gaza City and the surrounding areas are severely malnourished. Does my hon. Friend agree that Israel and the international community must do whatever they can to ensure that aid is allowed, without obstruction, to those areas where it is most vitally needed for the children affected?
Martin Rhodes
I agree—there is a huge priority in getting humanitarian aid in, and it is absolutely upon the international community, including ourselves, to do all that we can to ensure that flow of aid.
To ensure that children and families have sustained access to aid and the services needed to recover and rebuild their lives, Gaza’s healthcare system must be restored. For that to happen, there must be a removal of all remaining restrictions and bureaucratic impediments to the entry of aid, especially food, water, fuel, medical supplies and other critical humanitarian items. I therefore hope the Minister will confirm that, as part of the UK’s involvement in the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre tasked with co-ordinating humanitarian aid and recovery in Gaza, he has set the critical and achievable objective of ensuring that British aid charities such as Medical Aid for Palestinians and Oxfam can operate freely and without restriction in Gaza, including with unhindered entry for staff, medical teams and vital humanitarian supplies.
Many questions remain regarding the scale of continued suffering in Gaza. Why did UNICEF have at least 938,000 bottles of infant formula released only recently, when they were stuck at the border since August? How can a lifesaving vaccination campaign by UNICEF succeed when 1.6 million syringes and other vital supplies have been kept outside Gaza for months, blocked from entering despite the urgent necessity? Why, according to UNICEF, have at least 58 children been killed in conflict-related incidents since 11 October?
The UK must redouble efforts to pressure Israeli authorities to maintain the ceasefire and allow UN-backed professional humanitarian agencies to reach people in need at scale with meaningful assistance. Only then will Gaza be able to rebuild its homes, health and future. A viable Palestinian state is required if we are to see a two-state solution. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this debate.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. The e-petition is focused on our humanitarian obligations in Gaza. Over 600 people from my constituency signed it, along with over 200,000 people from across our nation. As the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) mentioned, there is an immediate need for aid to be delivered, with or without Israeli support. That is the key point.
Since the ceasefire began, the situation has remained deeply unstable and deadly. The only positive that has come from the ceasefire is the release of the living hostages and the return of the remains of those who were killed. But leaving that positive aside, Israel has continued with impunity its relentless attack, murder and starvation of women, children and men. In the last 44 days, since the ceasefire began on 10 October, an estimated 497 Israeli violations have been documented. Around 342 Palestinians have been slaughtered, and nearly 875 injured—most of them women, children and the elderly. The violations include 140 incidents of direct gunfire at civilians and homes; 220-plus bombardments by air, land and artillery; 21 ground incursions beyond the agreed yellow line; 100 demolitions of homes and civilian structures—some of the few that were remaining; and the continued blockade of humanitarian aid, which is being used as a weapon of genocide.
The need for aid—just to meet basic needs—prior to 7 October 2023 and the current conflict, was 500 trucks per day going into Gaza. For decades the majority of that aid was distributed across Gaza by UNRWA. Throughout 2024 and early 2025, only an average of between 36 and 100 trucks of aid a day entered Gaza.
Iqbal Mohamed
We must do whatever it takes to get aid into Gaza to stop people dying of starvation, and to get in medical aid to stop people dying from treatable illnesses and injuries. Not only must this Government and all their allies work together to get aid into Gaza, but any involvement of Israel in Gaza must be immediately removed. Israel must not have any part to play in the peace plan. It is the perpetrator of a genocide. How can it be allowed to participate in distribution or the implementation of a peace plan that will save lives in Gaza?
The peace plan said that a minimum of 600 trucks a day would be allowed into Gaza to support more than 2 million people to meet their basic needs. However, much more than that is needed as a result of the complete annihilation of Gaza, its infrastructure and its medical facilities. Malnutrition exceeds 90%, and the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification announced that phase 5—famine—was reached in July this year. The UN says that at the current pace of less than 100 trucks a day, it would take six months just to deliver the pre-positioned aid that is at the borders. UNRWA estimates that, on average, there has been a maximum of 150 to 170 trucks of aid a day, so the ceasefire has done little to stabilise access to essential services.
We have heard that the Gaza health system remains on the brink. Hospitals and clinics continue to be understaffed, undersupplied and under threat. UNICEF and other agencies have warned that the collapse of medical infrastructure means that even treatable illnesses can become life or limb-threatening. People continue to starve as aid is held up by the Government.
The pattern we are seeing is stark. Even with the supposed truce, children are being killed, people are being wounded and violations continue with impunity. I have said this in the main Chamber, and I will repeat it: Israel does not want peace, it does not want the Palestinians to have their state, and its plan of complete extermination of the Palestinian people is continuing to be enacted before our very eyes. It has been more than two years—we are now in the 26th month—and we must act now to get Israel out of Gaza, to get all the aid that is waiting at the borders in, and to provide all the supplies to start rebuilding not just the buildings in Gaza but people’s lives.
The violation of international humanitarian law continues unabated. The ceasefire was never a cure, but it was an opportunity for real, sustained protection of civilian life from Israeli bombardment. We must demand that Israel adheres to the pause in hostilities not just in name but in practice. The delivery of aid, including food, water, medicine and critical services, must be allowed immediately and unfettered.
Our moral responsibility demands more than words. I am so sorry to say this, but since I became an MP, I have not seen a concrete step by our Government that I believe has saved lives. The millions of pounds in aid that have been allocated to helping Gazans has been sat at the borders. Our supply of weapons and parts for F-35s has continued. The amount of weapons sold to Israel since this Government came to power is four times as much as over the last three years of the previous Government. Our complicity and active participation in these atrocities must stop, and the Government must act immediately to get aid in.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. Gaza is in ruins. Almost everything needed to sustain life—homes, businesses, farmland—has been reduced to rubble. The international responsibility is clear: provide aid, restore essential services and help Palestinians reclaim control over their future. For peace to last, we cannot just focus on the absence of violence; we also need to rebuild the foundations of long-term stability. Gaza’s people need long-term support and the opportunity to rebuild their lives, even when global attention has shifted. That means enabling Palestinians to play a central role in rebuilding their lives and institutions, because reconstruction must include both physical infrastructure but also civic systems that ensure that Palestinians can govern themselves freely.
The Israeli Government must abandon the stranglehold they have on Palestinian aid. Despite their pledge to allow in humanitarian relief, they are still blocking desperately needed supplies. Aid must reach Gaza, alongside the restoration of critical infrastructure, such as electricity and water treatment, and public services. Only then can the larger task of reconstruction move forward.
Mr Adnan Hussain
Does the hon. Member agree that it should be the Palestinians who determine how Gaza is reconstructed, that a Palestinian body should select which companies get which contracts, and that all the reconstruction contracts should be properly accounted for and delivered to a proper standard?
Lizzi Collinge
I absolutely agree. The Palestinians must be in the driving seat. A solution should not be imposed on them. Palestinians know best what is right for them and their country, and that has to be central. Any moneys that go in have to be properly accounted for, and any reconstruction done properly.
As I have said, civic infrastructure is key. It is right that Hamas play no role in the governing of Palestine going forward. It is an horrific organisation, and its extreme ideology and violent actions have caused immense harm, both within and without Palestinian borders. It cannot be allowed to control Gaza’s future.
However, history offers crucial lessons on how to shape post-war civic society. For example, in the wake of the Iraq war, the restoration of essential services was strained by the absence of administrative and management personnel. The de-Ba’athification of the Iraq Government decimated the state bureaucracy and hollowed out civic infrastructure. Any holder of a Ba’ath party card was dismissed. That included teachers and low-level functionaries, who needed the card to work.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
There are over 10,000 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons, many of whom are part of civil society and part of an opposition. One of them, Marwan Barghouti, has been in Israeli prison for 23 years, seven months and eight days and has now been threatened with execution by Ben-Gvir. Is it not time that we released some of the people who could reinvigorate both the Palestinian political scene and civil society?
Lizzi Collinge
I absolutely agree that Israel must release prisoners, particularly those who are there for their non-violent actions against the occupation. The Palestinians will need all talents, and the Israeli Government must take action on that.
I was speaking about the aftermath of the war in Iraq. Obviously, the situation in Gaza is not a carbon copy of what happened there; that was simply an example of where thoughtless implementation of a reasonable headline policy had an impact that went far beyond the stated intent.
Jeremy Corbyn
The hon. Lady is making a very interesting speech. As she rightly says, in the aftermath of the Iraq war, there was a de-Ba’athification policy, which had the effect of destroying all public services, allowing anyone to get weapons from the now dysfunctional army. It set off a whole chain of the most ghastly civil and local conflicts. That is a real danger. Things have to be maintained. In Gaza now, despite everything, there is still some degree of functionality in the operations of local government, which is attempting to make plans for the rebuilding of towns and villages all across Gaza. Surely we should be a little less judgmental of those involved and support them in trying to make a start on reconstruction.
Lizzi Collinge
I absolutely agree that we need to use the people on the ground, who know the area best, in rebuilding. The international community would be foolish not to look at previous post-war measures in other conflicts and learn the right lessons, because the people of Gaza cannot afford for preventable mistakes to be repeated. With an economy in ruins and a population traumatised by years of conflict, Palestinians need international help to rebuild.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
As has been said this afternoon, the ceasefire is hugely welcome, but it does not, on its own, restock a hospital, rebuild a home or feed a hungry child. Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK’s recognition of the state of Palestine is a crucial step in supporting the Palestinian people to rebuild their country?
Lizzi Collinge
I absolutely agree that our recognition of a Palestinian state earlier this year is crucial to ensuring that Palestinians can rebuild fully. As my hon. Friend said, it is not simply the stopping of violence that counts; it is all the next steps. Efforts must be led by Palestinians across the whole of society. In particular, women need to be actively included throughout reconstruction. They need to be guiding it throughout and not simply be an afterthought.
This window of time could not be more important. Recent history should remind us that what is meant to be temporary can often become entrenched. Israel’s occupation of the west bank has lasted 50 years.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I commend the hon. Lady, who is making a very important contribution. This is looking to the medium and long term; but, candidly, if there is to be any civic infrastructure in Gaza, the seeds of that must come from the west bank, and in the west bank it is under threat day and daily. Therefore, although she is right to say that the international focus has to be on Gaza, we cannot ignore the fact that Palestinians in the west bank are undergoing a horrific programme of settler oppression, settler violence and settler expansion, which threatens both Gaza and the west bank.
Lizzi Collinge
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Although the international focus has been on Gaza, horrific acts still continue in the west bank and the people there are living in fear of settler violence. That is why I very much welcomed sanctions on some settler organisations, although I think we could have gone further. The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. For Palestine to live freely, we have to talk about the whole of Palestine. It cannot be divided; it cannot be carved up piecemeal, and the illegal occupations absolutely must stop now.
Too many Palestinians fear that the destruction, displacement and suffering that they have endured will become permanent. We cannot let that happen. So much has been lost and so many lives have been destroyed, but those who survive need urgent aid and the chance to rebuild. Our responsibility is to ensure that the people of Gaza emerge from this horror with the tools, support and autonomy to shape their own future.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey, and to be able to speak in this e-petition debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on her opening of today’s debate. As the former Chair of the Petitions Committee, I know that the e-petition system engages so many of our constituents and gives us the opportunity to talk about the issues that matter to them. With nearly 200,000 people having signed this e-petition, it is clearly a very good example of the Petitions Committee acting at its best and giving us the opportunity to talk about the things that matter to our constituents.
This petition was signed by 278 of my constituents, but in the last two years I have had contact from well over 1,000 of my constituents on this issue, and that says to me that it engages, energises and impassions them. They see on their TV screens the suffering in Gaza and they want us, as parliamentarians, to do something about it. I place on the record my thanks to the many constituents who do not just contact me as their Member of Parliament about this issue, but regularly go out and fundraise. My constituents have raised money for various humanitarian charities through fundraising activities, concerts and regular collections right across Lancaster and Wyre, and many of them will be following this evening’s debate. In fact, I was so inspired by them and by the scenes, and the accounts that we get from aid workers, on the ground in Gaza that I signed up to run the Great Scottish Run in October of this year, and I raised £5,174 for Medical Aid for Palestinians. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Thank you. Shortly after completing that run—I place on the record my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—I had the opportunity, with the all-party parliamentary group on Christianity in the Holy Land, of which I am a vice chair, to visit the Holy Land and meet Christian organisations.
I will keep my remarks short, because I broadly agree with so much of what has already been said about access to humanitarian aid. I want to talk specifically about something that has not yet been touched on as much, which is the way in which the Christian community in Gaza has been impacted by events. The Holy Family church in Gaza was struck in July of this year. That killed three people who were sheltering there and injured 10 more. Following that attack, Patriarch Theophilos III and Cardinal Pizzaballa visited the churches in solidarity with the communities on the ground.
On the all-party group delegation visit earlier this autumn, we had the opportunity to meet church leaders in Jerusalem. We heard from them about the relationships they are trying to maintain with the Christian churches in Gaza, and how that is so challenging because of the ongoing war. All three of the Christian sites—the Holy Family church, St Porphyrius and the al-Ahli hospital—have been damaged multiple times since the start of the year. We know that around 600 Christians continue to shelter in the two churches.
While there has been an uptick in humanitarian support since the ceasefire came into effect in October this year, it is still small, and the community continues to suffer and to have difficulty accessing the absolute basics, as colleagues have touched on.
Very briefly, I call upon the Minister and the Government to hold relevant actors to account to ensure that the current ceasefire is bolstered, supported and maintained, and that an adequate flow of aid reaches local people in Gaza. I implore all parties to explore opportunities to offer economic support for rebuilding church-run hospitals, schools and charities, and to secure access to Gaza for the heads of churches. As I mentioned earlier, that has not always been easy for them. We must ensure that all Governments engage constructively with the churches as a partner in the interfaith dialogue that was put forward in point 18 of Trump’s peace plan. Although the Christian community is a minority community, it still has an important and significant role in the ongoing and long-standing peace in the region.
Finally, I ask the Minister what pressure he is putting on Israel to allow journalists into Gaza, because without journalists on the ground it is very difficult to know the full extent of what is going on. They are, of course, the eyes of the world, and we need free, unimpeded reporting about what is happening in Gaza. With that, I draw my remarks to a close and thank all those who have signed the e-petition and given us the opportunity to put on record our concerns about the situation in Gaza.
[Dawn Butler in the Chair]
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening this important debate. I also thank the 1,351 residents of my constituency for signing the petition, a number that speaks to the extent of distress and concern that they feel about the situation in Gaza.
The ceasefire, which began on 10 October, is very welcome, enabling the remaining hostages to be released, the bodies of deceased hostages to be returned alongside the release of Palestinian detainees, and allowing Palestinians to return home. However, it is impossible to overstate how much devastation the people of Gaza have suffered over the past two years, and how much they continue to suffer. Almost everyone has been displaced, often multiple times. Loved ones have been killed. The people have faced starvation, a famine across Gaza, the risk of disease and the decimation of the healthcare system. Now they are returning home and finding only piles of rubble on the streets where they once lived.
There is an urgent need for humanitarian aid at scale to reach Gaza now, and every week and every month for the foreseeable future. There is an urgent need for food, medicine, shelter and blankets as we enter the winter months, and for the restoration of infrastructure, water supplies, communications, schools and healthcare facilities. This situation is not the result of a natural disaster, nor was it unavoidable; it is the result of the relentless bombardment of civilians, schools, hospitals, roads and infrastructure; the two-year restriction by the Israeli Government on humanitarian aid into Gaza at anything close to the scale that was needed; and the forced displacement of people from their homes and their land.
As we speak of reconstruction and humanitarian obligations, we must also speak of the need for justice and accountability under international law. The need to drive forward the humanitarian response and reconstruction is urgent, but that urgency cannot mean that the question of accountability for the many breaches of international humanitarian law by the Israeli Government and Hamas in Gaza, and by the Israeli Government in the west bank over the past two years, is forgotten.
Can the Minister update the House on the UK Government’s approach to justice and accountability in relation to the conflict in Gaza? What engagement has he had with the US, the UN and other partners on this issue, and how confident is he that, under the current plans, the question of accountability is not being dismissed? It is important that legal obligations are the starting point for the situation in Gaza. The ICJ determined in an advisory opinion in October 2025 that Israel, as an occupying power, has
“a general obligation to administer the territory for the benefit of the local population.”
It is really important that the failure to discharge that obligation does not become normalised.
Helen Hayes
I agree with my hon. Friend that we need unfettered access to aid in Gaza. I turn my attention now to the current humanitarian crisis. The ceasefire has restored the distribution of aid to the UN, which is best placed to undertake that complex task and should never have been forced to stop operating in that role. The situation remains desperate and there is still not unimpeded access. For example, there is a significant problem with getting tents for basic shelter into Gaza because of Israeli Government restrictions. Winter is fast approaching and there has been flooding in parts of Gaza. Tents are urgently needed for basic shelter. There is also an urgent need to restore the healthcare system to provide services to a population whose health is fragile in so many ways, and there is a particular need for healthcare services for women, because approximately 130 babies are born every day in Gaza in conditions of acute risk.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
We all agree on the need to get aid urgently into Gaza now. Research from famine in world war two shows the lasting impact of famine, even on unborn foetuses; it cannot later be erased or reversed. Famine can also lead to cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Does the hon. Member agree that Israel must allow the unrestricted passage of aid not just to mitigate the devastation that we see now, but to prevent the severe consequences that will stretch long into the future?
Helen Hayes
I agree with everything that the hon. Member said. It is vital that such badly needed aid is allowed to enter Gaza unrestricted, and that we recognise that that process will need to continue for the foreseeable future because the situation is so desperate and the recovery will be long. But the recovery cannot begin without that unfettered access. There are only 15 health facilities in Gaza able to provide maternity and obstetric care. Mothers are giving birth without anaesthesia or essential drugs.
Alongside the healthcare system in Gaza, the education system has also been largely destroyed. Children in Gaza have been traumatised by the conflict. Their psychosocial recovery is a really important part of achieving long-term peace and stability. They also have a right to education. Children in Gaza are desperate to return to school and the UN is working hard to restore education services, but the current ceasefire agreement and 20-point plan are silent on the subject of education, allowing it to be deprioritised. The Israeli Government’s co-ordinator of government activities in the territories states that all school supplies are currently banned from entry to Gaza. UNRWA submitted self-learning materials to COGAT for approval in July 2024. It acknowledges that the question of textbooks and content is controversial, but those supplies have not been approved and all basic materials, including basic stationery supplies, are currently being denied.
Iqbal Mohamed
Does the hon. Lady agree that Israel, the perpetrator of the genocide, should not be the one deciding what aid is allowed into Gaza?
Helen Hayes
As I said, I agree that aid should be allowed into Gaza unfettered. That should be administered by the UN and by aid agencies that are well able to determine with Palestinians what supplies are needed.
Does the Minister agree that it is unacceptable to deny the children of Gaza their right to education, and that it is vital that a way forward is found for education materials to be allowed into Gaza, along with supplies for psychosocial kits, so that children can begin the long process of recovery? Over the last two years, we have witnessed the destruction of the entire education system in Gaza—97% of all schools have sustained some level of damage. That is happening not only in Gaza, but in the west bank.
I have stood in the ruins of two schools destroyed by violent settlers in the west bank. Those attacks have been perpetrated by a UN member state that has not yet signed the safe schools declaration, which has been signed by both the UK and the Palestinian Authority. On the eve of the fifth international conference on the safe schools declaration, which takes place in Nairobi tomorrow and marks 10 years since the declaration’s inception, I call on the Minister to exert pressure on the Israeli Government to join the declaration and commit to refrain from causing further damage to education facilities in Gaza and the west bank.
Recovery is a long road, and the ceasefire is fragile. The process must start with the different parties coming together to protect education, to respect the rights of children and to ensure that there is unfettered access for all the supplies needed to sustain that recovery.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for leading this debate, and the people who signed the petition, of which there were 285 from Norwich North. As many Members have said, this is an important and timely debate because, although a ceasefire is now in place, there continues to be a devastating humanitarian situation in Gaza.
Although I welcome the ceasefire and the release of the hostages, there is a long way to go to ensure that the peace is sustainable and the unimaginable human suffering ends. As we have heard, Israeli authorities continue to restrict humanitarian supplies going into Gaza, leading to a devastating shortage of food, medicine and lifesaving supplies. UN agencies have warned that the level of food assistance is still below what is needed, and they have called for more to be let in. That comes, of course, after years of conflict and a human toll that is unimaginable for many of us.
Many Members have touched on this, but I want to focus my remarks on the impact on women and girls. That is particularly timely, given that tomorrow is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, and this year marks 25 years since the agreement of the landmark UN resolution 1325 on women, peace and security. Yet 25 years on, we are failing women and girls not only in Gaza, but in Sudan, Ukraine, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and many other places. We should also recognise the devastating impact of the 7 October attacks on women, with many horrific reports. There must be accountability and no impunity for violence against women and girls, wherever it is found.
In Gaza, the crisis has had a devastating impact on all civilians, as we have heard, but women and girls have been disproportionately and uniquely affected in many ways. They make up 67% of the estimated 60,000 Palestinians killed. Health services have basically collapsed, meaning that women struggle to access sexual and reproductive health services.
As we have heard, that has a catastrophic impact on pregnant women. The UN estimates that 55,000 pregnant women have nowhere to seek medical help. Approximately 130 babies are born every day in conditions of acute risk, and one in five are born prematurely or suffering from complications. Let us imagine what should be one of the happiest times of someone’s life, but all they can do is hope and pray for the future of their baby, with no guarantee of good healthcare or essential medicines.
There are stories of mothers giving birth without anaesthesia or essential drugs, and reports of rising maternal and newborn deaths—and as the weather changes, that will get even worse. We know that the blockade has also produced human-made famine conditions in parts of Gaza, with catastrophic consequences for pregnant and breastfeeding women and young children. We know from evidence around the world that women and girls eat last and least in conflict. In conflict, violence and sexual violence surge, yet support services and legal services collapse. The chance of justice fades to barely even a glimmer.
Despite the dire situation, we must not see women and girls as only victims; they are also first responders and leaders. As ActionAid has rightly highlighted, Palestinian women and women’s rights organisations continue to lead humanitarian responses and community support, providing vital services, yet their work is far too often under-resourced and under-recognised.
That leads me on to what the UK and other Governments can and must do. First, diplomacy must remain a top priority to ensure the unfettered access for humanitarian aid and to uphold our obligations under international law. As a former member of the International Development Committee, I agree with its report from earlier this year—as referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran—that said we must lead on international humanitarian law. There is a gap for a nation state to lead on that, and the UK has a chance to fill it.
Secondly, we must prioritise long-term funding for humanitarian aid and ensure that a significant proportion of the aid we are delivering goes to women’s rights organisations. I ask the Minister to respond specifically to that point in his response: how are we tracking where our aid is going and whether it is reaching those grassroots women’s organisations on the frontline?
As the current chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the United Nations, I want to emphasise the important work of UNFPA—the United Nations Population Fund—which does vital work providing healthcare and safe spaces for women and girls. It is suffering from reductions in foreign aid from many countries, particularly the US, which is turning away from it. I hope that as we make difficult decisions about where our aid goes, we will continue to speak up and support its vital work.
We have also heard from many Members about the importance of UNRWA, which is no traditional aid agency. It effectively provides many functions akin to local government in the country, and it is vital to getting aid to people on the ground. I welcome the fact that the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation has paused its work on the ground, because the way that it was delivering aid went against all humanitarian principles. I hope that that pause remains in place and that it ceases to operate.
Thirdly, in line with UN resolution 1325, women must be meaningfully involved in peacebuilding processes and post-war recovery. The evidence is clear that peace processes last longer when women are involved, as we have seen in other contexts such as Liberia. Ensuring that women are at the table and have a voice is therefore not only the right thing to do, but in all our interests.
Lastly, it is welcome that the UK has a national action plan on women, peace and security—which was, in fact, drawn up under the last Government. I believe that Palestine is not currently a focus country for that, so I ask the Government to consider adding it and to work to ensure that Palestinian women and girls receive the same protections as women in other conflict contexts.
There are many other areas that I could have spoken about in this debate, and many Members have touched on them, but the impact on women and girls is one that we must not ignore, and that, sadly, is too often not spoken about. I know that upholding the rights of women and girls is something that the Foreign Secretary is strongly committed to—indeed, she published a piece today expressing the UK’s commitment to tackling violence against women and girls in particular—so I look forward to the Minister setting out how we will work to stand with women and girls in Gaza and beyond. This ceasefire is an important step forward, but it must lead to real change, to a two-state solution and to a just and lasting peace for Palestinians, Israelis and the whole region.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell), and others, for setting out the context of the modern-day moral outrage that is the plight of the people of Gaza. Gaza may have disappeared from the headlines and TV screens, but the suffering continues for many, and neither I nor my constituents in Rochdale will allow the Palestinian people to be forgotten this winter, or any winter.
Yes, the ceasefire brokered by the United States and others was undeniably welcome—finally, we are seeing the deceased and living hostages returned, prisoners released and the bombing abating—but, for more than two years, innocent Palestinians have endured the destruction of their homes, the tearing apart of their communities, and a relentless assault on their basic humanity and dignity. Now, as the winter rains fall upon their battered land, the misery deepens.
As has been said, camps have become swamps; families who once had roofs over their heads now huddle in mud and fetid water, some of it sewage water; and more than a quarter of a million people are in desperate need of emergency tents and tarpaulins. The skies may be quieter and the airstrikes fewer, but the silent killers of disease and deprivation stalk the land of Palestine. I ask the Minister, what are the United Kingdom Government doing to ensure that those emergency shelters reach Palestinians without delay?
How will the new Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre be used to compel Israel to open the floodgates to the aid that Gaza so desperately needs? As many have said, UNRWA has been clear that Gaza remains in a catastrophic state, despite the ceasefire. Israel continues to block international staff and to choke the entry of aid: 6,000 aid trucks stand idle at the crossings—6,000 trucks that could feed hungry mouths, clothe children, and bring medicine to the sick. Some 90% of Gaza’s population now survive entirely on aid and families scrape by on one meal a day but, still, just 170 trucks are allowed in, far below the minimum required for basic survival.
As has been said, as well as the scandal of the lack of food, the children of Gaza suffer gravely from a lack of education. UNRWA struggles to provide schooling for 300,000 students remotely and 50,000 in person, under intolerable conditions. Some 44,000 Palestinian children sit in makeshift learning spaces, often on cold floors without chairs. Their sense of security—their very childhood—is being eroded every single day. When I visited the west bank earlier this year, one of the most shocking sights was the ruins of a Palestinian school building in Zanuta that had been attacked by Israeli settlers. The trashed primary school desks, the maps ripped off the walls, the wrecked life chances—they will remain with me and many other parliamentarians who attended for a very long time, and all with zero accountability for the perpetrators.
Education lies in ruins. Satellite imagery shows that 93% of Gaza’s schools have been directly hit or damaged—that is 526 out of 564 buildings destroyed or requiring reconstruction. In north Gaza and Rafah, every single school building has been hit. What kind of army bombs schools?
Tahir Ali
My hon. Friend is eloquently making an important point. Does he agree that the suffering of Palestinian people is not collateral? It is deliberate on the part of the Israeli Government, and the UK must act. History is being recorded, and we cannot sit and watch things happen as they have been for the past two years. We must act immediately to stop the terrible suffering and atrocities that we are being told about.
Paul Waugh
I agree with my hon. Friend. There must be accountability for Israel’s actions—for its sins of omission as much as those of commission.
Is the UK pushing for education to be a key part of the peace plan? As Members have said, it has been singularly missing so far. Nearly 200,000 people signed the e-petition that brought us here today, making it one of the largest petitions of this Parliament, as has been said. In Rochdale alone, 283 constituents added their name. This is not a fringe concern; it is a mainstream demand for justice.
Mr Adnan Hussain
May I add that 603 people from Blackburn also signed the petition? Every Friday, my constituents come out in the cold, the heat or the rain—whatever the climate—to remember the people of Gaza. I remind the House, the Minister and the Government that this is the first livestreamed genocide, and people will not forget it easily. They will continue to press us, as their representatives, and the Government until this catastrophe comes to an end.
Paul Waugh
I thank the hon. Gentleman. Yes, this is a grassroots, people-led campaign, as the petition shows.
There has been progress in November: expanded food rations; a catch-up immunisation campaign that vaccinated 13,000 children; the distribution of high-performance tents to learning spaces, at least in Khan Yunis; bread prices that are beginning to fall thanks to the World Food Programme; and households reporting two meals a day instead of one. But that is not enough—nowhere near enough.
The challenges remain immense. Heavy rains have affected 13,000 households directly; hundreds of tents have collapsed; fuel shortages mean that half the population still burns waste to cook; infrastructure lies in ruins; and aid convoys are always blocked at Rafah, where they should not be, denied at Kerem Shalom and turned away at hospitals in the north. UNRWA has food parcels for 1.1 million people, flour for 2.1 million and shelter supplies for 1.3 million pre-positioned outside Gaza, but Israel refuses to let it in.
I say again that for too many Palestinians, the ceasefire is a fiction. Between 12 and 19 November, the most recent data available, eight Palestinians were killed and 41 injured, with 18 bodies pulled from the rubble. As we all know, the toll since 7 October 2023 now stands at 69,513 dead and 170,745 injured. Even after the ceasefire, 280 people have been killed and 672 injured, and 571 bodies retrieved. What kind of ceasefire is this when the killing continues?
Let us not forget that many ordinary Israelis want peace. Many Israeli human rights groups, civil society organisations such as B’Tselem, and others, are being targeted by Netanyahu’s Government. They know that, without full rights for Palestinians and full statehood, there will never be genuine security for them or other Israelis.
This is not just a humanitarian crisis; it is a moral crisis. It is a test of our values as a nation. We must have urgent action to open all the crossings, lift the restrictions and flood Gaza with aid at long last. We must keep up progress for a two-state solution, with peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians side by side. Speaking of a two-state solution, it was particularly sickening this month to see the Israeli Minister Ben-Gvir taunting in prison the one man who many Palestinians see as the Mandela of the middle east: Marwan Barghouti. I had the privilege of meeting his son when I was in Jerusalem earlier this year. Does the Minister agree that Marwan Barghouti has a key role to play in a lasting peace for the region?
The Government have rightly recognised that the humanitarian situation in Gaza remains desperate. As the Middle East Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), has confirmed, in the financial year 2025-26, the UK will provide more than £100 million for the Occupied Palestinian Territories, prioritising humanitarian relief, economic development and strengthening the Palestinian Authority. Those are important commitments, but commitments must be backed by delivery. The people of Gaza cry out for shelter, food, education and dignity. The petitioners cry out for action, and history will cry out for accountability.
The Labour Government have made an historic step in recognising the state of Palestine—something no other British Government have done before. We need similarly bold moves on aid. Let us ensure that Britain is remembered for solidarity and political courage. Let us press Israel to open all crossings, demand the entry of aid, support UNRWA in its vital work and, above all, work for a genuine ceasefire that stops the killing, allows rebuilding and restores hope for a two-state solution. Without hope and real justice, there can be no lasting peace in the middle east.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for introducing this debate, and I thank hon. Members for their interesting, and sometimes heartbreaking, contributions this evening.
Once upon a time, a third of the globe was pink, signifying lands that were part of the British empire. Of course, some will say that empire was a civilising force—a moral and noble mission, even—but there are others, like me, who say that those who defend imperialism are attempting to justify the exploitation of people and resources, and airbrushing from history the violence committed with the aim of expanding British capitalist influence across the globe.
To analyse accurately the current dire humanitarian situation in Palestine, it is only right to acknowledge, first, Britain’s historical role in the region; secondly, Britain’s current role; and thirdly, ongoing imperialism and its indivisible relationship with capitalism. Britain owes a historical debt to the Palestinian people. With the Balfour declaration, the British mandate of 1922 to 1948, and the confiscation of land and the suppression of freedom and human rights that followed, Britain paved the way for today’s apartheid living conditions. Now, our current role is to perpetuate and normalise the ongoing occupation and colonisation of Palestine. I am afraid that Britain cannot truthfully say that we are fulfilling our humanitarian obligations when we continue to sell arms to a state that commits genocide.
We are in the scandalous position where we train IDF soldiers—soldiers of an army that commits war crimes. We will not tell our people what we are facilitating from RAF Akrotiri, hiding behind the veil of national security and secrecy. The military support we continue to give Israel makes a mockery of our humanitarian obligations. By continuing to trade with Netanyahu’s murderous regime, we serve to boost their economy. Netanyahu’s Government have, by design, crippled the Palestinian economy by impacting its ability to trade, thus making Palestinians reliant on Israel for goods, for produce and ultimately for survival. Israel consistently uses economic terrorism as a tool of subjugation. The reality is that there is a concerted effort to normalise Palestinians’ reliance on Israel as the provider of life-saving aid while making it near impossible for Palestinians to be self-sufficient.
As well as that collective punishment of Palestinians, another goal of the broader plan is to impose capitalism through the imperial project that the Israeli Government promote, wilfully aided by western democracies. Let us look at what has happened to Palestinian agriculture. Israel has seized farmland, killed crops, destroyed livestock, stopped farmers from trading and prevented their produce from reaching markets by erecting roadblocks. That has led to mass unemployment as farms have become unsustainable. It has reduced agriculture to around 4% of Palestine’s GDP; once it was 52%. By continuing to trade with Israel, we are complicit in the ongoing colonisation of Palestine, and in making Palestinians reliant on Israel.
What of education as a method of improving Palestinians’ life chances? We are fortunate in this country to consider such education a right, not a privilege. A fortnight ago, I was in the west bank. I heard about the slow strangulation of education. Israel continues to segregate Palestinian education by way of armed checkpoints: roadblocks that stop children and students from going to school, college or university in the west bank. Meanwhile, in Gaza, school often consists of teachers taking classes in tents, which are used as makeshift classrooms because schools have been relentlessly bombed. In trying to fragment and ultimately eradicate education, Israel is trying to suppress Palestinian national identity and suppress the ability of people to organise and resist the occupation of their land. By allowing that to happen, Britain and others are not fulfilling humanitarian obligations.
We all know that there are players in the international community who will always strive to maintain a capitalist and imperialist agenda at the expense of humanitarian needs. The stark truth is that Britain is both complicit in and guilty of that. Parliamentarians often try to convince themselves and others that Britain is doing everything that it can, that we are on the side of humanity, and that we are decent people, part of a civilised society. But I am sorry, if anyone really thinks that Britain is achieving that—actually doing what is right, and doing everything that we possibly can—then they are either blind or an obedient fool.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Butler. Some 18 years ago I was your researcher, so it is nice that you have not shown favouritism and have called me at the end of the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents in Stratford and Bow, over 1,000 of whom signed the petition calling for this debate. That puts us in the top 10 constituencies in the country by number of signatories. Many hundreds more of my constituents have written to me about Palestine in the past few months alone, and it has consistently remained the top issue in my inbox since I was elected.
After two long and brutal years of unrelenting suffering and bombardment, the ceasefire has come as a welcome relief to millions of Palestinians. I know it is a moment that many hon. Members in this Chamber have long called for. I was in the west bank earlier this year, and I know how perilous the past two years have been for Palestinians—not just those in Gaza but those in the west bank. We speak of a ceasefire, but this weekend Israeli strikes across Gaza killed 22 Palestinians, bringing the total to over 300 Palestinians killed by Israeli strikes since the ceasefire came into force—that includes two children killed every single day.
Even during the ceasefire, Israeli authorities continue to thwart humanitarian access and block aid. As we have heard, there are devastating shortages of food, medicine and lifesaving supplies, which have spent months sitting in warehouses. We have seen Israeli authorities denying and delaying nearly a million bottles of baby formula for infants born into famine, and denying the entry of syringes needed to protect the 20% of toddlers in Gaza who have not been vaccinated against polio, measles or pneumonia. Families are facing extreme food shortages and Gaza’s health system is collapsing, leaving children without care. We have heard today how stark conditions are as winter is drawing in and tents offer little to no shelter.
Humanitarian aid should never be politicised. There is absolutely no justification for the restrictions on vital humanitarian assistance. Yet, when there are attempts to deliver such assistance, Israeli authorities claim they only block items that might have a dual use or some potential military purpose. What defence risk is there to vaccinating babies? What possible military use could there be for newborn formula? UNRWA says that enough aid to feed the entire Gazan population for three months is waiting in warehouses. It is ready to enter, yet it is still not permitted in. Earlier this year, I met the Jordanian delegation, who told me that tonnes of aid are sitting in trucks on its borders, not allowed in.
At the time of the ceasefire, UNICEF alone had 1,300 trucks sitting ready to bring in tents, nutrition, water and sanitation supplies. It also provides education and recreational kits for children: items such as balls, board games, chalk and skipping ropes—none of which have been allowed into Gaza for months. Those children are already facing the harsh and devastating consequences of war, which will live with them for their lifetimes. What military function does a game of snakes and ladders have? What possible threat is there to Israeli forces from a Palestinian child playing football?
The so-called Gaza Humanitarian Fund was a system unable—or perhaps unwilling—to distinguish between military threats and humanitarian aid, between weapons and toys. It cannot be a model for future aid delivery. Only an impartial humanitarian regime can deliver relief and dignity for the people of Gaza. As this ceasefire is consolidated and the peace plan developed, it is essential that we see unfettered access to humanitarian assistance and a recommitment to humanitarian principles. I join hon. Members across the House, including those who have spoken today, in calling on the UK Government to support the restoration of an independent and neutral humanitarian scheme capable of delivering aid safely, effectively and at scale. I echo the call to the Minister to clarify the critical objectives of ensuring that British aid charities, such as Medical Aid for Palestinians and Oxfam, can operate freely and without restrictions in Gaza, with unhindered entry for their staff and medical teams and the ability to take in humanitarian supplies.
We owe it to the Palestinian people not to look away from the devastation, but to bear witness to what has been inflicted on them. We owe it to them to bear witness to this history, to this ongoing genocide, but also to continue to ensure that Britain plays its full part in the humanitarian assistance and rebuilding of Gaza.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. This is an important and timely debate. I thank colleagues for their powerful contributions. I also thank the petitioners, including 479 of my own constituents in Esher and Walton, and those who have written to me about the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza.
Two years of brutal war have unleashed unimaginable suffering. The ceasefire may have quietened the shelling, but it has not rebuilt homes, recovered food supplies or restored the basic systems needed to sustain life. Violations continue on both sides and the reality on the ground remains desperate. After an estimated 70,000 deaths, a million people are sheltering in overcrowded, unsafe displacement sites, some without shelter, and the entire population is in humanitarian need. Food, water and healthcare networks have broken down. Famine conditions persist in northern areas, driven directly by the obstruction of humanitarian access. Clean water is scarce, disease is spreading and hospitals across the strip are shut or barely functioning.
The atrocities committed by Hamas on 7 October 2023 were abhorrent; the violations they have continued to commit, even after the ceasefire, are abhorrent and a complete breach of international humanitarian law. The deliberate murder of civilians, the abduction of hostages and the refusal to release the remaining deceased hostages are all blatant violations of international humanitarian law. But let me be absolutely clear: what we are seeing in Gaza today is the horrific consequence of the laws of war being treated as optional.
International humanitarian law exists to shield civilians from the worst excesses of war. All parties have a legal and moral duty to uphold it. The International Court of Justice has again confirmed Israel’s binding duty, as the occupying power, to guarantee effective humanitarian access. International humanitarian law in Gaza has been breached and disregarded over the past two years. Aid should never have been prevented from entering Gaza. Gaza now needs hundreds of aid trucks every day to meet basic survival needs, but only a fraction reach their destination. Barely half of UN humanitarian missions have been permitted to proceed. That is completely unacceptable.
We were meant to see the scale-up of humanitarian assistance, but some £50 million-worth of international non-governmental organisation relief sits outside the crossing, unable to enter. Aid agencies warn that, without fully opening all land crossings and guaranteeing predictable access, genuine humanitarian recovery will remain impossible. Thousands need urgent medical evacuation, but only a tiny number have been evacuated since the ceasefire. Winter will make an already dire situation even worse.
Several crossings are open for limited humanitarian cargo, but the volumes allowed through fall far short of basic needs. The vital crossing point at Rafah remains closed, blocking civilian movement entirely, while key internal routes, especially into northern Gaza, are still restricted. We must also acknowledge that some aid has been diverted or obstructed by Hamas, further undermining humanitarian efforts and deepening civilian suffering. Humanitarian access must never be a bargaining chip, never subordinated to political agendas and never used to engineer local governance outcomes. Its neutrality is the only thing that ensures the protection of civilians.
International organisations such as the World Food Programme have been absolutely clear that they have the food, the staff and the systems ready to deliver at full scale. They now need a ceasefire that genuinely upholds and guarantees uninterrupted humanitarian access. With sustained, predictable access, the WFP can feed up to 1.6 million people for three months, and start restoring Gaza’s food systems and dignity through digital payments.
Donations to Gaza have fallen sharply since the October ceasefire, creating a catastrophic funding gap just as winter arrives, and leaving millions facing hunger, illness and collapsing infrastructure. Since the ceasefire, the UK has provided only £24 million in additional humanitarian aid for Gaza, while UN member states have met just 37% of the $4 billion sought under the 2025 flash appeal to support the 3 million people across Gaza and the west bank. That comes on top of the wider decision to slash overseas aid to its lowest level this century, with funding for the Occupied Palestinian Territories falling sharply; it is 21% smaller than it was last year.
Countries such as Germany and Ireland are stepping up with more serious humanitarian leadership and have shown greater urgency. The UK should do the same. Our people are no less generous than theirs. The British care deeply about Gaza, as shown by this petition. At a moment like this, Britain should also be at the vanguard of diplomatic efforts.
The Government must engage proactively with our international partners. Will the Minister tell us what conversations the UK is currently having with the Israeli Government to get aid in, and what conversations it is having with the United States, our European allies and other like-minded partners to secure unhindered humanitarian access into Gaza? What diplomatic conversations are under way to ensure that all parties comply with international law and allow aid to reach civilians without obstruction?
It is vital that UN agencies are not scapegoated or weakened at the very moment when they are most needed. The UK must be unequivocal: we stand with the UN system, including UNRWA; removing it without a viable alternative will plunge millions deeper into crisis. We cannot allow humanitarian agencies to be dismantled in the middle of a catastrophe.
The Liberal Democrats believe that Britain must reclaim its humanitarian leadership. I therefore urge the Minister to take the following steps. First, the Government should restore the legally enshrined target to spend 0.7% of national income on overseas aid. Doing so would restore the UK’s ability to deliver lifesaving assistance at the scale required. Can the Minister assure us that there will be no further cuts to official development assistance in the autumn Budget or thereafter? Will he confirm whether he intends to go beyond the £24 million pledged to Gaza since the ceasefire?
Secondly, the Government should ensure that lifesaving humanitarian aid flows freely into Gaza. They must use every diplomatic channel to secure the full opening of land crossings, predictable UN approvals, the restoration of Rafah for civilian movement and an end to the unlawful restrictions that breach international humanitarian law and violate ICJ orders. How do the UK Government plan to engage with the Israeli authorities to ensure neutral, UN-led humanitarian delivery, free from political interference, and to press for all land crossings, including Rafah, to be fully opened so that aid can reach those who need it? Have the Government raised the new registration restrictions with the Israeli authorities? If so, what specific assurances have they sought to ensure that no more barriers are created to the work of international NGOs?
Thirdly, should access continue to be denied, the UK must work with international partners to secure alternative delivery channels. Britain must co-ordinate pressure for sustained access to all crossings, while scaling up alternative routes in parallel. That requires pressing the US and Israeli authorities to open the crossings and urging the United States and partners in the region to use their influence to secure predictable humanitarian access. Fourthly, the Government must continue to push for a lasting two-state solution based on the 1967 borders.
Those on all sides must be held accountable for war crimes. While we hold our breath on Gaza, violence and restrictions in the west bank have escalated sharply. The situation is deeply alarming and continues to deteriorate. More than 1.2 million people there need assistance, around 40,000 are displaced and more than 200 Palestinians, including around 50 children, have been killed this year, alongside Israeli casualties from attacks. Large-scale Israeli operations, ongoing demolitions and severe movement restrictions are driving further displacement and disruption. Settler violence remains at crisis levels, with repeated attacks damaging homes, mosques and vehicles and further eroding livelihoods. I ask the Government to end all trade with illegal west bank settlements and insist on full humanitarian access and protection for Palestinian civilians across the west bank.
The situation in Gaza is a moral disaster, one made worse by deliberate choices. This is a man-made humanitarian catastrophe. Britain must lead with aid, with diplomacy, with integrity and with urgency to ensure that international humanitarian law is upheld, that civilians are protected and that this country is remembered as one that chose to act, not one that chose to look away.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Thank you, Ms Butler, and Ms McVey before you, for chairing the debate; it has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon. I also thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for bringing this debate to the House on behalf of the vast numbers of people—198,966—who signed e-petition 700682. I have listened to the debate carefully. I have been moved by the passion and the deeply held, sincere concern heard from Members on both sides of the House.
No human being should be subject to the kind of inhumane treatment that we have all seen in Gaza in recent times. I hope and believe that everyone in this Chamber, whether we completely agree or not, wants the same outcome: to see peace and stability returned, and to see women, children and others who have suffered living in peace and returning to normal life. We all want to see that, whatever our opinions.
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon. Of course, I am always moved by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), and I listen avidly whenever he speaks—we do not agree on much, but we do agree on some things. I also want to thank my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal), who spoke earlier. We share the same part of Essex and east London, and our constituents have similar views on many issues. I will not refer to everyone who spoke this afternoon, but I thank them all.
Speaking on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, let me firmly put on record our support for President Trump’s peace plan for Gaza. As I said during the Foreign Secretary’s statement last week, the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 2803 represents a major step towards restoring order, security and a pathway to peace. I sincerely hope that prosperity and peace will be returned for all the people of Gaza as a result. The United States has brought leadership, and the United Kingdom must stand shoulder to shoulder with our closest allies, especially the United States and Israel, if we are to have any hope of ending this conflict and building something better.
Since becoming shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, I have not had the opportunity to speak on this subject, as other shadow Ministers have spoken instead of me. I would like to put on record that I have always believed that Hamas—an Iranian satellite and a terrorist organisation responsible for atrocity upon atrocity, culminating in 7 October—can play no part whatsoever in the future governance of Gaza, let alone in civilised global politics. I am glad that many Members have said things along those lines this afternoon. Hamas’s contempt for human life and dignity is matched only by what appears to be their absolute hatred of Israel and the Jewish people and, from what I can see, the wider free world.
We have nothing in common with Hamas. Their repeated rejection of peace proposals, their game-playing over the release of deceased hostages and their brutal campaign of summary executions against Palestinian civilians tell us everything we need to know.
Iqbal Mohamed
Does the shadow Minister agree that we in this place can and should condemn all acts of horror, terrorism and injustice anywhere and everywhere, whether it is Hamas or Israel perpetrating them?
Andrew Rosindell
I hate what I have seen on our television screens for more than two years. I condemn all unwarranted acts of violence—self-defence, we understand. We are deeply sad to see what is happening. We all want to see an end to this, so I absolutely respect the hon. Gentleman’s position and agree with him.
However, Hamas seek only chaos. They are completely uninterested in co-existence with Israel. I understand the strength of feeling expressed by the petitioners and many Members present this afternoon. No one can fail to be moved by the scale of suffering endured by innocent Palestinians. However, any approach that sidelines Israel will do nothing to get aid over the borders. All crossings, with the exception of Rafah, border Israel, so there has to be co-operation with Israel to get aid into Palestine. I believe that the UK must work with Israel to ensure that aid is flowing through the crossings effectively, safely and securely. Last week, the Foreign Secretary mentioned that she is working with her Israeli counterparts on the reopening of certain crossings into Gaza. What are the Government proposing specifically for each of the individual crossing points? I am sure that the Minister will answer that question later.
The shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), is visiting Israel at the moment. She is seeing for herself the humanitarian aid operation at the Kerem Shalom crossing, where trucks have been crossing into Gaza with aid supplies from Israel, the World Food Programme and partners in the region such as the United Arab Emirates. Maybe not all aid is getting through, but a lot of it is. She has also met with COGAT, and I believe she is the first British parliamentarian to visit the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre, where she met with General Frank, who is heading up the operations to implement the 20-point plan. That shows the importance that the Conservatives place on the ceasefire, ensuring that humanitarian aid gets into Gaza and ensuring that Hamas is eliminated, so that the region can have the promise of a more peaceful and secure future.
The CMCC and COGAT are focused on getting 4,200 aid trucks into Gaza each week. Can the Minister confirm that this level of humanitarian assistance is getting through? Does he recognise the aid supply figures from COGAT? Does he agree with those figures? We often hear Ministers quote the UN figures, but will the Minister tell us whether he accepts that COGAT efforts are bringing in thousands of trucks of humanitarian aid a week, including vital winterisation supplies? Will the Minister also tell the House whether he or the Foreign Secretary have any plans to follow in the footsteps of the shadow Foreign Secretary by visiting the CMCC and meeting with COGAT? If they have not done so already, it is vital that they do so soon, given where we are in the plans.
The previous Government did everything in their power to increase humanitarian access. Working with allies, they secured commitments from the Government of Israel to open Erez crossing and the port of Ashdod to get aid into Gaza. Israel also agreed to extend the opening hours of the Kerem Shalom crossing point, and we were able to achieve commitments to increase the number of trucks entering Gaza. For a period, we saw an increase in the quantity of aid delivered. The United Kingdom supplied vital food and medical aid for innocent Palestinians. With the help of the UN and Cyprus, we managed to secure infrastructure, including the floating pier off the coast, to help get aid into the territory. I respect the fact that this is an immensely complicated and tragic situation, but the Government need to focus on practical and even novel solutions for getting around the bottlenecks.
Regarding UNRWA, we must not forget that it had to fire nine staff after investigations into their involvement in the appalling attack on Israel on 7 October. The testimony of Emily Damari about the location of her captivity is incredibly serious. UNRWA must sever all links to the Hamas terrorist group. It is critical that UN bodies ensure adequate vetting of personnel and activities, and that Catherine Colonna’s reforms be fully implemented as soon as possible. I hope the Minister will accept that Hamas has been using aid as a weapon by stealing and hoarding it, preventing Gazans from receiving it, and then profiteering from its sale. That is wholly unacceptable. What constructive steps are the Government taking with international partners to address aid diversion?
At the heart of President Trump’s peace plan is the establishment of an international stabilisation force. The United Kingdom has world-class peacekeeping, policing and stabilisation expertise. Will the Minister confirm that British expertise will not be wasted and that we have a plan to support the creation of that force alongside our allies? Does he have a view on what the ISF operating parameters should be? Does he think that it should move into the red zone? On the rebuilding of Gaza, what actions is the UK taking to support the establishment of alternative safe communities?
It is widely acknowledged that if the current ceasefire is to turn into a sustainable end to the conflict, Hamas must be removed from power and their terrorist infrastructure dismantled. What we need to hear today is how the Government intend to work with regional partners—Israel, Egypt, the UAE and the emerging Palestinian security structures—to achieve that essential objective. We also need to hear that Britain will play its part in creating security, peace and stability, and give the people of Palestine, Israel and the whole region hope for the future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening the debate. I want to thank every hon. Member who has spoken with such clarity and conviction.
I was asked a number of questions over two and a half hours. If hon. Members will permit me, I intend to make a brief statement about the humanitarian situation before taking any interventions. I know that the voices in this Chamber echo the deep concern felt across the country—concern so strong that nearly 200,000 people signed the petition that brought us here today, including many of my own constituents in Lincoln. I know that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) says, this is not at all a fringe concern—it is on the minds of constituents represented by all of us, right across the country.
The ceasefire was achieved with great difficulty and in the face of great danger. It must hold. We must confront the humanitarian catastrophe that continues in Gaza. We must see the bodies of the hostages returned to their grieving families and move quickly from phase 1 to phase 2—reconstruction and recovery—to rebuild shattered lives. As we take peace plans forward, we must not lose focus on the catastrophic humanitarian situation. More than 69,000 people have lost their lives since October 2023. Tens of thousands have been wounded, most of them women and children, and over 90% of the population remains displaced. Our immediate priority must be aid—rapid, sustained and unrestricted. The international system can deliver at scale, but that is not happening on the ground.
As we speak, vital equipment and field hospitals are waiting just miles away, blocked by red tape. Winter, as many contributions have made clear, is closing in, and displaced families need shelter and basic services restored. The Israeli authorities must open all crossings without delay, and aid agencies and NGOs must be able to operate freely across the whole of Gaza. Restrictions on UNRWA and other UN agencies must be lifted. The system and the supplies exist. I was pleased to hear other colleagues who have seen them in el-Arish—as I have. The will in the UK exists. If the ceasefire and the 20-point plan are to succeed, the political block on aid must end.
I understand the frustration my colleagues expressed tonight. Let me reassure the House that the Government are doing all they can to support the ceasefire and get aid into Gaza. We have allocated £78 million for humanitarian and recovery support this year, including £20 million for water, sanitation and hygiene services. Over the past two years, we have restored funding to UNRWA and provided nearly £250 million in development assistance. I was challenged on whether that has made any difference to individuals in Gaza—it is 439,000 people who have received essential health care, 647,000 who have received food and over 300,000 who have gained access to clean water and sanitation.
Many hon. Members rightly challenged me and the Government to consider the individuals at the heart of this, rather than the numbers. I was in Yemen last week and saw a malnourished child in front of me at one of the healthcare clinics that we are supporting. The sight of a severely malnourished 11-month-old baby is a truly arresting one. It is a reminder to me, as I know it is to everyone in this House, that there are thousands of such children in Gaza.
We must do everything we can to ensure that the ceasefire holds and that the aid gets in. We have deployed UK advisers to the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre to help to co-ordinate reconstruction and humanitarian efforts. In total, we are providing £116 million this year for humanitarian aid, economic development and strengthening PA governance and reform.
Alice Macdonald
I thank the Minister for giving way and for the speech he is making. It was announced today that the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is ceasing operations. It was said that the GHF has shared lessons with the CMCC. Does the Minister think that it is important that we learn what not to do in delivering aid? We have seen that the best way to do that is through recognised organisations such as the UN. Will the Minister comment on the GHF statement today?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for that important contribution. I have been absolutely clear throughout that the GHF was no way to deliver aid. The cost to the people of Gaza was absolutely clear from the grim images of its operation that we saw day in and day out. It has always been the case that a system exists in order to provide aid across Gaza. It is not a perfect system, and where there are abuses of that system, they need to be investigated—I am very glad to hear from our partners that the looting of aid has considerably reduced following the ceasefire—but the system exists. The aid exists. It is the United Nations system. It is mentioned specifically in the 20-point plan. That is how aid must be distributed across Gaza.
Brendan O’Hara
I wholeheartedly agree with everything that the Minister has said, and applaud much of it. The restriction of aid in Gaza is utterly reprehensible. There have been multiple calls for action in this Chamber, but what is the plan if Israel says no? If Israel says that it is not allowing unfettered access to humanitarian aid, what do we do?
Mr Falconer
It may be helpful to the House if I set out what the UK sees as unfettered access. There are three areas where our advocacy is particularly focused. One is the registration provisions around NGOs, which was raised by many colleagues. We have raised that issue directly with the Israeli Government, which is what the hon. Member asked about in his intervention.
The second is dual-use items. There has been an overly restrictive approach to dual-use items that has restricted shelter, in particular, and a range of other things, including water purification equipment and a whole range of medical supplies. The dual-use list must be considerably loosened to enable the kinds of operations that so many hon. Members have discussed.
The third, turning to the comments of the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), is the crossings. There are two crossings open, which I understand the shadow Foreign Secretary saw during her recent visit, but significant crossings remain closed: the Allenby crossing into Jordan and the Rafah crossing. Those are two critical crossings, and their opening was clearly envisaged in the 20-point plan. It is on that point that we continue to press the Israeli Government.
The opening of those crossings is related to some of the important points made by hon. Members about both aid access going in and people coming out. I have told hon. Members before that I do not wish to be drawn on specific numbers of medically injured children and students whom we have assisted to leave Gaza. Many hon. Members in this Chamber have discussed some of these questions with me. Those whose questions I have not yet answered have my word that I will come back to them quickly. I can say that, after the most recent wave of evacuations, we have now exceeded the target that I had mentioned to some hon. Members in recent months. We have, after a series of evacuation operations, managed to save hundreds from what awaited them in Gaza and provided opportunities for them to take up here in the UK.
I take the point that the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara), and others, have made that they would like to see larger numbers. There is a balance to be struck here. Clearly, medical assistance is most effective and timely in Gaza itself—on both sides of the yellow line. After that, it is most effective in the region, and I was pleased to be in Cairo recently seeing some of that provision. Where that assistance cannot be provided, it is appropriate that we look at specialist cases, as we have done.
Dr Chowns
I thank the Minister; I appreciate that. We have been talking about the desperate need for unfettered aid access into Gaza for desperate, starving civilians. At the same time, this country continues to provide completely unfettered trade access for settlement goods into the UK—proceeds of crime, literally. Is it not time for the British Government to ban trade in settlement goods? Might that not help to put a little pressure on the Israeli Government to allow aid into Gaza?
Mr Falconer
As the hon. Lady knows, there is not unfettered trade with the occupied territories. They are not subject to the same trade arrangements as Israel, and where there are breaches, we will investigate those thoroughly. We have discussed many times some of the challenges around ensuring that goods produced in the occupied territories do not find their way into the mainstream Israeli trading system, but I do not have the time, I am afraid, to rehearse some of those arguments again this afternoon.
I will close by saying that the Government understand the urgency of the humanitarian situation in Gaza, on both sides of the yellow line. His Majesty’s Opposition ask whether we want to see the international system enter what some are calling the red zone, west of the yellow line, and indeed we do. That is absolutely vital. That is where 90% of Gaza’s population remains to this day. Humanitarian provision east of the yellow line cannot make a dent in the very significant humanitarian suffering that so many have described so eloquently.
The most recent figures that we have show famine levels reducing, and severe malnutrition has decreased since the ceasefire, but it is still far too high. I give this House my solemn commitment, and that of the Government, that we will not rest until humanitarian aid is entering Gaza in the volumes required to try to meet the staggering level of human suffering that so many have talked about with such power this afternoon.
Irene Campbell
I thank Members who have contributed to this very important and significant debate today, and I thank the Minister for his response. As we have heard, the situation in Gaza is devastating. While the ceasefire offers some hope, and it must hold, it is important that we recognise that this cannot be the final step. Much more must be done.
A significant increase in humanitarian aid must enter Gaza, and we must remember that the UK has a legal obligation to respect international humanitarian law. I thank the petitioner for creating this petition, and the almost 200,000 people who signed it and ensured that this debate took place today. Finally, I thank the Petitions Committee staff, who work tirelessly to brief and assist us in preparation for these petitions debates every week.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 700682 relating to humanitarian obligations and Gaza.
NHS: Wheelchair Services
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the provision of wheelchair services by the NHS and social care authorities.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, integrated care boards are responsible for the commissioning of local wheelchair services based on the needs of the local population. NHS England has developed policy guidance and legislation to support ICBs to commission effective, efficient and personalised services. This includes a Wheelchair Quality Framework, published in April, which is designed to assist ICBs and NHS wheelchair service providers in delivering high-quality provision that improves access, outcomes and experience.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, but does she recognise that the work by the Wheelchair Alliance and the All-Party Group for Wheelchairs Users would suggest that, if you leave this to local health bodies and local authorities, they simply will not improve the current inadequate and patchy service? The All-Party Group for Access to Disability Equipment has reported that
“63% of carers and 55% of equipment users said that services are getting worse”.
Given what my noble friend said about the quality framework, which I very much welcome, does she accept that nothing will change unless this is enforced from the centre, with strong performance management?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I accept the observations that my noble friend has made; I know he has been a voice on this for many years. I share with him the impatience for change and welcome the work of the APPG and the Wheelchair Alliance. The NHS Medium Term Planning Framework, which was published just in October, requires that, from 2026-27, all ICBs and community health services must actively manage and reduce the proportion of waits across all community health services over 18 weeks and develop a plan to eliminate all 52-week waits. I expect that wheelchair provision and services will improve through this as well as other means.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
Can the Minister comment on whether we keep any statistics in relation to people who have to stay in hospital who avoid discharge because of the length of time taken to get wheelchairs?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I will be pleased to write to the noble Baroness about the specific data that is available, but we know that, because of issues to do with aids and adaptations, sometimes people’s leaving hospital is not as timely as it should be. That is not in their interests. We certainly expect local authorities, for example, which have a statutory duty, to make arrangements to do so and also for ICBs to make the provision so there are not the hold-ups that the noble Baroness refers to.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister said, the NHS provides the funding for wheelchair access, but the wheelchairs are mostly necessary in community settings and in the home, and there is a gap between social services and the NHS using different criteria to assess the health needs of the patient. What are the Government going to do to address this so that people get the service that they need?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The provision of the right type of wheelchair is crucial, but we also need to expand care options to boost independent living at home. We have done that in part through an additional £172 million for the disabled facilities grant, which goes hand in hand with people being able to live at home. This could enable around 15,600 extra home adaptations. Introducing care technology standards for those who are using wheelchairs and those who are not will also enable proper care standards and independent living.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the conference chair of the National Association of Equipment Providers. As a teenager, I pushed my mother everywhere in a wheelchair; we had to buy it second hand through the Liverpool Echo. Wheelchair provisions have improved greatly since then, but how can the Government work with the Wheelchair Alliance and with trade associations to ensure that retailers have skilled clinical staff who are trained to undertake assessments and prescribe appropriate wheelchairs and other forms of assistive technology?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The points that the noble Lord has raised are crucial—not least that, as I alluded to earlier, one type of wheelchair does not suit everybody. That is why I am keen to see the results of the Wheelchair Quality Framework, which, as I mentioned to my noble friend, was published in April. That sets out quality standards and statutory requirements, including offering personalised wheelchair budgets, which would assist in the circumstances that the noble Lord describes.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a frequent wheelchair user and as a member of the all-party group. Some concerns have been expressed that the competition for contracts for wheelchairs is very limited and that a number of wheelchair providers are not even submitting their names to be considered for those contracts because they feel that it is not worth their while. What action are the Government taking to ensure that there is sufficient choice within the NHS and that the market is large enough to ensure that companies will actually bid for those contracts?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
This is a very important point, not just for the supply chain but also for the technology, particularly if we are thinking about those with more complex needs; the wheelchair has to support and meet those complex needs. We know that there is a lack of investment in new models and that there has been disruption in the supply chain. While I do not seek to blame, that was a particular issue arising out of the pandemic. We are indeed working on better technology in terms of wheelchairs and other aids and adaptations and seeking to iron out difficulties in people making bids for contracts. If the noble Lord has examples, I would be very pleased to hear about them.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, can my noble friend comment on the problem, which carers often report, of being unable to return the wheelchair to its source when it is no longer needed?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend raises a point that applies not just to wheelchairs but to other aids and adaptations. There is indeed a very considerable issue. That is a matter for local services, but it is absolutely something that we will work with them on as part of how we improve services, because it also includes the safe and timely return.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, as well as the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about NHS wheelchair services, we know that, in addition, there are over 1 million wheelchair users of different types in the UK, and we know that people still face considerable difficulties in accessing health and social care buildings. Of course we understand that some buildings are old and will have to be retrofitted, but what specific conversations is the department having with charities, expert groups, owners of buildings and developers to raise awareness of the need and how to improve access, particularly for those older buildings?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord is right, and his comments about buildings apply not just to NHS buildings either but to the whole range. I can assure the noble Lord that across government we have continuing discussions about this, because it is not, as the noble Lord says, just a matter of getting the right wheelchair; it is also about them being accessible in terms of the buildings. It is also the reason that I mentioned to his noble friend about adaptations to people’s homes so that wheelchairs can be used there too.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the problems is that the need is often not identified until the person is heading for discharge from hospital, whereas if it was foreseen at a much earlier stage and there was proper co-ordinated planning between health and social care, a great deal of these delays could be reduced? Will the Minister do all that she can to improve the relationship between health and social care at local level?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I would certainly agree that timely provision of wheelchairs and other aids and adaptations does support people not only to remain as independent as possible for as long as possible but to leave a hospital setting if that is in their best interests. We now have the better care fund as a framework for integrated care boards, the NHS and local authorities to make joint plans and to pool budgets for the very purpose the noble Lord mentions, which is about delivering better joined-up care. That can indeed include wheelchairs. That is a very systematic approach, doing exactly what the noble Lord is requesting.
Brain Tumours: Causes and Treatment
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Mattinson
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve the scale of research into the causes and treatment of brain tumours.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, research is vital to ensure that people get the most effective treatments and the highest quality care. We are committed to furthering investment in brain tumour research: between 2018-19 and 2023-24, NIHR invested £11.8 million and UKRI invested £46.8 million in this area. The new NIHR brain tumour research consortium does promise a step change, with further announcements being imminent. In addition, the national cancer plan will seek to improve every aspect of cancer care, including outcomes for those with brain tumours.
Baroness Mattinson (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, but I want to press for more urgency to beat this terrible disease. Brain cancer is now the biggest killer of children and adults under the age of 40 in the UK. Behind every statistic is a person, like my old friend Georgie Maynard, a mother of three who received her own devastating diagnosis two and a half years ago. Georgie has co-founded the Brain Cancer Justice group, and she is here today. She wants to know why the UK’s brain cancer survival rate ranks only 22nd out of 29 wealthy nations, why just 1% of the cancer research budget is allocated to brain cancer, and why only 12% of people with a brain tumour are able to participate in trials. In particular, the whole-genome sequencing is vital for brain tumour research, yet just 5% of brain tumour patients can access it.
Last September, the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission published its recommendations. Will the Minister agree to review these recommendations and meet with the Brain Cancer Justice group to discuss how they can be incorporated?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the opportunity to meet Georgie just before Questions. I am happy to write to my noble friend with answers to all those questions. On the last two, yes, we continue to work very closely in partnership with the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission to drive further progress against its recommendations. I will certainly speak with the Minister who deals with this area—Ashley Dalton MP, who is currently ensuring that the cancer plan can be published at the beginning of the forthcoming year—about the suggestion of a meeting. We have very much engaged with the cancer community on the cancer plan, and we continue to be keen to do so.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for promising us a cancer plan by the beginning of next year. I hope it will be forthcoming, because it will be good to look at how cancer care will change. Regarding brain tumours, the problem is that the symptoms are often vague and mild, so early diagnosis is much more difficult. We need more research into the early diagnosis of tumours. Furthermore, we need much more research than the numbers mentioned by the Minister. One of the success stories, one hopes, in 2026 will be drug gene therapy and viral immunotherapy, which will be put through clinical trials early next year to treat glioblastoma, the major brain tumour killer. I hope we will have more funding, because £30 million, £40 million or even £50 million will not do.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I want to convey to the noble Lord our ambition in this area. I completely accept the point he makes—although not all of them—about the challenge of diagnosing rarer cancers, including brain tumours. Research is absolutely vital. Last September, we announced new research funding opportunities, bringing the brain cancer research community together, because we want to drive step change for patients in the way the noble Lord seeks. Funding decisions will arise from this call, and announcements are expected imminently.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, my son survived a brain tumour, but he was lucky, because in the UK between 40% and 60% of brain tumour diagnoses happen after the patient has arrived at A&E, having often been misdiagnosed—to follow on from the noble Lord’s question—earlier. That is a much worse outcome than many for other cancers. As the Minister said, brain tumour cancers are the leading killer of people under the age of 40. Will she therefore commit to a public awareness campaign to explain some of the difficult symptoms the noble Lord just identified, and the seriousness of brain tumours? Such awareness is sadly lacking among the public.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I take the point the noble Lord makes, and I am sorry to hear of his son’s—and of course his family’s—experience. One of the things we are working on is increasing public awareness of brain cancer research opportunities. That is not quite the same as the point the noble Lord made, but extending that through the NIHR’s “Be Part of Research” initiative is important. The national cancer plan will give us the opportunity to review what communications and campaigns we run with the public. That will be a good opportunity to consider the point he makes.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, Georgie’s brother is Charlie Maynard MP, who has been campaigning on this. One of the issues raised is that in the UK it takes significantly longer to open a clinical trial for these patients than in most comparable nations, due to the excessive administrative burden. Will the Government therefore commit to looking at a fast-track designation for trials involving cancers with unmet needs, such as glioblastoma?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We certainly do need to cut more red tape on cancer treatments. For example, we recently accelerated patient access to ultrasound cancer treatment through our innovative devices access pathway pilot. That is just one way in which we will have the potential to help companies, which is crucial to bring game-changing cancer treatments to fruition and to NHS patients even faster.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, would the Minister agree that it is important to recognise and praise the treatment that is already available while challenging to do more? I was diagnosed with a benign tumour and the treatment was exemplary. On the real upside of this, I have a lot of documentary evidence that I have a brain.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I have never doubted that about the right reverend Prelate, but I am sure that the whole of your Lordships’ House is very pleased that he is with us. It is absolutely right and proper to pay tribute to all those in the whole system who provide care, treatment, diagnosis, research and so on. It is a team effort, and I am glad that he has benefited so well from it.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, being diagnosed with a brain tumour is devastating not only for the person involved but for their family. As my noble friend Lord Sharpe said, brain tumours can lead to memory loss, cognitive changes and reduced physical ability. Those symptoms are sometimes not picked up beforehand, but even when someone is diagnosed with a brain tumour those very symptoms sometimes lead to misunderstandings among friends and family members, and can lead to isolation. Given this, can the Minister outline what steps NHS England and the department are taking to raise awareness among families and friends of all the symptoms and side-effects of brain tumours, so we can avoid those misunderstandings and ensure that the patient continues to receive care from their loved ones?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
It is an important point, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, raised. As I said, the national cancer plan will give that opportunity to address challenges and needs such as those the noble Lord raised. We are also establishing a brain tumour research consortium through the NIHR, which will bring together researchers from different disciplines. The scientific advancements it will drive will be how to prevent, detect—to the point raised by the noble Lords—manage and treat brain tumours. That will also be of great assistance.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, the Government should be congratulated on trying to improve their work on brain cancer. Talking about treatment, one of the issues is that one of the greatest advances and most important areas is brain imaging using magnetic resonance imaging, PET scanning and even electrical recording in a sophisticated way, but access to these important technologies still seems somewhat deficient. Will the Minister say whether the NHS has plans to increase access to brain imaging? It seems a very important area in treatment.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We certainly want to see services properly available across the country and people not being disadvantaged because of where they live or what the services are. Again, from what I know of it—we will soon see it—the national cancer plan will improve every aspect of cancer care, including outcomes for those with brain tumours and access to the services my noble friend outlines.
Non-Crime Hate Incidents
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Maclean of Redditch
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the decision of police forces to stop investigating non-crime hate incidents, whether they plan to abolish them altogether.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council are currently undertaking a review of non-crime hate incidents, working closely with the Home Office. The Government look forward to receiving the review’s final recommendations shortly and will decide future policy following consideration.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. He may not be aware that in 2023 I was charged with a non-crime hate incident. Thanks to my noble friend Lord Young of Acton, who is in his place, and the Free Speech Union, we managed to fight it and get it dropped, but, by some estimates from Policy Exchange and others, some 60,000 hours of police time are used every year in investigating these, and innocent men and women are criminalised. My main concern is that, from Questions that I have tabled, neither the Home Office nor police forces can tell us whether any of this has led to any serious crimes being solved or prevented. Is it not time for the Minister to abolish these altogether?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As I have indicated to the noble Baroness, we are awaiting the report, and it is fair, if we have commissioned a report, that we wait to see its recommendations. However, an interim report in October of this year said that non-crime hate incidents were not fit for purpose. Her noble friend Lord Herbert, who is the chair of the College of Policing, has reported to this House on the recommendations to date, and we will have those shortly. I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that non-crime hate incidents do not appear on basic or standard DBS checks, so she is not criminalised by her close proximity to a non-crime hate incident on her own accord.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, non-crime hate incidents, even if they are not investigated but recorded, are a good way of assessing the rising levels of hatred in society. For example, increasing levels of anti-social behaviour appear to be linked to hate crime. Can the Minister tell us whether mechanisms are in place to show what levels of anti-social behaviour are linked to hate crime, and what levels of anti-social behaviour are linked to anti-Muslim hate? I am happy to have that information in writing if he does not have it to hand.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that one of the purposes of non-crime hate incident assessments is to assess whether there are potential problems or challenges in a particular area. Last year, for example, 44% of religious hate crime offences targeted Muslims, while 24% targeted Jewish people, and there were 82,490 race hate crime offences. That is useful information, but the questions are: what do we do about non-crime hate incidents generally? Should we record them? Do we follow them up? Do they lead to prosecution? Are they a good use of police time? However, the evidence gathered by some of that information is valuable, which is why the College of Policing and the police chiefs’ council are making a genuine assessment, having already said that the non-crime hate incident regime is not fit for purpose.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, it will be a sad day when police stop investigating non-crime hate incidents. In the last 10 years, I stood for Parliament twice, and I was the victim of such incidents both times. Non-crime hate is an early warning sign of what is happening in our society so that police and the politicians can keep an eye on it. Does my noble friend the Minister agree?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, there are robust mechanisms in place to deal with harassment, racial prejudice and other forms of harassing and abusive and threatening behaviour. The key element of a non-crime hate incident is that it does not reach a threshold of a crime incident but is, in essence, a method of collecting information. For example, in my noble friend’s case, if there were persistent and regular non-crime hate approaches that did not reach that threshold, it might well indicate to the police that there were other aspects of community cohesion behaviour they needed to investigate. The review will decide what happens in terms of police activity following up on a range of matters, and that is what we are awaiting shortly with some interest.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, inspections by HMIC have found that about one-quarter of non-crime hate incidents are recorded incorrectly, with many people wrongly included. Following several reviews and repeated government assurances, can the Minister give an undertaking that the Government will finally establish a clear and publicly accessible appeals mechanism for individuals who believe they have been wrongly recorded as being involved in such incidents?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for that question from the noble Baroness. The issue is that non-crime hate incidents are not currently fit for purpose. That includes a range of mechanisms relating to how the police interpret that, what they do with the information and indeed whether any information is collected incorrectly. I would love to give an answer today, but it is important that we listen and work with the police on the review they have commissioned. That will be with me shortly and, when it is, we will be able to come to some definitive conclusions and put a regime in place that meets the noble Baroness’s objective of assessing anti-social behaviour and racial concerns, as my noble friend has mentioned, but does so in a way that does not lead to mistakes, does not lead to false use by the police and is not a waste of police time in collecting that information.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I hear what the Minister says, but, to pick up on the points made by my noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch, non-crime hate incidents are just one of the instruments used by the police to investigate online speech. Open-ended and subjective language in legislation such as the Public Order Act 1998 and the Communications Act 2003, and unclear guidance, are also used to chill free speech. Given the public’s view that crime is on the rise, do the Government not agree that legislative changes need to be made, and that guidance and leadership need to be crystal-clear that the police should stop policing online speech and start solving real-world crimes that have a genuine effect on people’s lives?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord has a point. Guidance for these incidents was put in place by his Government in 2023, and it is that guidance that has proved ineffective and led to the review. We are looking at the framework for this. We have commissioned the College of Policing to look at it, as well as the police, who have to deal with this matter and who themselves have said that the regime is not fit for purpose. We hope then to be able to update the guidance, depending on what the police and the College of Policing come forward with.
I challenge the noble Lord’s contention that crime is rising. In many areas, crime is falling; murder rates in London are at their lowest levels for many months. Crime is falling generally, and the work that we are doing to put extra police on the ground will help improve community support and community action on crime. However, we will wait for the review and report back to the House in due course.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young, and I, have tabled an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill to try to remove non-crime hate incidents. I understand why the Minister has to give the reply that he gives—because a review is ongoing and the Government do not want to get trapped by it—but the danger is that we end up with an inconsistent approach, even if it is improved. At the moment, we have a situation where the Metropolitan Police is no longer investigating non-crime hate incidents, yet 42 forces are. Is there not a risk that following the review we will end up with more inconsistency, not less, when people are crying out for this to be resolved?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Metropolitan Police has said that it will still record information collected from non-crime hate incidents, which is in line with the code of practice introduced by the previous Government in 2023. Ministers decide on issues, but we have commissioned a review of the 2023 guidance which is being undertaken by former colleagues of the noble Lord at a senior level in the police: the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing. It is important that we receive their review and then we can determine whether we agree with the recommendations. Ministers decide, but we have commissioned a review, and it is important that we allow it to report.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, over the past two years, we have seen levels of antisemitism reach new highs, and while some antisemitic hate speech reaches the criminal threshold, it can also be sub-criminal. Does the Minister agree with me and organisations such as the Antisemitism Policy Trust that documenting such incidents is central to building an intelligence picture of hate hotspots and that a simple renaming of these incidents to “intelligence reports” would help a great deal?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is an important use of non-crime hate incidents. As I said earlier, there have been 82,490 race hate crimes, 7,164 religious hate crimes and a range of other offences falling within that. One reason why it is helpful is that it guides where other government resources can go, such as the £70.9 million available to protect faith communities, including, regarding the issue that my noble friend mentioned, the £18 million to the Jewish community protective security grant. It has an important function, but we have to assess it in the light of the use of police time, which is what this review is about. However, my noble friend’s point was very well made, as was that of the noble Baroness, that it helps secure an intelligence picture.
Fair Funding Review
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jamieson
To ask His Majesty’s Government how the pressures on local authorities to deliver additional housing and employment growth are factored into the Fair Funding Review.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
We have already taken important steps to ensure that local government is able to support our Government’s ambition to build 1.5 million homes in this Parliament, to tackle the housing crisis and to kick-start economic growth. The Fair Funding Review 2.0 reforms further incentivise these ambitions through an inbuilt reward in the council-tax calculation and the business rates retention scheme. We understand that local government is at the heart of delivering our growth and housing missions. More details will be published at the provisional settlement later this year.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. Additional housing and commercial property come at a cost to councils in both capital and revenue terms, and more than that raised by the additional council tax. Can the Minister explain why this Government are removing the incentive of retained business rates, which will force many councils—which have done the right thing and supported growth—to raise council tax to the maximum and cut their services?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is very important, particularly now, that we support local government, after 14 years of successive funding cuts and the battering it came under from the last Government. Through our funding reforms local authorities will be empowered, as key partners, to meet the housing need and help deliver growth across the country. We will reward local authorities for housebuilding, as they will benefit from additional council tax rates for each new house built in their area over the course of the multi-year period. On business rates, we will keep long-standing incentives so that local authorities continue to be rewarded for growth. Through their fair funding review, the previous Government recognised the need for reform, but they did not deliver. We are making good on this commitment and introducing improvements for the first time since 2013.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has just explained that council tax projections for new homes will not now be included in the financial assessment for council income. However, those councils with high deprivation and low economic growth are likely to have below average rates of housebuilding too. Can the Minister explain why the Government are willing to penalise those areas once again?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not agree with the presumption in the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. For too long, an outdated council funding system, based on decades-old data, has entrenched the inequality of which she speaks—we all know that—with those least able to raise council tax and business rates given less favourable funding settlements. This has left some councils on a cliff edge and communities in deprived areas facing service cuts and rising bills, as well as being unable to deliver the economic growth and housing that we know those communities need. Some councils in less deprived areas have benefited disproportionately, building up their reserves. Our reforms will reverse this injustice and make sure that councils will be funded fairly, enabling them to deliver for their communities on services and on the growth that we all want to see.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
In the part of Devon where I live, there are half a dozen separate building projects. As far as I can see, almost none of them is doing much in the way of affordable housing. What are the Government doing to encourage affordable housing in all such projects?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, may be aware that the Government have allocated an unprecedented £39 billion of funding for a new social and affordable homes programme. Our ambition is to deliver around 300,000 social and affordable homes over the programme’s lifetime, with a target to deliver at least 60% of the homes under the programme as social rent. This is really important in both urban and rural communities to make sure that we are able to allocate social and affordable housing in those areas. We will be enabling councils to use their right-to-buy receipts to pair up with the funding from the social and affordable homes programme.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that government funding and support should be based on need and should take into account the ability of the local authority to raise its own resources locally? During the last 13 years, this was moved away from. Are we going back to a similar system to that which operated for many years?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend that we need to make sure we realign funding with need and deprivation so that local authorities can deliver for their communities—as I said, the services that are needed and the economic growth that they need. The vast majority of councils with social care responsibilities will see their core spending power increase in real terms over the multi-year settlement. We will publish our response to the fair funding review and the policy statement and set out our plans for the first multi-year local government finance settlement. That is really important because it gives councils the certainty they need to plan over the medium to long term.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, while councils will benefit from increased council tax from new homes being built, the cost of providing services to those new homes will not be included in the baseline funding level unless and until there is a reset. Can the Minister tell the House how frequently the Government will undertake that reset so that the cost of providing services to homes is built into the baseline funding level?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I cannot give the noble Lord the exact answer to his question now. We have said that creating this multi-year funding settlement will help local authorities to plan for the future. We will keep in constant contact with our local government community to make sure that the changes we are making are made on up to date data—we have looked at a completely new dataset for the indices of multiple deprivation—because the data that was being used was not up to date. The Government will be working closely with local authorities as we move this forward to ensure that it is delivering the change we all want to see.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, local authorities remain the biggest funders of arts and cultural services. These are important for growth and employment growth, yet since 2010, spending on these areas, alongside heritage, tourism and libraries, has decreased by more than 50%. While recognising that there are many important pressures on local authorities, will the fair funding review allow for proper reinvestment in this significant area?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I very much agree. I have seen on the front line how cuts to local government funding have affected so much the provision of social activities, culture and leisure in our communities. It is very important that local government has the ability to make provision for local communities in those areas. What happened was that the harder it was for a local council to raise funds, the more they seemed to be penalised through the system. The more deprived a community was, the less likely they were to have the headroom to deliver the kinds of services the noble Earl speaks about. We need to change that, and we are working on reversing that.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the reasons so many local authorities are failing to meet their housing delivery targets? What steps are being taken to support them in doing so?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The first thing we did was restore the mandatory housing targets because, first, it did not make any sense to us. We wanted to deliver an overall target across the country but we were not saying what part in that each local authority played. Secondly, we know there are a lot of pressures facing local planning authorities. We have invested £46 million in this year’s funding to strengthen the capacity and capability to deliver planning reform to enable local authorities to meet their housing targets. We have made a commitment to recruit 300 additional planners, alongside wider planning policy changes—we will be discussing these later this afternoon—and legislative changes. That will help us deliver the housing and economic growth our country desperately needs.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, my experience as a councillor was that builders and developers would often promise a percentage of social or affordable housing within their building projects and then somehow fail to do that. Are there enough penalties for builders who do that?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We continue to explore this. It is very important that local authorities are able to set in their local plans the targets that they think are appropriate for their local areas. We will continue to explore with local authorities, particularly as we roll out the funding for social and affordable housing, whether there is any more we need to do to make sure that housing is delivered to the targets that each local authority has set itself.
Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 October be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 19 November.
Ukraine: Forcible Removal of Children
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, there have been many reports over the weekend that progress is being made towards a peace deal for Ukraine, and I am sure the whole House will welcome that. However, does the Minister agree that this cannot be based on the leaked plan, which read more like a list of Russian talking points than a serious set of proposals? What role are the UK Government playing in those discussions, rightly, as one of Ukraine’s strongest supporters? In addition, recent history has cruelly demonstrated that no agreement with Russia is, frankly, worth the paper it is printed on without robust and durable security guarantees. So can the Minister confirm what discussions the Government have had with the US and other European states to help to provide those credible long-term commitments?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, as noble Lords will know, talks are continuing today, and it is not the Government’s intention to provide any kind of running commentary on this, and I know that that noble Lords would not want us to do that. In answer to the noble Lord’s question, he can be assured that the UK and our partners and allies in the European Union are taking part and doing everything we can to bring about the lasting and just peace that we all wish to see.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the fact that the UK Government have been closely working with the Bring Back Kids organisation and providing much needed assistance. Looking at the additional support that is very much needed, parliamentarians who have visited Kyiv recently have pointed to the need for greater collaboration between intelligence services on the tracing of those stolen children and financial assistance to support the interrogation of the data. Both those things could make a real difference. What consideration are the Government giving to these proposals?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Speaking personally and for the Government, I think that the removal of 20,000 Ukrainian children is one of the most horrific elements of this whole awful war. We are doing everything we can to work with our partners and allies, even as far as working with celebrities or anybody who can bring attention to this and put pressure to see these children returned home to where they ought to be. Several hundred have returned, and we are helping to support them with the psychosocial support that they very much need. We know that these children are held in around 400 different locations. This is complex and difficult, but it is incredibly important, and our focus will remain—as the noble Baroness would want it to be—on seeing these children returned home.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the role that the Government are playing, particularly the creation of the coalition formed with Canada. I know that Minister cannot comment on leaked reports, but nevertheless we welcome that this is a specific provision within the proposed plan. Can the Minister assure us that the coalition will be fully leveraged and also harness the efforts that Qatar has been making in this important aspect as well?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord often reminds us of this, and I share his admiration for the work of the Qataris, not just in this process but in many others too. They are exceptionally successful, and I admire their work. Yes, we will. The noble Lord knows, probably better than many others in this House, that we are very reluctant to make any kind of comment while these negotiations are so live and are moving. The work that we undertake alongside other members of the coalition of the willing—he mentioned the Canadians in particular—will be sustained for as long as it is needed.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, will the Minister respond to two questions? First, on the real impact of sanctions, they do not seem to have diminished in any way Russia’s ability or intention to pursue this war of attrition and the cruelties that have already been mentioned, particularly in relation to children. Secondly, as someone who was a Soviet military specialist in a previous career, I can say that their aim is not to punish children but to wipe out a generation’s memory and retell a story. The effects of that, even if children are brought back at the end of this war, are going to go on for a generation. Have the Government given any consideration to how the rules-based international order can be effectively used to counter this and prepare for that longer term future?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
First, I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate for his knowledge and experience and the care and consideration that he brings to this and other matters. I know that he will soon retire from this House, although I hope not entirely from these issues. He is absolutely right to remind us that the removal of children, horrendous as it is, was not just to use children as a pawn in this conflict; it is absolutely about diminishing the identity of Ukraine and removing all vestiges of its own sovereignty. For so many reasons, we will continue to work to see these children returned. I look forward to continuing to work with the right reverend Prelate in future on these and many other issues.
Lord Swire (Con)
Last week, some of us were privileged to hear the testimony of two former Ukrainian prisoners of the Russians here in this House—we listened to their harrowing testimony. Can the Minister reassure us that in any peace deal articulated by the Americans or with the EU, the egregious infringement and abuse of human rights through torture, false imprisonment and everything that goes with it will not be lost in any settlement, and people will be pursued, if necessary to the International Criminal Court?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Accountability and responsibility for breaches of international humanitarian law and atrocities matter a great deal to this Government, and we will not compromise on that in any situation. As for what this agreement may finally look like, I hope that there is one because we all want to see a lasting peace sustained. The negotiations at the moment are between the US and Ukraine, with the support of the United Kingdom and others, but what matters more than anything, in order to get that sustainable peace, is to hear the voices of the Ukrainians and for the peace agreement, whatever it might look like, to be something that the Ukrainians can accept.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
Should the present negotiations fail, which one hopes they will not, one of the few big levers that Europeans have, as distinct from Americans, are the frozen assets. We have been particularly poor at utilising that. Have we been putting in place mechanisms whereby, should the negotiations fail, we can use those assets for the benefit of Ukraine to show Putin that this is really not a game worth playing?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am very mindful of what the noble Lord says. We have heard calls from across this House and in the other place encouraging us to move on this. The fundamental premise of this, which the Government support, is that whatever happens and however it is done, it is for the Russians to pay for the rebuilding and to repair that which they have had such a role in destroying.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
As far as I can see from the press on what is happening in Geneva, and indeed from the States, no mention of children was made as one of the situations that should be regarded. Has the UK put this forward?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am reluctant to get into dissecting the 28-point plan and the things that have been put forward. The issue of children has absolutely been raised, and it is vital that those children are returned. That is the position that we and everybody else constantly make clear throughout any discussions.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, what is the Government’s strategy if it becomes apparent that the only deal the United States of America will back is one that legitimises the theft of children and land?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I cannot imagine that that would be the case. I know that the noble Lord has a personal close interest in this, and I understand completely why he is pushing me on it, but I am not going to get into what we would or would not do and what other people may or may not accept as an outcome. I am happy to say again that I think the return of these children is not something on which anybody wishes to compromise.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister, recognising how sensitive it is at the moment to ask questions, say something about where we are with a coalition of the willing? Given that periodically the USA indicates that it will not allow NATO to go in certain directions, there is a case for the coalition of the willing to be around and even to be able to deal with other issues that might come along. Given that we have so many younger people unemployed, could we conceivably try to make a link between the two?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am not sure that I understand the very last point that my noble friend made about young people being unemployed, but on the coalition of the willing, that has proved useful and will continue to be vital as we move this forward because the discussions that are taking place at the moment are between the USA and Ukraine, but it is vital, for this to be lasting, that there is a broad network of support around whatever is agreed and, as I say, that must be agreed primarily by the Ukrainian leadership and actually by the people of Ukraine.
Mental Health Bill [HL]
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will speak also to Amendments 2 to 21, including Amendments 19A and 19D. It is a pleasure to return this Bill to this House; I very much appreciate the support and engagement of noble Lords throughout its passage.
Let me turn first to the government amendments in the other place, other than the minor and technical amendments, which are there for clarification. We have clarified the duties on NHS bodies to make arrangements regarding advance choice documents, otherwise known as ACDs. NHS bodies must actively inform individuals about ACDs, rather than taking a minimal approach. The Bill requires that information and help are provided to people who wish to make an ACD through discussion with a suitably qualified person. NHS bodies should consider the advantages of making an ACD within 12 months after discharge and aim to provide support. Additional guidance on these duties will be in the revised code.
I thank my noble friend Lady Keeley and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for raising concerns about the unequal application of the Human Rights Act. The Government have now made it so that registered private providers delivering Section 117 aftercare or in-patient mental health services, funded by local authorities or the NHS, are treated as carrying out public functions under the Human Rights Act and act compatibly with the convention rights. This amendment will apply UK-wide.
I turn to the amendments made by this House on police powers. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady May, for her constructive engagement and for establishing the review of the Mental Health Act when she was Prime Minister, which has brought us to this place today. We have removed the amendments made to Clause 5 that would have added police and other authorised professionals to Sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Mental Health Act. Extending police and other authorised professionals to these sections would be inappropriate—a view that is shared by the police.
We have removed Clause 50 from the Bill, which would have extended emergency police powers under Sections 135 and 136 of the Act to other authorised persons. Health and care professionals lack the training, equipment and access to rapid back-up needed to use such powers safely, and stakeholders are concerned about staff having the authority to use reasonable force. A blanket extension of powers to multiple agencies would risk confusion and delay in emergencies due to a lack of clarity over who should respond.
There are strong views on either side of this issue, and there are situations where health professionals feel that they do not have the powers they need. That is why I am announcing longer-term plans to launch a consultation into emergency police powers of detention. We will consult on the powers available to different professionals in different situations and settings, in particular—but not limited to—the operation of the emergency powers in Sections 135 and 136. The consultation will seek views on powers and joint working approaches to ensure that health and social care professionals and police have the appropriate powers to act in order to prevent people harming themselves and others when in a mental health crisis. We firmly believe that this is the right approach to a complex issue that requires careful consideration and consultation.
I turn to community treatment orders. Clause 6(3) has been removed from the Bill, as CTOs already comply with the code and have an initial six-month period. The responsible clinician may renew a CTO if there is a risk of serious harm without it and a reasonable prospect of therapeutic benefit. Following positive engagement with the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, I can confirm that the Government will review the statutory forms that relate to CTOs, with the aim of strengthening them to ensure a clear audit trail of the reasons for applying a CTO and associated conditions.
Regulations will require that statutory care and treatment plans specify any CTO conditions and their justifications, which will also be clarified in the code. We will work with the Tribunals Service and the judiciary to ensure that the patient’s plan is considered alongside other evidence at tribunal hearings. We will clarify in the code that, where a tribunal recommends that the responsible clinician reconsider CTO conditions as it does not consider them necessary, the responsible clinician should review and, potentially, revise those conditions. The code will set out that the responsible clinician should inform the patient of their decision after considering the tribunal’s recommendation, which should be recorded in writing. We will engage on the code before publication and involve the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, in the process. As the tribunal is responsible for considering all relevant evidence, this may include recent recommendations made at past tribunal hearings regarding the conditions placed on the person, including the detail and rationale of any current conditions.
I can confirm that since September 2025 we have increased the quantity and frequency of reporting on racial disparities in key metrics, such as detention CTOs and length of stay by ethnicity. Much of this data was previously published annually but it is now published monthly, allowing for closer monitoring of progress. The data is publicly available on the Mental Health Act annual dashboard and, along with implementation of the patient and carer race equality framework, will be used by the Care Quality Commission as part of its inspection regime.
On the debriefing amendment, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for their constructive engagement. We have removed Clause 35, which required independent mental health advocates to consult people about their in-patient experience after discharge. This removes policy duplication and additional strain on advocacy services, whose focus is on supporting detained patients’ rights. The code will clarify the processes of care planning. Supporting someone to make an advance choice document should include the opportunity to reflect on past experiences. The 10-year health plan commits to making patient feedback central to quality improvement.
The Government have tabled amendments in lieu regarding the appointment of a nominated person for a child under 16 who lacks competence, and I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for her continued work on this. The Bill now states that an approved mental health professional, or AMHP, must appoint either
“a person who has parental responsibility … a person named in a child arrangements order as a person with whom the relevant patient is to live”
or
“a person who is a special guardian”.
If there is no suitable person willing to act, the AMHP must consider the child’s wishes and feelings when deciding who to appoint.
On the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, to the Government’s Motion, I understand the intention to prevent a parent who has had parental responsibility limited from being appointed as a nominated person by an AMHP where a child lacks competence to make the appointment. The amendment tabled would mean that a special guardian or person named under a child arrangements order as someone with whom the child must live must be appointed. It is not appropriate for legislation to say that a particular individual must always be appointed nominated person. If they are not able, or even willing, to perform the role effectively, requiring them to take this role and ruling out other options risks harming the child’s interests.
As we know, legislation can be a blunt tool. It is far more appropriate to set out nuances such as this in the statutory code to ensure that the child’s individual needs are considered. That is why we previously agreed to set up an expert task force to consider these very complexities. Part of this role includes ensuring that clear guidance is given to AMHPs on who to appoint in a range of scenarios to avoid unintended consequences. At this late stage, in order to get this right, we should not be hurriedly working through these complexities as part of the legislation. We should develop detailed guidance, in consultation with professionals and patients, through drafting the code of practice. I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to move her amendment.
In conclusion, I hope that noble Lords will support our position and pass the legislation without amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 19D in my name. I thank the Minister and her officials for the frequency of their engagement on the Bill. I put on record my apology for not spotting possible issues with the Government’s Motion, to which I have tabled the amendment, much earlier. I thank the Minister and her officials for meeting with the approved mental health professionals, the professional group dealing—often late at night or at a weekend—with our sickest children, who do not have the competency to appoint a nominated person for themselves.
I specifically recognise the inconvenience to the Bill team, but this matter relates to the protection of mentally ill children and has been flagged at every stage since the Wessely review in 2018, when a consultation was suggested. In recent meetings with the Minister, I understood that what was to be achieved was that the appointment of nominated persons would reflect existing court orders made by the family court on child protection grounds. The mischief that the approved mental health professionals want to solve is that they do not want to have any discretion to appoint as a nominated person anybody not in accordance with an existing court order. They want to see this achieved through the mandatory appointment of the special guardian in priority to anybody else, the rationale being that special guardianship is usually used to avoid care orders, adoption or long-term fostering.
Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)
My Lords, first, I am very grateful to the Minister and her officials for the interaction and the many discussions we have had on the matters posed in the amendments I originally put down to the Bill on the powers of the police and the possible extension of some of those to authorised professionals, including healthcare professionals. I am also grateful to the Minister and the Government for agreeing to the review and consultation in relation to the exercise of powers, not simply those in Sections 135 and 136 but the general exercise of powers between police, healthcare professionals and other authorised professionals.
I have a number of questions about that review, but before I come to them, I hope I can crave the indulgence of the House just to cite a couple of examples of what is concerning me about the powers. Often, people go to the situation in which there is a real threat—a risk of violence or of danger to those exercising powers of restraint—but actually there are other issues. In moving the government Motion, the Minister referred to the fact that there are indeed some concerns among healthcare professionals, as well as among police, about the exercise of these powers. One situation might be if a patient presents to a GP in an evident mental health crisis, the clinician determines an urgent assessment is needed and the patient is advised to attend hospital voluntarily, but they are unwilling to do so and there is no other available alternative statutory pathway, so the police are contacted in order to exercise their powers under Section 136. It is not that the police are needed; it is just that they are the only people who have the power at the time. There is not necessarily a need to restrain somebody; they are just the only people who have that power.
The other circumstance might arise in an accident and emergency department, where a patient is identified as requiring hospital admission for mental health care, but the individual attempts to leave before an approved mental health professional or a second assessing clinician is available or a bed is found, the emergency department staff have no statutory authority to prevent the individual’s departure, and they ring the police for assistance. In the joint Home Office and DHSC review, which reported in 2014, there was evidence of this. Dr Beale said:
“A police officer has more power in that situation than I do. How can I excuse calling the police to my department to assist in mental health care? … We want to reduce the involvement of police in mental health care, not invite it”.
I am sure we are all agreed that we want to ensure the best possible pathway and experience for the person with mental health problems, we want to reduce the use of police resource, and we want to improve the policing of communities, because the police officer required to attend unnecessarily a mental health patient is a police officer taken off the policing of their local community.
So my questions are, will the review ensure that it also looks at the evidence given to the review that reported in 2014, which, among other things, showed that 93% of paramedics agreed with extending the Sections 135 and 136 powers to remove a person to a place of safety to other professionals, provided that they are trained and equipped? What is the timeline for the review and consultation? I would like it to be something like six months. Which department will be running the review or be responsible for it? I think it should, again, be a joint Home Office and DHSC review. What happens at the end? If it identifies a need to extend these powers or to add healthcare professionals to the list of authorised professionals, will the Government guarantee to undertake that, and what vehicle would they use to do so?
Once again, I am very grateful to the Minister for the discussions we have had, and I would just like to be clear on these points.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I wish to put on record my thanks for the collaborative spirit of the Minister and her officials when discussing the issue of community treatment orders.
This issue came about during the passage of the Bill, in the context of the balance between mandatory community treatment and deprivation of people’s freedom in the community; people who seemed always to be in the revolving door and could not get off a community treatment order; and in particular racial disparity.
The Minister has moved forward, and it really is about that balance between the power of the individual patient and the clinician. Where the Government have got to in discussions is a “stop and check” for the clinician—having to think about why the extension of the community treatment order is required. If the tribunal says that certain conditions of a treatment order should not be established or be part of a patient’s treatment, the clinician has to stop and think and will be mandated through the code of practice to explain why that happens.
I very much welcome the offer to consult both myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and involve us in redrawing the code of practice. It is important that within that code of practice, words such as “must” are used, rather than “may”, which would give the clinician the discretion to not write things down as much as is required when people’s freedom is being taken away.
Again, I thank the noble Baroness and her officials and look forward to getting that balance absolutely correct to stop the revolving door.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister, officials and Members of the other House for Amendment 12, which will ensure the human rights of patients who are placed in the private sector under NHS contracts. Many of us were concerned about that, but the situation is completely resolved through Amendment 12.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I had an amendment in the area covered by Amendments 1 to 4 at an earlier stage of the Bill, and I just wanted to put on record my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, for her tenacious pursuance of this issue, and the discussions which followed. I also want to thank my noble friend the Minister for taking the right step in having a full consultation on the issue. As she said, there are strong views on both sides. There is a need for some change, but clearly, full consultation is the right approach.
Perhaps I can also take the opportunity, even though the issue does not arise directly, to mention again the “Mental Health Crisis Breathing Space” and the fact that although it is not in the Bill, it will be in the MHA code of practice. I just hope we get there sooner rather than later.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support the position taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. The question of who should be appointed as a young patient’s nominated person has been thoroughly explored during this Bill in both Houses. Everyone agrees that some clarity is required in an area with a variety of different factual scenarios. Either selection of the nominated person can be left to the discretion of the approved mental health professional, with or without some guidance, or there can be some statement or indication in the Bill of priority or preference as between potential candidates.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I want to acknowledge the extensive discussions about how the Act will apply to people with learning disabilities and autistic people. We know that Clause 3 will not be switched on until sufficient community support is in place. Developing the right community support is key to ensuring that people with learning disabilities and autistic people are supported well in the community and not inappropriately detained.
On Report in the other place, Minister Kinnock committed to work with people with lived experience and other stakeholders to set out a road map for change. The excellent House of Lords Select Committee report, Time to Deliver: the Autism Act 2009 and the New Autism Strategy, which was published yesterday, also calls for
“a clear timeline and roadmap for strong community services to be put in place, so that provisions in the Mental Health Bill to prevent the unnecessary detention of autistic people and people with a learning disability can be commenced”.
When will the Ministers begin meeting people with lived experience and stakeholders to develop the road map? What progress have His Majesty’s Government made in determining what sufficient community support is and how this will be assessed, particularly given that in October there were still more than 2,000 autistic people and people with a learning disability in hospital in England, 92% of them being detained under the Mental Health Act? According to NHS Digital data, only 19% of local areas have achieved the March 2024 target to reduce the number of in-patients. It is worrying. Are ICBs on track to meet the 2026 target of a further 20% reduction?
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, I entirely support my noble friend Lady Berridge. Following on from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, this is a really important issue in relation to my noble friend’s amendment. It is unfortunate that this issue was not put out to consultation because there is a lack of clarity. It would be otiose to repeat anything that either noble Lord has already said, but I urge the Minister—and I know she is a very good listener—to consider this issue a little further, given that this moment for the child or young person is so critical. Unless there is clarity, unless it is in the Bill and unless this issue of discretion versus mandating to support the role of the AMHPs is sorted out in the primary legislation, it will be very difficult to reflect that in any statutory code of practice.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, in welcoming government Amendment 12, which says:
“A registered care provider is to be regarded for the purposes of section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 as exercising a function of a public nature in providing any of the services mentioned”.
I am particularly pleased to see that the Government and the other place accepted this point, because it reverses the effect of a decision of the Appellate Committee of this House in 2008, YL v Birmingham City Council, in which I was the unsuccessful counsel for the unfortunate applicant. At the time, I took comfort from the fact that, of the five members of the Appellate Committee, the two who dissented in favour of my client were the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, and I am very pleased that their approach has now been accepted by Parliament. The point was summarised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale. She said that it is a function of a public nature for the purposes of the Human Rights Act when the function is performed pursuant to statutory arrangements, when it is performed at public expense and when it is performed in the public interest. It has taken 17 years, but the law has got there in the end.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I start by adding my thanks to the Minister for her extremely constructive engagement throughout the Bill and particularly in recent weeks, as we have discussed community treatment orders and strengthening measures to monitoring racial disparities. My noble friend Lord Scriven has already covered the former, and I simply want to say that I am very grateful for the steps that the noble Baroness has taken to strengthen those measures for monitoring. Looking at racial disparities was, after all, the underlying rationale for this piece of legislation, so I am very glad that we are now going to have monthly reporting that we can access through the database and the dashboard—that is very good news. We will most certainly be scrutinising that data very carefully on these Benches and drawing any areas of concern to the attention of the House.
Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill. It is long overdue as an important step in ensuring people’s dignity and human rights, but we also recognise that it comes amidst a very challenging landscape for mental health services more broadly. We all know the serious shortcomings in current mental health services. Throughout the process of scrutinising the Bill in both Houses, we have urged the Government to back calls to invest in community mental health services and to produce a clear, costed implementation plan with clear timescales. We consider that very important because our outstanding concern is that the Bill on its own does not include adequate measures to promote preventive and early intervention services to stop people reaching crisis point and all the issues that we have discussed during this passage of the Bill.
We have been very glad to contribute to the Bill. It constitutes the biggest piece of legislation on mental health in 40 years. In the same vein, it could be the case that we do not have another major piece of legislation for another 40 years. I hope that is not the case, but these Bills do not come along very often. That is why we are determined to push the Government to look beyond the relatively narrow scope that this Bill has offered, to include community-led preventive care rather than simply focusing on helping people as they reach crisis point.
It has been a very important piece of legislation. I would like to thank the Minister again for her extremely constructive engagement and the tone she has set throughout this Bill. I would like to thank all noble Lords, from these Benches and from all Benches, for their extremely well-considered and very expert and heartfelt contributions. Last of all, I would like to thank officials, the Bill team and Adam Bull in the Liberal Democrat Whips’ Office.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I too start by thanking the Minister, her officials and her special adviser for their constructive engagement on the Bill. The Bill has been returned to us from the other place without the amendments made in this House. Obviously, I would have preferred it if those amendments had remained in the Bill, but I understand that the Government believe that they are not necessary.
Amendments 1 to 4, and 11, remove the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead and tabled by me and my noble friend Lord Howe on Report, which would have allowed a wider range of people to undertake detention under Sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Mental Health Act. I thank my noble friend Lady May for giving specific examples of why that was called for.
I understand that there were two main concerns with those amendments. First, some were concerned about setting a precedent beyond the Bill for being detained by personnel who are not police officers. Secondly, some of the health professionals who would have been affected by this change felt that they had not been properly consulted. I am therefore grateful to the Minister and her officials for suggesting a consultation on whether these powers could be extended. It is good that we are going way beyond just this and having a wider consultation.
Amendment 6 removes Clause 35 from the Bill. It was inserted after a successful Division on Report and was moved by my noble friend Lord Howe. It was intended to ensure that those who are detained and given treatment for their mental health receive a proper debriefing after their discharge and that the system can learn and not repeat the same mistakes. My noble friend mentioned the experiences of young people who felt that they were not being listened to, but during our meeting with the Minister, she agreed to outline at the Dispatch Box how the Government would ensure that more is done to listen. We welcome the assurances she has given.
Another question we raised was on patients having a right to an advance choice document. We would of course have preferred that to be in the Bill, but we understand that Amendments 7 to 10 are a step in the right direction, and in fact the Government have said that there is not really much difference in practice between the wording in the Bill and the alternative wording that we suggested. Once again, I welcome the assurances, but we will pay close attention to make sure that ICBs and trusts are making people who should have the right to an ACD aware that they do have that right. I think that is something that many noble Lords agree on.
On Amendment 19D from my noble friend Lady Berridge, I understand that she had some concerns, which she was able to share with the Chamber, supported by other noble Lords. One was on the use of “or”, and there is some debate about whether we need “or” in the Bill to imply “or”. I am not a legal expert, but I hope that some assurance can be given there. I also hope that some of the other issues my noble friend mentioned can be resolved in further discussions between her and the department, and possibly either in the code of practice or in specific guidance—but also in discussions with the relevant health professionals who have raised the concerns with her.
One issue that I raised a number of times, and I thank noble Lords from the Lib Dem Benches also for raising it, is racial disparities. We have been speaking about racial disparities for far too long, and for far too long we have been given the answer, “It’s too complicated” or “The data is much more granular than you think”. I welcome the fact that the data will be published more frequently, but I hope that we take that data and make changes based on the evidence in it so that we are not looking at anecdotes or people’s prejudices but are tackling the real problem. For far too long, people of Afro-Caribbean descent have been detained, and no one has really got to the crux of the matter. I know that this is an issue which noble Lords from all Benches agree that we really need to hone in on and tackle.
Given all that, I again thank the Minister, her officials, her special adviser and others for their constructive approach. I also thank all noble Lords from all Benches. Many of us said that it was not a particularly political Bill, but it was an issue that we just wanted to get right. Given that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said, this issue does not come up frequently enough and that it might be another 10 or 20 years before we discuss it again, and things move on and we are more aware of issues and understand some of these conditions in more detail, I thank all noble Lords and the Minister for the constructive way in which we have all worked together. Hopefully, we can now ensure that the Bill makes its way on to the statute book.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the thank yous and the appreciation for the whole team, which, as noble Lords have said, is extensive. I also appreciate the welcome for the number of improvements that we have made to the Bill by being able to work together. I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions, as I said at the outset. We have made significant progress on the Bill. Even today, the amendments and discussions reflect the complexity of these reforms and the shared determination to deliver legislation that will make a real difference.
I will seek to address some of the points that Peers have raised—as always, I am very happy to pick up points outside the Chamber. I turn first to those raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. She asked about having strong requirements for local authorities rather than special guardians. Stakeholders, including the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, agreed that the main priority should be whether the child is under a care order—that is, the local authority has parental responsibility—and that this should be considered under a separate tier to a special guardian or child arrangements order.
I will now pick up the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, raised about why there is no use of the word “or” in the legislative drafting. On this point, I am advised that, by default, the absence of “and/or” on the page means “or” as a matter of drafting. The modern style is to say “and” when you mean “and”, but to leave—I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Pannick, and some of their colleagues can assist. I will start that sentence again: the modern style is to say “and” when you mean “and”, but to leave “or” silent if the latter is what is intended. This is the key point: we are clear that it must be a single person who is appointed.
On the issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, raised about the creation of a hierarchy, we simply do not agree that a person with residual parental responsibility should always be blocked from being a nominated person, as the child arrangements order or special guardianship may be in place for reasons other than the parent being a risk to the child. However, we agree with the general principle that the AMHP should be aware of, and consider the implications of, any child arrangements order or special guardianship. In most cases, it is true that they will still appoint those people to be the nominated person, rather than the person with residual parental responsibility. It is considered that allowing flexibility allows judgments to be taken on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration specific circumstances and what is most appropriate for the child or young person, rather than a blanket exclusion. We will provide clear guidance in the code, following consultation and engagement with experts and professionals. I hope that will allow a way forward to deal with the complexity.
The noble Baroness raised a point about a parent having malevolent intent. I stress that, if the AMHP later finds that the special guardian will be a more suitable person, the legislation allows them to terminate the appointment of the nominated person and appoint the special guardian instead. If there are any outstanding issues that I have not covered either in my speech or in this response, I will be happy to discuss those with the noble Baroness, as I have continued to do. As I said earlier to noble Lords, I believe that this discussion, these questions and the amendment all show the complexity that we are all seeking to resolve.
The noble Baroness, Lady May, asked a number of questions about the consultation. My department will lead the consultation, and we will be working with the Home Office and stakeholders to scope it. While I cannot give an exact timeline for the review, and I am sorry to be unable to do so, I can say again that before launching the consultation we are going to be working closely with the Home Office, the NHS, social care colleagues and the police to consider the options to consult on that support better outcomes for patients and the services. I will be pleased to set out further details on the timetable in due course.
The noble Baroness, Lady May, asked what happens at the end of the review. I am sure she will understand that I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the process. However, on a future vehicle to implement the review, while obviously we cannot commit to a legislative means to do that, we will be taking forward the consultation results and outcomes when parliamentary time allows. I will be pleased to keep the noble Baroness updated on all these developments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, mentioned my colleague the Minister, Stephen Kinnock MP, who did a sterling job of taking through this legislation in the other place. She asked about his work with lived-experience groups. I say to your Lordships’ House and to the noble Baroness in particular that, after Royal Assent, our first priority will be to draft and consult on the code of practice. We will be engaging with people with lived experience, their families and carers, and with staff, professional groups, commissioners, providers and others to do this, alongside launching a public consultation. The code will be laid before Parliament before final publication. Realistically, we expect that this process will take at least a year, but the nature of our discussions means that it is important that we get this right.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, asked about confirmation of an implementation timeline. While of course legislation is important, implementation is what delivers the results. We estimate, as the noble Baroness has heard me say, that full implementation will take around 10 years; that does not mean we wait 10 years but, realistically, that is how long full implementation will take, due to the time needed to train the workforce and the need to ensure that the right community support is available. Noble Lords will be aware that this timeframe necessarily spans multiple spending reviews and multiple Parliaments, so we are limited—I hope noble Lords will understand this—in the detail that can be given about future spend and timelines. I quite understand why noble Lords raise this issue.
I acknowledge the dedication and thoughtful engagement shown by Members of your Lordships’ House throughout the passage of the Bill. The amendments made by the Government reflect not only technical refinements but, importantly to me, our response to the concerns and insights that were raised by Peers, MPs, stakeholders and those with lived experience. I believe that those concerns and insights have improved the Bill’s clarity and effectiveness, and I hope that noble Lords will support these amendments. It is thanks to what I regard as exemplary cross-party working that we are in a position to pass the Bill into law and begin implementation. It is about bringing positive change as soon as possible for those whose lives are touched by the legislation that we have debated. I commend the Motion to the House.
Baroness Merron
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 2 to 17.
(c) bringing the availability of that information and help to the attention of such people as it considers appropriate.”
“(1A) The arrangements that must be made under subsection (1) include such arrangements as NHS England or the integrated care board considers appropriate for people to be given information or help by having a conversation with someone who is suitably qualified, whether in-person or remotely.
(1B) In deciding how to discharge the duty under subsection (1), NHS England or an integrated care board must have regard to the particular benefits to a person of making an advance choice document within 12 months of their discharge from a hospital or a registered establishment where they were receiving medical treatment for, or assessment in relation to, mental disorder.”
(c) bringing the availability of that information and help to the attention of such people as it considers appropriate.”
“(1A) The arrangements that must be made under subsection (1) include such arrangements as the Local Health Board considers appropriate for people to be given information or help by having a conversation with someone who is suitably qualified, whether in-person or remotely.
(1B) In deciding how to discharge the duty under subsection (1), a Local Health Board must have regard to the particular benefits to a person of making an advance choice document within 12 months of their discharge from a hospital or a registered establishment where they were receiving medical treatment for, or assessment in relation to, mental disorder.”
“Human Rights Act 1998: extension to certain private care providers
In the Mental Health Act 1983, after section 142B insert—
“142C Human Rights Act 1998: extension to certain private care providers
(1) A registered care provider is to be regarded for the purposes of section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 as exercising a function of a public nature in providing any of the services mentioned in subsection (2) (to the extent that it would not otherwise be so regarded).
(2) The services are—
(a) after-care services provided in pursuance of arrangements made under section 117;
(b) services provided in pursuance of arrangements made by a local authority in Scotland discharging its duty under section 25 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003;
(c) the provision of medical treatment for mental disorder or assessment in relation to mental disorder, for an in-patient at a hospital, but only where that treatment or assessment is arranged or paid for by an NHS body.
(3) In this section—
“hospital” means any institution for the reception and treatment of people—
(a) suffering from mental disorder or other illness,
(b) convalescing, or
(c) requiring medical rehabilitation;
“illness” includes any injury or disability requiring medical treatment
or nursing;
“NHS body”—
(a) in relation to England, has the meaning given by section 275(1) of the National Health Service Act 2006;
(b) in relation to Wales, has the meaning given by section 206(1) of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006;
(c) in relation to Scotland, a health board constituted by order made under section 2 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978;
(d) in relation to Northern Ireland means—
(i) the Department of Health, or
(ii) a Health and Social Care Trust; “registered care provider” means--
(a) a person registered under Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008,
(b) a person registered under Part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000 or Part 1 of the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016,
(c) a person providing—
(i) a care service which is registered under section 59 of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, or
(ii) an independent health care service registered under section 10P of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, or
(d) a person registered under Part 3 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Quality, Improvement and Regulation) (Northern Ireland) Order 2003.””
“means—
(a) a person by whom a nominated person is appointed under Part 1 of Schedule A1, or
(b) a person for whom a nominated person is appointed under Part 2 of that Schedule.”
Baroness Merron
That the House do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 18 and 19 but do propose Amendments 19B and 19C in lieu—
“(3) If no local authority has parental responsibility for the relevant patient but there are one or more other persons who have parental responsibility and who are willing to act as the nominated person, the approved mental health professional must appoint one of them.”
“(3) If no local authority has parental responsibility for the relevant patient and there is a person within the following list who is willing to act as the nominated person, the approved mental health professional must appoint such a person—
(a) a person who has parental responsibility for the relevant patient;
(b) a person named in a child arrangements order as a person with whom the relevant patient is to live;
(c) a person who is a special guardian of the relevant patient.
(4) In sub-paragraph (3) “child arrangements order” and “special guardian” have the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989 (see sections 8(1) and 14A(1) of that Act respectively).”
Baroness Berridge
In Amendment 19B in lieu, as closing words after subsection (3)(c), insert—
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her clear intention to continue the dialogue on this, but I believe that we all would be assisted by officials from the Department for Education who hold responsibility for the Children Act and the various experts in the UK on this very difficult area of the interconnection of the Mental Health Act and the Children Act. I have to say at this point that I believe that there still is a fundamental misunderstanding of the authority of a court order to allow a professional to go behind it and appoint someone to this role who could directly conflict with a special guardianship order.
I want to make it totally clear that His Majesty’s Government are giving discretion to a group of professionals who have clearly said that they do not want this, do not have the competency to do it and would need 24/7 legal advice to attempt it. Unfortunately, because of the lack of consultation on this area, at this late stage we are at a very difficult moment for those professionals, who do not want to do the job that the Minister is giving them. In the light of her promises to meet further on this, I will not move my amendment to the Motion.
Baroness Merron
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 20 and 21.
“(c) the patient is not liable to be detained under this Act or any other legislation or by virtue of a court order.”
“8 In section 130J (Welsh qualifying informal patients), in subsection (2), for paragraph (c) substitute—
“(c) the patient is not liable to be detained under this Act or any other legislation or by virtue of a court order”.”
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:01 - Division on Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A) - Ayes: 200 / Noes: 244 - Motion A1 disagreed.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 37, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 37A.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, in dealing with this Motion we will also deal with Motion A1.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Jackson of Peterborough
Moved by
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 37”.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I really do not envy the Minister in this situation. Obviously, we have debated this issue on a number of occasions; it was debated in the other place last Wednesday.
A lot of water has gone under the bridge since the Second Reading of this Bill in the other place and in this House—even more so, it is fair to say, since the Home Secretary unveiled her new policies on the asylum system and immigration policy, which, in many respects, supersede this Bill as it currently stands. I mention this because it is my firm view that, had this amendment been debated several months ago, with this Home Secretary, it would undoubtedly have been accepted; indeed, the Government may also have been minded to put down a similar amendment to my own.
We can potentially be cynical about the new policies that have been developed by the Home Secretary. Some may say that they are performative smoke and mirrors—that, in the absence of a policy to leave, or at least to derogate from the ECHR, they will rely on discretionary powers; that there will be little deterrent effect; and that far too many loopholes were still in place, even with the new policy—or we can believe that it is a genuine and workable programme to tackle uncontrolled immigration. We shall see, but let us take the Home Secretary at her word.
One of the key aspects of the Home Secretary’s new policy is a new work and study visa route. On Report, the noble Lord, Lord German, asked this: if we cannot collect data on student visas and criminality, how can we properly assess the risk of abuse of the visa system when the Home Office and universities are obliged to take such factors into account in their decision-making? Also, if we do not collect all the relevant data, particularly with respect to students, we cannot—this was articulated by the Home Secretary—pursue a policy of visa bans for countries that fail to co-operate with returns policies.
These are issues of openness and transparency. The Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Lemos—failed to reassure us on Report. He actually supported the thrust of our argument when he stated:
“I entirely accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, that without proper information on this and a number of other matters, it is very difficult to have an informed public debate”;
as I said earlier, the Government could have moved their own amendment, but they have chosen not to do so. The Minister also said:
“The Home Office does propose to publish more detailed statistical reporting on foreign national offenders subject to deportation and those returned to countries outside the UK”.—[Official Report, 5/11/25; col. 1944.]
More to the point, the Minister was unable to address the substantive point made by my noble friend Lord Harper about information collected on the propensity of different nationalities to commit crime. I understand that he has received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Lemos. We look forward to a clearer answer on that particular question; perhaps my noble friend will reference it should he choose to speak in this debate.
Your Lordships’ House will be aware that many other jurisdictions routinely collect, collate and publish this type of data. Examples include Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada; the Department of Home Affairs in Australia; and the United States’s SEVIS, or student and exchange visitor information system. All of them publish this data as a matter of routine. The question is: if we already have this data, why not publish it to enable proper, informed debate and fact-based policy-making? Ministers have failed—both here and, last Wednesday, in the other place—to articulate a coherent rationale for resisting this sensible, practical and helpful amendment to the Bill. With all due respect, their arguments were threadbare, to say the least.
Surely the acid test are the answers to two questions. First, will this amendment damage or impede the central premise of this Bill? Secondly, will the amendment help His Majesty’s Government develop public policy, which is of significant public concern, based on real-time, robust empirical data? For the benefit of the Minister, the answers are no and yes. Even now, the Minister can accept this amendment and break free of what I described earlier as a significant culture of secrecy and obfuscation in respect of this data. If Ministers want to be taken seriously and to restore trust in their proposals and policies, they can make a good start in good faith by conceding what would be, in the great scheme of things, a minor amendment. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Jackson’s Motion for several reasons. The first is that he set out a compelling case for why this data should be both collected, if it is not collected, and published so that we have a much clearer idea about the nature of student visas. I did not hear any compelling reason, in our debate on Report, why that should not be the case.
In the House of Commons, when they debated this matter last week, the Minister went out of his way to say that
“the Home Office already publishes data on a vast amount of migration statistics, including information on visas, returns and detention”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/11/25; col. 790.]
He said that it is all “kept under review” and so on, but he did not actually give us a reason around this particular set of data. First, he did not tell us whether it is collected. He also did not tell us whether it was going to be published; actually, he did not come up with any reasons as to why my noble friend’s amendment could not be accepted. I certainly do not think that, either on Report here or in the House of Commons, Ministers set out any concerns about the drafting of my noble friend’s amendment—so it cannot just be that it is okay except that it is terribly badly drafted, in which case, of course, Ministers could have taken it away and used the skills of the Government’s parliamentary draftsmen to have it improved. That is the first thing; I cannot see any reason why we should not accept it.
If the Minister were to suggest that he would be happy to publish it, I cannot see why we should not just put the amendment in place. This Minister is a very fine Minister—we like him very much, and he is very robust—but, sadly, he may not be the Minister for ever.
Lord Harper (Con)
It is not that unfair to say that he may not carry on being the Minister for ever; indeed, he may not want to be the Minister for ever. He has another piece of legislation on borders coming very soon. He may say that he is going to publish it but it would be better, I think, if it were in statute so that, whichever Minister or Home Secretary is there, we could be sure that this information was going to be published.
There is a reason for that. As my noble friend said, we had quite a debate about two different aspects of this on Report. The first was about specific data on criminality, while the second—I raised this issue—was about what information Ministers collected to make decisions on student visas. I recollected that, when I was an immigration Minister serving in the Home Office under the leadership of the then Home Secretary—my noble friend Lady May, who is sitting in front of me—it was absolutely the case that the Home Office collected data about the propensity of different nationalities to overstay and the risks that were presented. That information was used in both the information that was sought and the judgments that were made on accepting people to come to the United Kingdom—quite rightly—to make sure that we had robust borders.
As my noble friend suggested, I got a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, after that debate. I had asked two questions. One was about the information collected on the propensity of visa applicants to commit crimes. The second was about risk assessment in student visa decisions; the second one is most pertinent to this debate, of course, but they are linked.
On the first one, the Minister answered the question, but it was not a very good answer, which is why I am a little sceptical about whatever assurances we may hear from the Dispatch Box. He said:
“In accordance with the public sector equality duty, the Government’s policies do not unduly discriminate against people based on their protected characteristics, which includes on the basis of nationality”.
He specifically said:
“The Home Office does not collect data about the propensity of different nationalities to commit crimes”.
So there seems a bit of a gap in the information that is collected. It may be that Ministers will publish information about the numbers of specific individuals, but my question was about whether that information is used to make judgments about whether particular nationalities are more of a risk. That does not mean that you have a blanket ban against people, but it might mean that you ask some more searching questions if particular nationalities are a risk. It sounds as if the Government do not intend to do that at all.
The most worrying thing was the question I asked about whether the Government about what information was collected to do those risk assessments for student visa decisions. Answer came there none in this letter, which was purportedly an answer to my question. The only conclusion one can come to is that the Minister did not want to put down the answer because it would be that no information is collected and there is no risk assessment. There definitely used to be a risk assessment so, if there is not one now, I do not know when it stopped, but that is very much a step backwards. So, for both those reasons, it makes no sense.
What the Minister said in his reply to me—that the Government do not make decisions about people based on their nationality—does not seem to accord with what the Home Secretary announced just last week. She said that the UK would stop granting visas to people from Angola, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo—that is a blanket ban on every individual from those countries—if their Governments did not start rapidly co-operating on removals. On that issue, I happen to agree with the Home Secretary—I think that is a sensible policy—but it is not consistent with what the Minister said in his letter about not unduly discriminating against people based on their nationality, unless, of course, “unduly” is doing quite a lot of work—perhaps more than it bears—so I am a bit sceptical.
If the Minister stands up and says that he will publish the data, as my noble friend says, I would be much happier if that commitment were put into statute. We need not delay the Bill. We broadly do not think it will make as much positive difference as the Government do, but there is lots in it to be welcomed. I do not want to hold it up, but we need not hold it up at all because the Minister could just accept my noble friend’s amendment and then we would be done. However, if he is not prepared to accept it, I fear we must test the opinion of the House. That will ultimately be up to my noble friend, but, based on the letter that I have had from the Minister, I am certainly not—at this stage, at least—persuaded that we do not need to go a little further.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I do not imagine that I am the only Member of this House who is very often irritated by a Commons reason in this sort of situation that says, “We don’t agree because we don’t agree”. On this occasion, we have a reasoned reason with which I, for one, certainly do agree: that it is not,
“appropriate for there to be a statutory requirement to publish the data”.
There is a place for something other than statutory requirements, and I think this is one of them.
I agree with a couple of things that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said. I do not know that anybody ever envies a Minister in the Home Office. More seriously, we have largely been overtaken by the announcements that have come from the Home Office in quite a stream since we started work on this Bill. It has made it very difficult to deal with the Bill.
I also want to talk about the amendment itself. It does not give a context. It could, for instance, have added that there must be the collation and publication of the number of overseas students who—I summarise—have remained in the UK and succeeded in their contribution to the success of the UK. The data referred to suggests no comparator with British citizens, and my real objection to this amendment is that I do not want to appear to assume that criminals are overrepresented in the overseas student cohort or, bluntly, that immigrants include a particularly large number of criminals. The starting point for this amendment makes me deeply uneasy.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough for tabling Motion A1, that this House,
“do insist on its Amendment 37”.
The amendment that we made to the Bill on Report has a simple purpose. My noble friend simply wishes the Home Office to publish data on overseas students, and that is a wish that I share.
The reason given by the other place for disagreeing with our Amendment 37 is that they,
“do not consider it appropriate for there to be a statutory requirement to publish the data listed in the Amendment, the release of which should be determined within the wider publication of official statistics on migration”.
I agree with the basic premise here that an amendment to primary legislation is not necessarily the best way in which to force the publication of statistics. Ideally, we would not have to go down the legislative avenue to get the Home Office to publish these statistics. However, when my noble friend has repeatedly asked the Government to do so and they still refuse, this is the only option that we are left with.
There is a very simple solution to all this—just publish the data. The Home Office must know how many visas it revokes and how many people it removes from the country. Surely, it knows how many of those revocations and removals are of foreign students. I wholeheartedly support my noble friend in trying to force the publication of this data and, should he decide to test the opinion of the House, we will support him.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for tabling his amendment, but I hope that I can persuade the House that no Division is required. We will see. I hope to persuade the House of that in due course.
The Bill returns to this House having been considered in the other place on Wednesday 19 November, during which the government amendments to the Lords stages of the Bill were approved by the elected House of Commons. As the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord Jackson, mentioned, migration policy is a fluid issue. There are always issues that we are bringing forward. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has brought forward proposals that I spoke to in this House on Thursday 20 November, and there is a further Statement on legal migration issues tomorrow evening in this House, if Members wish to participate and hold the Government to account still further.
As noble Lords know, Amendment 37 from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, was taken to the other place having been approved by this House. The other place rejected that amendment, which would mandate the Home Secretary to collate and publish statistics on the number of overseas students who have had their student visas revoked as a result of the commission of criminal offences, the number of overseas students who have been deported following revocation of their student visas and the number of overseas students detained pending deportation following the revocation of their student visas.
I maintained at the time—and, dare I say it, without wishing to provoke the noble Lord to press this to a Vote, I maintain still—that there is no requirement in primary legislation and it would be unnecessary. It would undermine the mechanisms in place to ensure the appropriate publication of statistics in full so that the context of migration statistics already published is known. I note the view put forward by the Liberal Democrat Benches in the debate in the other place that the amendment would not help to tackle organised crime nor improve border security, nor would it strengthen the Bill. As I set out when debating the amendment in Committee and on Report, the Government see the value of transparency, hence the vast quantity of statistics that the Home Office already publishes on a regular basis, in line with the Statement of Compliance with the Code of Practice for Statistics.
The Home Office regularly reviews the official statistics being published and takes into account a number of factors including user needs, the resources required to compile the statistics, and the quality and availability of such data. I again confirm for the House that having requirements in legislation is not needed or appropriate. While I recognise and value transparency, it is critical to ensure due process for the accuracy and quality of data, which can be achieved within existing mechanisms for official statistics to be released.
However—this is where I come to my “however”—I note the interest in this topic and am anxious to try to make some progress. I do not wish to have further ping-pong between both Houses, if at all possible. I can therefore make the commitment to the House tonight that, subject to the proposed new clause not being included in the Bill—in other words, the amendment to the Motion not being pressed this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson—the Government will review and publish the data held on the number of students who have had their visas revoked due to criminality. These statistics will cover a defined period and will be broken down by nationality of the offender, as was stipulated in the noble Lord’s original amendment. I hope that this commitment will provide Members of the House with reassurance that the Government take seriously the importance of transparency in the immigration system through the publication of statistics.
The proposal I put to the House tonight provides what I would argue is an achievable, non-legislative solution to what the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and others have called for. This approach will embed publication of the requested data in the wider mechanisms for Home Office publication of statistics, ensuring that the outcome is of high quality and is appropriately produced along with other data. I urge Members of the House to support this approach by approving Motion A.
Lord Harper (Con)
I will be the bad cop here and then potentially my noble friend can be the good cop, if he wants to.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, can he confirm that all the data mentioned in the amendment that my noble friend had on the Order Paper is going to be published? Secondly, given that this was debated in the House of Commons just three sitting days ago, why is it that the Minister in the House of Commons did not just make that commitment then? I have a problem if it is only with the threat of an amendment being passed that the Minister is prepared to come to the Dispatch Box to make the commitment; that makes me a little suspicious.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Oh, give over, please. The whole purpose of having this House and the other House discuss amendments and have ping-pong is to achieve a compromise between what this House wants to do and what the other House wants to do, and to try to find a solution. The noble Lord says that the Minister in the other place said X three days ago. Well, I am saying this today. If he does not want to accept it then we can have a discussion and he can press for a vote, and we can see how people this House vote and where we are.
Sometimes I despair. We are actually trying to move things on to meet the objectives of the noble Lords, Lord Jackson and Lord Harper, and he still does not want to accept the Christmas presents I am offering him. I am telling him today that we will, as I have said, provide information on student visas revoked as a result of the commission of criminal offences, the number of overseas students who have been deported after the revocation of their student visas and the number of overseas students detained pending deportation. That is what the information is. Work will commence immediately, with a view to publication by the end of the financial year. Should this work identify that additional time is required, an update will be provided.
We are trying to meet the objectives of the request from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. I hope that the noble Lord will take this as a democratic parliamentary decision between the two Houses to achieve the aims of one small amendment at the end of a lot of consideration of the Bill to date.
Lord German (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, will he confirm that what he has said, and what I have heard from the Benches to my right, is that apart from the demise of the Minister, so that he could not carry out what he just described, there is no reason why, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, they should not accept the Motion before us? We should take on board what the Minister says—and if I were the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, I would take it as a win. I think he ought to withdraw.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord German. I cannot guarantee that I will be here for ever—nor would I wish to be. I have done 13 years at various Dispatch Boxes over the last 27 years, and the 14 years I did not do were not my fault. I hope to continue.
I am giving a commitment on behalf of the United Kingdom Government which will hold for the term of this Parliament. I cannot commit future Governments to issues but, again, that is what parliamentary democracy is about—holding Government Ministers to account. Who knows who the next Government will be or what they will look like, but I am giving a commitment on behalf of the UK Government for those statistics over this period of time. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, will accept it.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting debate. It is important that we understand the wider context of what we are doing here. We are seeking to improve the Bill. It is the role of this House to provide scrutiny and oversight and to improve legislation that may be defective or could be improved.
As I said in opening, this amendment would improve the Bill. We all know about judicial activism, the threat of judicial review and, not least, the opposition of the Minister’s Back-Benchers in the other place. The Home Secretary’s new proposals may very well fall foul of judicial review, so anything in primary legislation that protects the Government and enables them to carry out their stated policies is probably a good thing.
I am somewhat discombobulated by the transformation of the Minister from bruiser to pussycat today. He will concede that he has not always been like that. The context of this is that I asked six parliamentary Questions between March and June this year and got the same vacuous answers from the department—including that it will “always undertake a thorough, comprehensive review of statistics”. He will forgive me if I am slightly less willing to take this on board. I make the distinction between the Minister, who is a man of honour and integrity, and the department in which he is a Minister, which does not always put some issues at the top of its priorities. I will leave it at that.
To respond quickly to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I reassure her that there was no inference that all foreign students are criminals and are therefore likely to be deported. That is why I specifically said on Report:
“I want to make it clear that the vast majority of those individuals come, study hard and contribute to our society and economy, but there is a minority who abuse that privilege—and it is a privilege. We have some of the world’s top universities in our country, and it is not an automatic right to be here”.—[Official Report, 5/11/25; col. 1932.]
I stand by those words.
I am concerned about the lack of focus on this issue. I was confused by the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, to my noble friend Lord Harper. It did not seem to have a focus on risk assessment and was not clear about what data would be collected. The Government seem particularly ill prepared, as my noble friend alluded to, for the visa ban policy on Angola and other countries if they do not collect and publish basic data.
Finally, we seem to have no idea of a timescale. We have constantly been promised that a protocol is in place for the collection and publication of data, but it is always mañana —it is always tomorrow.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Just so the noble Lord has absolutely no excuse not to support what I have said, a broad time period will be reported on, subject to the data being available. We will commence work immediately, with a view to publication by the end of the financial year, which is April. That is the timescale, if the noble Lord wishes to accept this. If he does not, he can have his Division if he wishes, but that is the offer I am making to him today.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I take that offer in good faith, but it will be 14 months since I first asked a similar question about the figures. The Government have had endless opportunities—before they launched this new policy, and before the Prime Minister’s speech on immigration earlier in autumn—to bring forward their own amendment on this issue.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
So the noble Lord would rather have a Division than accept the publication of what he wants by April. I just want to be clear on what he is saying today. So that the House is clear on what he is saying, the noble Lord would rather try to win a vote in order to cause more difficulties and discussion, even though I am offering to give him by April next year the thing he is requesting.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I take on board what the Minister is saying. However, I reiterate the point that it is intellectually incoherent to think it is good policy to say in Hansard and in letters to my noble friends that you have always believed something, but not to will the means by putting it in primary legislation. On that basis, I intend to test the opinion of the House.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:17 - Division on Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H) - Ayes: 81 / Noes: 132 - Motion H1 disagreed.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I will also speak to Motions B, B1, C, C1, D, E and E1, which are grouped together. It is a great pleasure to bring the Planning and Infrastructure Bill back to the House of Lords to consider amendments and reasons from the other place.
A number of further commitments were made last week, which, where relevant, I will repeat today. I will first discuss amendments that relate to the provision of infrastructure in this country. Before doing so, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the discussions between Report and today’s ping-pong.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has tabled an amendment that would reinstate the requirement for the Government to respond to any resolutions of Parliament, or Select Committee recommendations, when making certain material changes to a national policy statement. This amendment risks undermining a core aim of the Bill: to keep national policy statements up to date swiftly and effectively. The reflective amendment procedure is not a shortcut to avoid scrutiny; it is a practical tool, accompanied by commitments to work with Select Committees, to ensure that NPSs can be updated without undue delay to reflect published government policy, legislative updates, a court decision or a change to a published document referred to in the statement.
National policy statements are the backbone of the NSIP regime. They unlock billions in private investment, create jobs and drive sustainable growth. If they fall out of date, projects can stall, costs can rise and confidence in the system is eroded.
As noble Lords know, Clause 1 already guarantees robust oversight by requiring all NPSs to be reviewed at least every five years, with the oldest NPSs required to be updated within two years of the clause coming into effect. We expect that updates to the five NPSs in this transitional category will undergo full parliamentary scrutiny, and Select Committees will play a central role. But where changes relate to specific types of updates, such as reflecting government policy and aligning with legislation or court rulings, the reflective amendment route ensures that the process is proportionate while maintaining accountability.
To address concerns raised in both Houses, the Government have made clear commitments. We will notify the relevant Select Committee at the start of any consultation. We will lay a Statement in Parliament explaining how the changes meet the statutory definition. Ministers will make themselves available to give evidence during that period. If a Select Committee publishes a report during the consultation period, the Government will take its recommendations into account. These safeguards ensure transparency and respect for Parliament. The chair of the Commons Liaison Committee has already said she is reassured that the Select Committee corridor will be treated with the respect it deserves.
Let me emphasise that this procedure will only apply to changes that reflect published policy, legislative amendments or court decisions. Even then, Parliament retains the ultimate safeguard. The draft NPS must be laid for 21 sitting days before it can take effect. This is a balanced, proportionate approach. It keeps the NPSs current, supports infrastructure delivery and preserves Parliament’s ultimate authority, ensuring that oversight remains robust and meaningful.
Amendments 2A and 3 seek to insert additional requirements relating to heritage consents and community engagement for reservoir NSIP applications. I greatly respect the concerns about the impact of reservoir NSIPs on communities and heritage, so ably explained in the course of our debates by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, recalling villages in Northumbria, the Lake District and Wales that were submerged for projects such as Rutland Water and Kielder Water. While these reservoirs provide vital water and local pride, they came at great cost. Securing safeguards for heritage and for communities is essential when considering major infrastructure projects. Heritage underpins our tourism and economy and is irreplaceable. It must be managed effectively through our planning system.
The historic cases I mentioned arose before today’s planning framework. We now have the Planning Act 2008 and a suite of supporting secondary legislation and guidance which ensures the thorough evaluation of nationally significant infrastructure projects and their impacts.
Section 33 of the Planning Act removes the need for separate consents to be obtained for works affecting listed buildings or monuments, instead creating a unified consent in the development consent order if granted. A number of protections, including in legislation, are embedded in that consenting process. These ensure that the NSIP process does not represent a dilution of heritage protections, while ensuring the regime is a one-stop shop for consent.
First and foremost, the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of preserving heritage assets when deciding applications. The Secretary of State must comply with the obligations relating to listed buildings, conservation areas and scheduled monuments set out in the Infrastructure Planning (Decisions) Regulations. Decisions must also be made in accordance with the national policy statements, subject to limited exceptions. The water resources NPS applies to dams and reservoirs and contains dedicated policy on the historic environment, requiring weight to be given to conservation and recognising that heritage assets cannot be replaced.
This NPS defines heritage assets and explains that some have a level of significance that justifies official designation. This explicitly includes world heritage sites, scheduled monuments, listed buildings, protected wreck sites, registered parks and gardens, registered battlefields, and conservation areas.
Applicants are also required, where applicable, to include information about heritage impacts when they submit their applications for development consent. Where an environmental impact assessment is required, they must assess impacts as part of this. But it is not solely applicants and the Secretary of State who are responsible for consideration of heritage. Historic England is a statutory body required to be notified by the applicant of a decision to accept an application for examination. Statutory bodies are given the opportunity to make a relevant representation. If they do so, they are classified as “interested parties” and would be engaged, with opportunities to provide views to the examining authority, during the NSIP examination process.
I am confident that the NSIP system provides numerous sufficient protections for the heritage assets of this country. However, I recognise the strength of feeling in the House today, and as such, I am happy to commit to review the “historic environment” section of the water NPS to consider both the advice provided to the applicant and required considerations of the Secretary of State. Given the numerous additional protections and commitments, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is sufficiently reassured and that he will not insist on his Amendment 2.
On the impact of reservoirs on communities, before we get to the substance of the amendment, I want to briefly note that it is legally flawed. The amendment misconstrues the process for a dam or reservoir project entering the NSIP regime; most of the time such projects automatically enter the NSIP regime as a Section 14(1)(m) project when the criteria set out in Section 27 of the Planning Act are met.
I none the less want to emphasise that the voices and contributions of people living in affected areas are vital to the effective delivery of projects and the legitimacy of the NSIP system. Following changes proposed to pre-application consultation through the Bill, the Government will publish new guidance setting clear expectations on engagement with those affected in the NSIP application process.
Let me be clear: at the forefront of this guidance will be an expectation that engagement is undertaken early, when voices can and do make a real difference to projects. This should be offered in a variety of ways, including in person, to be accessible and allow affected persons to share their views about the development and the impact it will have.
NSIP applicants have a responsibility towards those affected by their proposals and should be present and visible to local communities to ensure accountability to them during the development and examination of applications. The requirement for an applicant to publicise a proposed application is preserved in the Planning Act 2008. The Act continues to ensure that people are notified during pre-application. Those affected persons will be notified if an application is accepted for examination.
Opportunities to be heard do not stop there. Statutory provisions guarantee participation throughout the process. Local authorities are invited to produce local impact reports, bringing forward local knowledge and setting out impacts of the development, which the Secretary of State must have regard to in deciding the application. The system also provides opportunities for individuals to participate, both through making a relevant and/or written representation and making oral representations at hearings. Those whose land is being acquired have an automatic right to request a hearing and have their voice heard.
While these amendments raise important points, the existing framework already provides strong protections. Nevertheless, to provide further assurances, and in recognition of the importance of the issues raised, the Government will commit to bring forward the next water NPS update to consider community engagement for reservoir and dam projects.
The Secretary of State will consider how best to reflect expectations around early and effective engagement with impacted residents, particularly where projects may involve significant demolition or disruption, to ensure that local communities and impacted individuals’ voices are heard. This will include consultation with stakeholders on whether greater policy guidance is required to ensure that our planning system remains rigorous, responsive and inclusive. I hope this is sufficient to address the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and that she will agree to no longer insist on her amendment.
Amendments 31A and 31B relate to accessible charging and seek to amend the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 to enable the mandating of accessibility requirements for public charge points. I say a big thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, for his constructive engagement, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for their contributions on this matter. The Government tabled an amendment in lieu which includes some changes that go slightly further than the original amendment. Reflecting the feedback from industry and other stakeholders, the Government’s amendment ensures that the powers cover all relevant aspects of accessibility for public charge points. They also ensure that requirements can be placed on all relevant parties that play a role in delivering accessible charge points. The Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 already gives the Government powers to require the sharing of accessibility data, so we have not included this.
This amendment applies to Great Britain. The Northern Irish Ministers did not wish for this amendment, which relates to a transferred matter, to extend to them. They are able to bring forward their own legislation. The UK Government will work with Northern Ireland and wishes to minimise divergence of standards across the United Kingdom. I appreciated the very interesting debate that we had in this House, led by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, and hope that this meets all the noble Lord’s concerns on this issue.
Turning finally to Amendment 32, the Government recognise the impact that water stress has on communities, including farmers and sports clubs, as well as the role that low-hazard reservoirs can play in mitigating such issues. I recognise the wider point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that urgent action is required. The Government will respond to the Cunliffe recommendations in full via a White Paper that will be published later this year. It will outline the Government’s vision for the future of the water sector, marking the most fundamental reset to our water system in a generation. An assessment of the impact of current reservoir safety regulation has already been published on the Defra Science Search website. Updated data will be published following consultation and decisions on the details of proposed reforms.
I am happy to confirm that the Housing Minister committed in the other place to set out proposals for the deregulation of low-hazard reservoirs within six months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent. The Minister went further, committing to provide clarity to farmers about when the permitted development right that grants planning permission for the development of on-farm reservoirs can be used. This would be achieved by updating the relevant planning practice guidance. Providing further information and clarity about precisely when this permitted development right can be relied on, and what conditions and limitations apply, will support the amendment’s aim of enabling farmers to construct these reservoirs.
We support the objective of this amendment. Of the two actions proposed, the first action has already been completed. The Government have committed to deliver the second within the timeframe set out in the original amendment. We have also gone further and committed to clarifying guidance on the permitted development right that supports the construction of on-farm reservoirs. I hope that, with these reassurances, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, feels able not to insist on her amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled Motion B1. I am grateful to the Minister for what she has set out about it. We have made great progress in relation to many of the heritage aspects of this Bill, not least in the rewriting of Clause 41, which had caused such consternation for heritage groups across the country. I am grateful to the Government for taking that away and rewording it as they did earlier in our deliberations on this Bill.
The section that we are discussing relates to reservoirs. That we are still discussing it in this way is because it was inserted in the Bill rather later in the process. I was perplexed as to why, given the progress that we made in rewriting Clause 41, relating to infrastructure projects conducted under the Transport and Works Act, the same protections and caution were not given to heritage assets when it came to the Government’s new proposals on reservoirs.
I am grateful for the recognition the Minister has given that heritage assets cannot be replaced if they are lost. By definition, if we are submerging assets underwater through such large-scale projects as reservoirs, the risk is significant, particularly if we are relaxing the rules about who can carry out some of these works. A lot of the concerns that we had were around this being delegated potentially to international companies that are not rooted in the UK and so are not, perhaps, bothered about aspects of our heritage that really matter to communities. We want to be vigilant here.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the informal meeting I had with the Minister last week. I listened carefully to what the Minister said in relation to my Motion E1, and I too will refer in a moment to the letter received. I am compounded by the fact that my train was late. This time a van had collided with a bridge, but, fortunately, there was no lasting damage and no-one was hurt, not like the Selby rail disaster. Then, I found that they have changed the classic Outlook to modern Outlook, and I could not load my emails. But I am very grateful for having had sight of the letter.
The Minister will be aware that the Toddbrook reservoir failed on 1 August 2019. Since that time, the Balmforth review was set up, but it is not due to report until 2027. My concern as regards large reservoirs is that the Government do not seem to be displaying any sense of urgency. I am mindful of how much reservoirs cost to build, even in spite of NSIPs under the Bill before us this evening, and that there are other barriers to overcome. The Minister may or may not be aware that each individual reservoir has to be signed off by a panel engineer. There is a chronic shortage of panel engineers, and I do not know that that is being addressed by the Government any time soon. My understanding—I have tracked this since the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 was adopted—is that the de minimis rules allowing a small on-farm reservoir require legislation to amend the de minimis rule to make sure that these on-farm, non-hazardous reservoirs can be constructed.
I take some comfort and great heart from what the Minister said when speaking to Motion E1 this evening, but I do not know that the issues that I have raised, both in Committee and on Report, have actually been addressed. The Minister referred to guidance being published. Can she confirm whether or not that is statutory? Just so those seeking to construct such reservoirs are very clear on it, what will the status of that guidance be? When will the actual guidance to which she referred be published?
Having made those remarks, I reserve the right to test the opinion of the House, depending on what reassurance the Minister is able to give me. I put it to her informally last week that this amendment is designed to help the Government.
In June, the Environment Agency published its National Framework for Water Resources, which called for measures to curb the water deficit, including building more reservoirs, in the light of the potential public water shortages of 5 billion litres of water a day by 2055. We in Yorkshire are very conscious of the fact that the reservoirs have still not filled up since the drought this year. We have every prospect of a drought continuing into next year. The efforts to extinguish and control the wildfire on the North Yorkshire Moors were hampered by the lack of access to water. It was also the case that it was difficult for crops—arable and horticultural—to have access to water, and there was difficulty around the availability of watering for livestock.
These are very real urgent issues. I am afraid that the reason given by the Commons for failing to agree to Amendment 32 is very thin. We are told that it is not
“necessary to have a legislative requirement to publish the information required by the amendment relating to low hazard reservoirs”.
I have set out this evening the reason for urgency and why this is a very real issue. I believe we need to write in the Bill the concerns I have set out.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Motion B and Motion B1, which is the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. Lords Amendment 2A, which has been sent back to us, in effect puts the Planning Act 2008 back into the position it was originally in. To that extent, it is not so objectionable. But we are looking to ensure, as my noble friend eloquently presented, both now and on Report, that when these decisions are being made we take full account of the protections that should be available for irreplaceable heritage assets.
In addition to the assurances about national policy statements that the Minister has given to my noble friend, I ask her whether she will look at the guidance, which Clause 7(2) provides for, that can be given about the preparation of local impact reports, which as she will know are a material factor in the decisions that have to be made by the Secretary of State under Section 104 of the Planning Act 2008. If that guidance makes it clear that the local impact report must make specific reference to the heritage assets that are to be affected, and to the impact on not only those assets themselves but their environment, that might highlight any potential adverse impacts for when the Secretary of State has to weigh up the adverse impacts against the benefits under the Section 104 decision. I hope that the Minister might add that to the ways in which the assurances might be bolstered to protect heritage assets.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I support Motion E1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. In particular, I agree with her about the level of urgency and the slow progress that has been made on this, and about the de minimis rules, which need thoroughly updating to make it more possible to avoid drought situations. I have just one question for the Minister. She referred to a paper appearing later this year. Does she mean this calendar year—in which case it would be just in time for my Christmas stocking?
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Amendments 31A and 31B, which is very similar, as she said, to Amendment 31, which I proposed.
The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, is a practical transport expert—he knows how to mend a bus—as I hope I am, although his expertise is wider than mine, which is based on taxis. I hope that he will agree that success does not come from changing the law alone but will come when disabled people are not limited in their use of charging systems for electric cars. Today, no doubt, there are people struggling with chargers that have steps that could be designed out and cables that are too heavy. Success can be declared when charging infrastructure is no longer a barrier to the purchase of a car for a disabled person.
Again, I apologise for the inelegant way in which this amendment was proposed at Third Reading; an amendment in Committee would have been more elegant. However, I am glad that this necessary amendment has been made. I look forward to the regulations being promulgated with lightning speed, and actual accessible charging points being seen widely even more quickly.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, in this first group of amendments, I am delighted that the Government have acceded to the amendment about accessible electric vehicle charging points that the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, just spoke to. That is really good news.
Of the other three amendments that we are thinking about, two concern reservoirs—building them and what their impact will be. The first, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is about ensuring that the statutory requirements to protect our heritage are considered in full in the planning application for a new reservoir. The other, from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is concerned about whole villages being drowned. Then we have the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, who is anxious that we build more reservoirs, so we have a bit of a dilemma here.
I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. All through the debate on this Bill, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches have been wholeheartedly in support of shoring up the statutory requirements to protect our national heritage. It is unfortunate that the Minister has been unable to accede to the amendment that was passed on Report to provide even greater support for those heritage sites and buildings that may be destroyed to create a reservoir—especially, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has pointed out, since third parties, even companies based abroad, may now be able to build reservoirs. They may not have such a great concern for our heritage as those of us who live in this country. That is a great shame, and if the noble Lord wanted to move his amendment to a further vote, we on these Benches would support him.
I will wait to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, says about her Motion C1 and whether she wishes again to test the opinion of the House on that one.
On the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I thought the Minister gave quite a lot of assurance that the Government are considering making changes to regulations regarding the building of low-hazard reservoirs, which is what the amendment is about. That seemed perfectly acceptable, given that a great deal of thought has to be given to creating reservoirs. As we discovered in Derbyshire when the Toddbrook one failed, volumes of water can be devastating if dams and reservoirs are breached. With those remarks, I look forward to the comments from the Conservative Front Bench.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, before turning to the specifics of the amendments before us, I will restate what has guided our approach throughout the passage of the Bill. We recognise the legislation’s importance to the Government and their desire to see it completed in time for the Budget. From the outset, we on these Benches have worked diligently and constructively, through the usual channels and beyond, to help ensure timely progress. I was grateful to the Leader of the House for acknowledging these efforts, particularly in the light of unhelpful and misleading briefings to the contrary, most recently in the Observer yesterday.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I am grateful for their engagement on the important matters that have been the subject of this group. I will address noble Lords’ points individually.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, I refer to all the protections I set out earlier as part of the Government’s reassurance that we take very seriously the conservation of heritage buildings. He asked me about timeframes. It was the intention that the water NPS would not be done until 2030 but I am prepared to commit to him that we will bring it forward to 2026 so that we can make sure that this is addressed quickly to give clarity to all those concerned. I hope that will reassure the noble Lord, and that that protection, and the bringing forward of the review to next year, will enable him not to press his amendment.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, I very much appreciate the long-standing expertise and commitment of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, to addressing some of the pressing water management issues that have been around for decades. I understand her impatience about the time it has taken to deal with some of them. On the urgency, I draw her attention to the fact that the Cunliffe review was completed this year, and the Government have already undertaken to produce a water White Paper by the end of the year, so we are not hanging around in dealing with this. Once the appropriate consultation on the White Paper has been done, we will bring forward legislation in a water Bill to deal with it. I hope that that lets the noble Baroness know that the Government do not want these issues to continue to hang around for decades. We want to deal with this issue; we take it seriously. I know that my colleagues in Defra deal with it daily.
The NPS for water resources infrastructure, designated in September 2023 and amended in 2025, sets out the need for and the Government’s policies for all nationally significant water resources infrastructure projects—that is, large reservoirs and transfer schemes. It explains that the need for the infrastructure is set out in water company statutory water resources management plans and explains the assessment principles that any DCO application for qualifying water resources projects must satisfy. For projects that fall under the NSIP regime, automatically or by direction, and within the NPS’s scope, the Secretary of State must determine the application in accordance with the NPS. It is important that NPSs are in place as quickly as possible so that we can determine applications in accordance with them, unless there are prescribed compelling reasons not to do so. The policy therefore ensures that long-term water supply resilience and national infrastructure are embedded in the consenting framework.
On the reservoirs the noble Baroness was referring to, we will get that into the planning practice guidance as soon as is practicable. I am happy to work with her on that as we move forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, raised the issue of local impact statements. He is quite right to say that, as part of the Planning Act 2008, relevant local authorities will be invited to submit a local impact report giving details of the likely impact of proposed developments on the authority’s area. The Government are considering responses to our recent consultation on guidance on and engagement with NSIPs. This includes guidance to local authorities on local impact reports. We will carefully consider what the guidance can say to address concerns about the heritage impact issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson.
On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, the Water White Paper will be this calendar year—I hope before Parliament breaks for recess, but I do not want to commit my Defra colleagues further than they have given me licence to do. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised issues concerning reservoirs. The national policy statement would protect those reservoirs and make sure that we have an obligation to do so. As I have explained many times, although the national policy statements are not in themselves the matter of primary legislation, because they have to change and be adaptable to circumstances, they do carry the full weight of the planning system in legal terms. I hope this reassures the noble Baroness that that protection is in place.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her comments. She is completely right: we need to get this Bill through so that we can start on the infrastructure projects and the housebuilding that we need. As the Minister responsible for these issues in this House, the human reality she talks about and the disruption faced by communities is absolutely not lost on me. As we go through the process of strengthening the guidance and bringing forward an early review of the NPS on water, we will take full account of the need to ensure that communities are protected in the way she so admirably championed throughout consideration of this Bill. I hope that noble Lords will consider not pressing their amendments.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 2A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 31 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 31A and 31B in lieu.
“Accessibility of public charging or refuelling points
In section 10 of the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2028 (public charging or refuelling points: access, standards and connection) at the end insert—
“(5) Regulations may impose requirements in connection with the accessibility of public charging or refuelling points in England, Wales and Scotland, such as requirements relating to—
(a) the design of the point,
(b) the location, placement or surroundings of the point, and
(c) the provision of assistance in using the point.
(6) Regulations under subsection (5) may prescribe requirements by reference to technical standards or specifications published by a person specified in the regulations (including standards or specifications as amended from time to time).
(7) Regulations under subsection (5) may impose requirements on any person, including—
(a) persons making, supplying, importing, operating or installing public charging or refuelling points;
(b) the owners or occupiers of land on which public charging or refuelling points are situated.
(8) Regulations under subsection (5) may not impose requirements on owners or occupiers of domestic premises.””
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 32, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 32A.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 32.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, expressed concern, in that non-hazardous reservoirs are specifically small reservoirs. Can the Minister write to me on this point? I understand that we still need legislation. This evening would be the opportunity to explain the de minimis rules and how non-hazardous small reservoirs can be built on farms—something that farmers are hoping will happen now. I regret that there is probably not enough support in the House to put the Motion to a vote this evening, but I will return to this issue another time, because I do not believe we have seen any evidence of urgency. I thank the Minister for the concessions she has given, but I do not believe there is the sense of urgency that farmers are crying out for.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I can reassure the noble Baroness that we propose to introduce a new hazard classification system with four hazard classes. The assessment of hazard class would take into account dam height, reservoir volume and likely numbers of people downstream. Safety management practices would be tailored to each hazard class so that the lowest hazard class would have minimum requirements—less than the current ones, which I hope is reassuring to her—and the highest hazard class would have more than the current requirements. I hope it is reassuring that we want to make this easier for farmers, not harder.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
When is that classification coming in?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I shall write to the noble Baroness on that point.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 33, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 33A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, as well as moving Motion F, I will also speak to Motions G, J and J1, with the permission of the House.
I will begin with Amendment 33, which was from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which sought to make the first set of regulations for the national scheme of delegation subject to the affirmative procedure. I thank the noble Lord for his continued engagement on this very important issue. Having reflected on our useful discussions in previous debates and subsequent correspondence and having heard the strength of feeling in the House on this point, I would like to take this opportunity to confirm that the Government agree with the intent of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. We will therefore use the next opportunity in the other place to bring forward an amendment which will seek to give effect to the intention of ensuring that the first set of regulations for the national scheme of delegation are subject to the affirmative procedure. This, alongside the further safeguard built into the legislation which places a duty on the Secretary of State to consult on the draft regulations before they come into effect, should ensure an appropriate amount of scrutiny and engagement ahead of the implementation of the national scheme of delegation. I very much saw the noble Lord’s point about the first set of regulations coming forward, and I hope he is reassured on that point.
Amendment 37, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, exempted assets of community value from the permitted development right for demolition under Part 11 of Schedule 2 to the general permitted development order. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her very constructive engagement on this issue. We agree with the intention of further protecting these important assets. We are already strengthening the protection given to them though the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, currently under consideration by this House—we have not had its First Reading yet, but it will be imminent. If we agree where someone wants to demolish an asset of community value, it is only right they should have to submit a planning application so that the full planning merits can be considered. That is why the Government committed in the other place to consult on this proposal at the earliest opportunity. As mentioned in the debate in the other place, Parliament has granted the Secretary of State powers to make permitted development rights through secondary legislation. As such, the Government feel we should follow the proper route to amending these through important consultation. We hope these commitments reassure the noble Baroness, and we look forward to a consultation on the matter shortly. I hope the noble Baroness has had the opportunity to look at the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. There are significantly greater powers over community assets in that Bill than currently exist, and I hope that will reassure her of our intent in this matter.
Amendment 39 was on brownfield land and sustainable development. I completely agree with Peers on the need to prioritise and fully utilise brownfield land. I want to be explicit and assure Peers that the Government already have a brownfield-first approach to development—a principle that successive Governments have adhered to. That is why the Government updated the National Planning Policy Framework last year to further strengthen policy support for development on brownfield land. It currently states:
“Strategic policies should set out a clear strategy for accommodating objectively assessed needs, in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously-developed or ‘brownfield’ land”.
We also expanded the definition of “previously developed land” in the framework to include “large areas of hardstanding”, bringing more brownfield land into scope and limiting the need to look at other types of land. Of course, it is also the case that, as well as prioritising brownfield development, the existing NPPF already provides protections for non-brownfield land—such as protected landscapes, green belt and areas of outstanding natural beauty—alongside guiding developments away from, for example, using the best and most versatile agricultural land where possible—I know that was a matter of great concern to noble Lords.
Last year, the Government published a Brownfield Passport working paper, inviting views on how we might further prioritise and fast-track building on previously used urban land. This included exploring the role of national policy in setting minimum density expectations for certain types of locations to support intensification in the right places. But we are committed to going even further to embed the brownfield-first policy into our planning system, which is why I can commit to consulting on a revised framework later this year that will set out a more rules-based approach to planning, including ensuring that brownfield land is the first port of call for development. In that consultation, we will put forward proposals that help prioritise brownfield land for development, set clear expectations for where development can take place and make best use of existing infrastructure to grow and densify our towns and cities and to support sustainable development. Our proposals will explicitly encourage mayors and local authorities to accommodate more development on brownfield land and specifically relate this to spatial development strategies.
I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is concerned that policy changes alone are not strong enough. I make it clear that the NPPF is the framework within which planning policies and decisions are and should be made. The framework—and all the points I have made previously on the priority use of brownfield land—is a material consideration in planning decisions. All strategic planning authorities must have regard to the need to ensure that their spatial development strategies are consistent with it. Local plans are also required to be prepared with regard to the framework. As such, this is the right place in which to set clear expectations for how and where development should come forward.
Our newly revised NPPF, which we will consult on before the end of the year, will provide even clearer policies to drive more certain decision-making, including on brownfield development. Our changes will signal a step change and make clear our ambitions to drive forward brownfield development. We expect changes to meet the objectives of the brownfield-first principle. Our proposals will provide a crucial opportunity to test our approach and consider evidence from the sector to ensure that policies are robust and impactful.
We also know that policies can take time to feed through the planning system, and we will continue to keep policy and associated guidance under review. As such, legislative changes are not needed to support this objective and would create overly rigid requirements that may not support effective delivery, or that sometimes may not allow for local circumstances to be taken into account.
I fear that the amendment would have become a charter for those who may seek to thwart development and the preparation of SDSs. First, the amendment would bite into SDSs. These are higher-level frameworks with the key aim of planning for medium-term to long-term housing and other development needs, aligning infrastructure provision to support that development. SDSs should of course take a brownfield-first approach, which, as I have mentioned, is already enshrined in a national policy framework that will go even further to prioritise brownfield land.
The other aspects of this amendment would create a legislative requirement for increasing densities and reducing travel distances. These are problematic in not allowing for the consideration of local issues—for example, the character of an area, the settlement patterns or the presence of important heritage assets. Consideration of brownfield land is more appropriately dealt with at local level. As noble Lords know, brownfield land is diverse and may not always be suitable for development. A policy approach allows us to trust local planning authorities to arrive at appropriate judgments on the suitability of brownfield sites, having weighed up a balance of considerations. I am afraid that having such legislation, alongside creating overly rigid requirements, would serve only to open up SDSs to the increased risk of legal challenges on potentially very local issues that are not the aim or purpose of strategic development strategies. This may slow them down in providing the homes and infrastructure that our communities need.
Therefore, with the strong assurances I have made and the commitments to further strengthen the approach to brownfield land, I hope noble Lords will see the Government’s clear commitment on this and agree with the Motion not to insist. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, first, I remind noble Lords of my registered interest as chair of the development forums in Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire. I thank the Minister warmly for her engagement and that of her officials with Amendment 33 and for the Government’s support for it, giving this House the opportunity to examine on an affirmative procedure the first use of the national scheme of delegation. I shall not reiterate, as noble Lords have heard it in Committee and on Report, my view of the importance of the national scheme of delegation and, indeed, some issues about how it is to be used and structured. It is not simply a case of how important it is; there are still outstanding issues on the structure of the national scheme of delegation.
I am immensely grateful to the Minister that the Government are going to look that we insist on Amendment 33. I apologise for my poor drafting. Noble Lords know that I try hard on these matters, but I neglected to note that, if it became an affirmative resolution, the structure of the Town and Country Planning Act already provides that other regulations beyond the first use are automatically regarded as negative procedure. There will be further amendment to remedy that when the other place finishes its examination.
While I am standing up, I want to say that I thoroughly agree with my noble friend Lady Scott about the scrutiny that we have afforded to this legislation. She and I—and, indeed, the Minister—went all the way through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. We spent 23 days in examination of that Bill, and we have spent only 16 days on this one, so to that extent we have rushed it through. I thoroughly support Motion F.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments on Motion G and assets of community value. I am conscious of the new Bill that will arrive here. I am also very grateful for the remarks of Minister Matthew Pennycook, as they recognise that this is an issue. I was elated when your Lordships voted for the amendment at the time, but I am conscious that some of these things can be done through secondary regulations. As a consequence, I shall not try to test anything further, but I look forward to the consultation coming forward shortly—genuinely shortly—as well, I hope, as some draft regulations at the same time. They are so easy that I have written them for the Government already through my first amendment. I hope that we can make progress so that I do not have to revisit this with a further amendment to the Bill that we will look forward to examining.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, I, too, endorse Motion F. The national scheme of delegation strikes the right balance between going far enough and not too far, which is not without difficulty. I urge the Minister and her officials to bear in mind the imperative of avoiding a proliferation of different thresholds. We have the national scheme of delegation thresholds; we have the 150 dwelling threshold announced a few days ago in relation to the exercise of potential haul-in powers to prevent refusals; and we also have coming down the line potential thresholds in relation to standardised Section 106. What I have been hearing from developers in the last few days is that the potential range and proliferation of thresholds—because we also have the EIA thresholds—make decision-making quite difficult in how to calibrate their developments, so the simpler it is, the better.
The Minister also mentioned the forthcoming NPPF consultation. Is she able to indicate when the final version of the new NPPF will be published? I appreciate that she cannot give a precise indication. There is anecdotal evidence that during the consultation on the last NPPF some applications were put on hold because applicants wanted to wait to see the final version. Indeed, there is some evidence that during the passage of this Bill some infrastructure projects have been put on hold so as to benefit from some of the streamlining, so the greater the clarity that can be provided as to how long—we hope that it will be fairly quickly—the post-consultation process will take to produce the new NPPF, the better.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the positive engagement we have had during the Bill, where compromise has been reached on a number of very important issues. It shows that all the hours we have spent discussing and scrutinising the Bill have not been in vain. I am particularly grateful that the Government have seen the light over the requirement of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for an affirmative procedure on the national scheme of delegation. It is an issue on which we on these Benches supported the noble Lord, but we also tabled our own amendments, because we thought it was very important that the first iteration of the national scheme of delegation should be properly and fully scrutinised. We are really pleased that the Government have conceded on that issue.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling Motion F to agree with Lords Amendment 33 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley. This was a really important amendment, and I am very glad that it has been dealt with in this way, as has Motion G and Amendment 37 in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey on the important issue of assets of community value. I look forward to seeing them put in place in future.
We have felt compelled to bring Motion J1 back to the attention of your Lordships’ House. Although we will not press the matter further, it is important that the concerns are placed clearly on record. We do so because the Government’s previous response did not engage with the substance of the issues at stake.
First, the Government have sidestepped the statutory issue entirely. This amendment would place a clear, unambiguous duty on spatial development strategies to prioritise brownfield development and urban densification. That duty matters. Yet the Minister’s response relied almost exclusively on guidance, prospective consultations and future proposals. None of that explains why this responsibility should not sit in primary legislation. As we all know, the system is failing precisely because guidance can be overlooked and too often is. Brownfield opportunities are not ignored because they do not exist; they are ignored because the framework does not require public bodies or developers to pursue them.
Secondly, the Government’s response failed to address the sustainability dimension. This amendment is not simply about land categories. It is about shaping the behaviour of the built environment, supporting mixed, walkable communities, reducing travel distances and aligning development patterns with our environmental and economic goals. None of this featured in the Government’s reply, which focused solely on whether brownfield land is being sufficiently identified rather than on how our planning system directs the form, character and quality of the development. Without statutory underpinning, these wider sustainability objectives will continue to be treated as optional—desirable, certainly, but dispensable when inconvenient.
Let me finally address the Minister’s suggestion that our amendment would heighten the risk of legal challenge and that clarity in the NPPF makes such a duty unnecessary. In effect, the Minister defended the status quo, but legal challenge is a feature of any meaningful statutory change—indeed, of any planning decision. The possibility of challenge is not an argument for inaction; it is inherent in the evolution of any policy. A clearer statutory duty would, over time, reduce conflict by giving decision-makers firmer parameters and greater certainty.
I acknowledge that the Minister wrote over the weekend outlining the Government’s intention. Her letter stated that,
“the revised NPPF will provide even clearer policies to drive decision-making, including on brownfield land”.
We accept the Government saying again today that national policy is the most appropriate route for setting planning decisions, that the proposed changes will mark a step change and that they expect these reforms to meet the objectives of the “brownfield first” principle.
However, if Ministers truly believe that these revisions will drive brownfield development, then they must be willing and able to show evidence of success. The proportion of brownfield used must rise meaningfully as a direct result of these changes. Warm words about future consultations are not enough; they must turn into action. This House must be able to see the data and interrogate it, track progress and hold the Government firmly to account. If Ministers are confident in their claims, they should have no hesitation in committing to return to the House with clear, measurable evidence that these reforms are genuinely delivering a brownfield first approach in practice, not just in rhetoric. Until that proof is forthcoming, our concerns remain.
We live on a small island. Food security is critical in the world we live in. This Bill has taken our agricultural land for energy use and housing. Greenfields produce food for our nation; wheat and potatoes cannot be produced on urban brownfield sites.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate; I will address the points that have been raised during our discussion. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Banner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their endorsement of our position on Motion F. I always hope that when a good idea comes forward, we will not hesitate to accept it; that was a good idea, and we will be moving forward with it.
On the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, I very much look forward to the debates we will have on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. It is a different approach to assets of community value. It expands the definitions of assets of community value, including sporting and recreational assets, it gives longer for communities to do the work needed to enact this right, and it gives a right to buy approach, which I hope we will have good debates on.
The noble Lord, Lord Banner, made a very important point about avoiding the proliferation of thresholds, and I will take that back. I hope he will continue to work with us on that, as he does on other issues.
In relation to the NPPF consultation, I appreciate that delay causes uncertainty. We are hoping to do it by the end of the year. Planning is a dynamic process. When we were having debates with the Housing Minister and some developers, he said that they cannot always be waiting for the next thing to come along. This is the planning Bill at the moment. The NPPF is the NPPF. We want people to get on and build the infrastructure and housing we need. There may be changes in the future, but planning is always going to be dynamic and will have to change as other things change. However, it is important we make sure the NPPF is fit for purpose, and we get this planning Bill through so we can get on and deliver what we need to.
I hope I picked up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on assets of community value in my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.
On the important point about brownfield sites and contaminated sites made by the noble Baroness, the viability PPG already factors in potential brownfield challenges. The guidance on defining costs notes that brownfield sites may have abnormal costs associated with them. We are continuing to look at this as we go through because there are some sites with high levels of contamination. The noble Baroness may be aware that I visited Stoke-on-Trent recently, which has some sites on former mining areas. They are an issue, and we continue to keep it under review, as she would expect.
Her points about the Minister’s announcement on railways stations make the point that we have been arguing around brownfield sites. For the most part, the land around railway stations can be considered brownfield sites. We want to make sure that we make the most of those sites, which have good transport links and are often essential to the economy of an area. This is why the Minister felt that it was appropriate, in that case, to make that a consideration—that is, where it looked like applications there might be refused, they could be called in. Of course, communities still get the opportunity to have their say in that process.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 37, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 37A.
37A: Because the Commons consider that measures in respect of permitted development rights should be taken forward through secondary legislation.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 38, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 38A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will speak also to Motions H1, K and K1. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for their amendments in lieu relating to chalk streams and environmental delivery plans.
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich for tabling Lords Amendment 38B. I also thank him for his letter, which I received today; I hope to respond to him in my remarks from the Dispatch Box. His amendment moves away from the wide-ranging amendment that he previously sought to add to the Bill, which was not workable. This amendment seeks to introduce guidance for how strategic planning authorities must take into account the need to define, protect and enhance chalk streams through spatial development strategies. I recognise and appreciate the positive intent of the amendment, and I emphasise once again that the Government are absolutely determined to restore and improve the nation’s chalk streams. I should highlight that any provisions in regulations made by statutory instrument are legislative requirements, rather than guidance; this amendment refers to both terms.
We set out in the other place that we do not believe that legislation requiring spatial development strategies is the best place to protect these vital ecosystems. Furthermore, new legislation on this specific matter would duplicate existing policy on the issue—policy that we have already committed to update with specific reference to chalk streams. Strategic planning authorities will be expected to work closely with arm’s-length bodies, such as the Environment Agency, that have responsibility for regulatory systems governing water abstraction or pollution in catchment areas; those are the two main issues that affect the viability of chalk streams. The spatial development strategies will be high-level frameworks for housing, growth and infrastructure investment; they will not allocate specific sites.
Importantly, spatial development strategies will already be required to take account of any local nature recovery strategy that relates to the strategy area. As locally led spatial exercises, those local nature recovery strategies will—drawing on river basin management plans—be able to map out chalk streams and identify measures to enhance and improve them. Local nature recovery strategies, which include important chalk streams in Wiltshire, Berkshire and Norfolk, are already doing this. We want to build on these welcome efforts. I can, therefore, make it clear today that, in responding to this amendment in the other place, the Government committed to amend statutory guidance to encourage chalk streams to be featured prominently in local nature recovery strategies going forward.
On the planning system, which is obviously the focus of this Bill, it remains the Government’s view that the conservation of chalk streams is best achieved through the proper application of national planning policy, which applies to all tiers of the planning system from strategic policies to individual planning applications. As per the commitment made by the Housing and Planning Minister in the other place on 13 November, which I referred to a moment ago, the Government will now include explicit recognition of chalk streams in the new suite of national policies for decision-making that we intend to consult on before the end of this year. This will ensure that chalk streams are explicitly recognised as features of high environmental value in national planning policy; and that clear expectations are set for plan-makers and decision-makers in respect of managing the impacts of development on these sensitive water bodies.
As noble Lords are well aware, among the most pressing of the multiple pressures facing chalk steams are systemic issues in the water system. The Government are absolutely determined to take bold action to address pollution and over-abstraction. Measures that will safeguard and restore chalk streams are already embedded into our ambitious programme of reforms to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good.
Although it does not directly relate to the planning system, in order to provide noble Lords with additional reassurance on the Government’s intentions in this area, I can commit today that the Government will embed actions to improve chalk streams into the water White Paper, which will be published before the end of the year. That White Paper will feed directly into the development of forthcoming legislation in this area.
I appreciate entirely the strength of feeling on this issue. The Housing and Planning Minister and I have very much appreciated the considered engagement that we have had on this matter, as well as the opportunity to discuss how we can best achieve what are, ultimately, shared priorities. I hope that, through the assurances the Government have now provided in respect of the water White Paper, the LNRS statutory guidance and forthcoming changes to national planning policy, noble Lords are reassured that these vital ecosystems will soon get the recognition and protection that they deserve.
I turn to Amendments 40B and 40C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown. The other place has chosen to reinstate the original drafting of Clause 55—now Clause 63—so that EDPs are no longer limited to a closed list of environmental impacts. I am incredibly grateful for the continued engagement on this amendment from Peers, in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis, Lady Young and Lady Grender, and the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Roborough, who have given up their time to work with the Government to consider this issue. These discussions have made it clear that the aim of the original amendment was not to restrict the ability of EDPs to support environmental features where appropriate but to seek assurances in two key areas: how the Government will prioritise EDPs going forward; and how we will embed the lessons from early EDPs into the future pipeline of EDPs.
The proposed amendment in lieu seeks to develop this position, but I will make further commitments on these points today; I hope that they will provide noble Lords with the assurances they need to support the Government’s position. Before I set out these commitments, I again highlight that the nature restoration fund is a targeted tool designed to address the specific impact of development on a specific environmental feature. This targeted approach means two things: first, that an EDP would only ever be brought forward where there is a clear case that an environmental feature is affecting development consent, as it simply would not make sense to bring forward EDPs where there is no need to do so; and, secondly, that an EDP could only ever be put in place where conservation measures would materially outweigh the impact of development on the relevant environmental feature.
As was highlighted in the other place, it is right that we are guided by the science. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, has particularly strong feelings about this, and she is quite right to have them. The legislation ensures that the design, making and delivery of EDPs are evidence-led. As we set out in the other place, we know that strategic approaches can work for both sites and species, as demonstrated through the district level licensing scheme for great crested newts and our experience of nutrient mitigation schemes to date.
Noble Lords will be aware that the Bill requires Natural England to notify the Secretary of State of its intention to develop an EDP, which ensures that the Secretary of State has direct oversight of the development of EDPs as well as their role in considering whether to formally approve an EDP. This clear mechanism ensures that there is clarity as to when a new EDP is being prepared. Of course, all EDPs will be subject to public consultation before they are sent to the Secretary of State to consider.
On learning from the early EDPs, the Bill provides a number of important safeguards. The first is the ongoing requirement for monitoring, which will ensure that conservation measures are performing as intended, with back-up measures being deployed if there is underperformance. This not only ensures that EDPs are subject to ongoing review but goes beyond the monitoring requirements under the existing system and means we will capture important data about the performance of conservation measures, which will inform future EDPs.
The second key limb in the legislation is the reporting requirements, which set minimum reporting periods for individual EDPs that reinforce the monitoring provisions by requiring a further assessment as to whether the EDP is on track to meet the overall improvement test.
There is also a wider annual reporting requirement across the entire nature restoration fund, which will set out all the EDPs that are in force as well as the pipeline of any EDPs being prepared. Taken together, we hope it is clear that the Bill provides assurances, both at the point of development of EDPs and through to implementation, that EDPs can be used only where they can be shown to work.
However, throughout the Bill’s passage, the Government have sought to ensure that all parliamentarians and stakeholders can have confidence that the new regime would deliver the win-win for development and nature that we envisage. With this in mind, we want to provide additional assurance that EDPs will be appropriately sequenced.
As we have set out before, the nature restoration fund is self-limiting by design, in that an EDP can be put in place only where it can be shown to materially outweigh the impact of development on a relevant environmental feature using the best available scientific evidence.
However, as a first step in respect of sequencing, I commit that the first EDPs will address nutrient pollution only. This is an area where we have substantial first-hand evidence that a strategic approach works. It is also an area in which Natural England has already proved its expertise in supporting the delivery of mitigation across the country. Taking this approach will therefore provide us with a useful test case to demonstrate both the impact of EDPs and Natural England’s ability to deliver. We will then pay particular attention to the results of the regular monitoring and reporting of these early EDPs. These monitoring and reporting requirements ensure transparency and provide the opportunity for both government scrutiny and external scrutiny of the ongoing impact and delivery of EDPs.
From our engagement across the Bill, we know that independent and expert bodies, such as the Environmental Audit Committee and the Office for Environmental Protection, may wish to undertake scrutiny of this kind. This will support the assurance of the nature restoration fund’s delivery and evolution. The Government look forward to working closely with these bodies as we move forward with the nature restoration fund.
While the Bill provides for this transparent approach, I will also commit to the Government returning to the House once the first nutrient EDPs are made to issue a statement on the initial learnings from their development and implementation. It will only be after the House has seen this statement that a Secretary of State will make any further EDPs on other environmental issues. While Natural England may wish to undertake preparatory work in parallel on potential future EDPs, this approach will ensure that any learning from the first nutrients EDP is considered before any EDPs beyond nutrients are made and operational.
As we move forward with implementation, we are incredibly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for their offer to continue to work with the Government as we progress with developing crystal clear guidance to ensure that developers, environmental groups and communities can navigate this new system effectively. This collaborative approach will ensure the targeted tools unlock the positive outcomes that I know we all want to see. I beg to move.
Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H)
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 38B in lieu—
“Chalk streams
(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, by regulations made by statutory instrument, provide guidance to strategic planning authorities on how they must, in delivering their planning functions, take into account the need to define, protect and enhance chalk stream habitats.
(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.””
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I am grateful for the strong support that my earlier Amendment 38 gained on Report. Chalk streams are globally rare habitats of which we have 85% in England. We simply must protect them and other irreplaceable habitats, because we have lost so much of this nation’s nature already.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, Motion K1 is in my name. I have a whole speech written but I am not going to give it because I greatly appreciate the words that came from the Minister.
The concerns around the EDPs are critical. Even this morning I had many emails in my inbox from all walks of life—from builders, nature conservation people and even other Peers—saying, “Please push on this one”. These EDPs are a very ambitious, bold new framework and we simply do not know how successful they will be. Therefore, this amendment is to say, please can we try it on the thing that is the biggest blockage first, then sequentially work on it once we have the evidence base? The Minister, other Peers and I had a very constructive meeting and an exchange of letters. The Government have listened in this case. We will start with nutrients and build from that, but we will learn on the way with the evidence. It is very important that this evidence comes back to this House and that an independent body looks at that evidence base, so that Natural England is not marking its own homework. That has always been a concern for many.
I thank the Minister for such helpful discussions. I believe that we will end up understanding how EDPs will work to effect for the biggest blockers, but for nature as well.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
I want to speak briefly to Motion K1. I too will not be giving the speech that I prepared, in the light of the assurances from the Minister, for which I am very grateful as this is a very important area. However, I hope that she can give a couple of clarifications.
First, the Minister mentioned public consultation on EDPs. How will that work? This independent evaluation of the evidence is so important, so it would be good to hear exactly how that public consultation will be done. It is fantastic that, as my noble friend Lady Willis just mentioned, the evidence is being assessed by an independent body, but who exactly is doing the monitoring and gathering the evidence? Is it Natural England, or are independent bodies doing it? Who is then assessing the evidence? Is that independently done?
Secondly, over what period is the monitoring of these first EDPs to be done before the report comes back to the House? It is important that we get the longer-term evidence before we commit to any more. The example of great crested newts has been given multiple times. It is a great species for doing district-wide licensing, but it has specific characteristics which means it is good for that, and we have a lot of knowledge and good data. The ponds for them are dug before destruction of their existing habitat, and there is a minimum 25-year commitment to those ponds. It is not clear that this will be the case for the new EDPs. It would be great to hear about the evidence-gathering periods and what period is anticipated for the commitments.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I rise to support very strongly Motion H1 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. I have two concerns about the Government’s response. The first is the issue of protection. That is not present at the moment; it is severely lacking. I have visited chalk streams and seen streams that are probably beyond recovery. It is still happening, so there is a real need for urgency to protect the rest of what we have, and perhaps to instigate measures to recover them.
Secondly, the Minister mentioned two organisations that, in my view as a Green, have been largely discredited in their protection of the environment: Natural England and the Environment Agency. Somehow, neither of them actually does what it is meant to do, and certainly not within the parameters of what one would expect. This is urgent: you cannot just keep leaving it to consultation and finding out more facts and details—it has to happen.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the considerable amount of time she has given to so many of us in these discussions, particularly on Motions H1 and K1 in this group.
First, on K1—this is the wrong order, but I am going to do it that way anyway—I particularly welcome this new and additional commitment from the Dispatch Box to concentrating on nutrient pollution. That is a very welcome development today, and I support the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, in her response to that.
With regard to H1, sadly, we feel there is still progress to be made. The Minister will be aware that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich has looked at and reflected on the criticism made in the House of Commons of spatial development strategies and their use, and has therefore provided us with an amendment this evening which uses guidance, backed by regulation. We believe that this approach is technically right and that it is possible to do this.
The second point is about time being of the essence. The Minister expressed frustration at the pace at which protection of chalk streams was moving under the previous Government. We are very much at the 11th hour, and time is so precious that embedding something in this legislation, even now, rather than waiting for a White Paper or a Bill next year—goodness knows how long that will take—is the very kernel of the argument for pressing the House of Commons to think again.
We are here in numbers. If the right reverend Prelate decides to test the opinion of the House, I hope that the Conservative Benches will join with us and the Cross Benches and express a strong opinion on this.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak very briefly to Motion K1. I join others in thanking the Minister for her statement from the Dispatch Box, which meets many of the concerns we had, and for the time she and other Ministers spent discussing this with us.
I just wanted to allude to one part of her statement, on the development of guidance. A lot of the devil will be in the detail of how builders actually receive guidance and respond to it. One is particularly concerned about small builders, who do not have a legal team to interpret the guidance or spend a lot of time trying to understand it.
My noble friend Lady Willis and I have spent quite a lot of time trying to understand how the pieces of the jigsaw fit together: the habitat regulations, the nature restoration fund, the EDPs and the biodiversity net gain requirements. We have produced our own flow chart, the Minister has provided flow charts, and we are still somewhat in the dark.
It is of course possible that the combined brains of two Oxford professors are not enough to tackle the complexity of this matter, but we have given it quite a lot of effort. Therefore, I very much welcome the Minister’s stating she will involve us both in helping to simplify the guidance in a way that will actually make it useful and practically helpful to builders and developers, particularly those running small businesses.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for the discussions and assurances she has given us on Motion K1. I was rather fond of Motion K1 and would have preferred the amendments in it being in the Bill—it represented a fair compromise. The reasons why it is very important are threefold. One is partly to provide some pacing for Natural England, because there is a real potential for it to overextend itself and not do any of the EDPs very well as a result.
Secondly, there needs to be proper evaluation, because this is a very new and untried system. The monitoring and evaluation should be not just about biodiversity but about whether this works for developers, because the whole point of the exercise is to try to unlock delays, and it is quite a complicated system for developers to operate in. So, on the early ones, we need to really examine our conscience and see whether they are delivering both for biodiversity and for speeding up the development process.
Thirdly, clarity for developers is important, and I very much welcome the fact that there will be a pipeline in the annual report that will enable developers to see what EDPs are likely to come up for development in the future. The usual situation, of course, is that when middle ground has been filled by concessions and assurances, you ask yourself why they cannot just be expressed in statute, since they meet many of the points that we have raised.
However, I recognise that this is probably as far as we will get on this one. I welcome the assurances and concessions that have come in the direction of the concerns that we have expressed.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, on Motion K1, I want underline what the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, said about the need for independence in the monitoring and evaluation. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, referred to it, but I am not sure that the Minister did so—forgive me if I missed it. Can we please hear from her on this, just to put it beyond doubt?
On the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, about the need for flowcharts, we are definitely going to need a definitive agreed one.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, if chalk streams are in a moment of crisis, this amendment does not bounce the Secretary of State into action. It simply says:
“The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, by regulations made by statutory instrument, provide guidance”.
So, from day one, the Secretary of State has 12 months to do it. If it is urgent, what is put here is absolutely necessary in the sense that 85% of the entire world’s chalk streams are in England and the habitat could easily be damaged. Within those 12 months, the Secretary of State can consult and bring together a team of people who will give him good guidance as to how he can put it in a statutory instrument. I have read the House of Commons reasons for disagreeing this. I think they just need to get on with it.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches and many other noble Lords have challenged the necessity for Part 3 throughout the Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House. The Government have made a number of amendments, which have improved the Bill, to reintroduce nature protections and give more comfort on the Bill’s operation in relation to nature and the rural economy. We also welcome the Minister’s assurances and commitments around the use of compulsory purchase powers.
However, we supported the restriction of EDPs to nutrient neutrality, water and air quality in Committee and on Report, as well as protections for our chalk streams. The application of nutrient neutrality rules by Natural England is the major restriction on planning related to the natural environment. Before I go on, I again draw the House’s attention to my registered interests as a farmer, landowner, forester, and a developer of housing, commercial premises, and renewable energy.
I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Willis of Summertown and Lady Young of Old Scone, for pursuing these restrictions on EDPs, and all those who supported them. The Minister has been generous with her time and that of her officials throughout the passage of this Bill, and our discussions around these and other amendments have been thoughtful and constructive. I am grateful for the Government’s commitments and concessions laid out today. They may not go as far as we might have wished. However, these commitments will allow Parliament to scrutinise the progress of EDPs and hold the Government to account over their extension—although I doubt, as a hereditary Peer, that I will be here to be part of that.
I want to put two challenges related to nutrient neutrality to the Minister. The Government refused to accept my amendments that sought not to reimpose habitats regulations on Ramsar sites. My Division was narrowly disagreed with. I have made the Government aware that, since that debate, this issue is already restricting planning consent, with a further 550 homes likely to be blocked in Somerset, as the council anticipates the reintroduction of those regulations in this Bill. What consideration has the Minister given to preventing the Bill blocking new housebuilding in this way?
Natural England provided some interesting data in response to freedom of information requests. In 2023, it promised Ministers to unlock 40,000 homes from nutrient neutrality restrictions with £33.5 million of taxpayer funding. In responding to this freedom of information request, it disclosed that it has spent over £28 million, including over £4 million on administration, and generated enough units to unlock only 11,000 homes. The scrutiny of these EDPs will need to be forensic and rigorous before Natural England should be allowed and trusted to attempt them in far more complicated areas.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, that the Government have made thoughtful concessions. We on these Benches are satisfied that this will provide a good opportunity for scrutiny.
Chalk streams face urgent and growing pressures, as others have laid out in this debate, yet the tools we rely on to protect them are still not fully in place. The Government have pointed to local nature recovery strategies as part of the solution, but without the long-promised regulations giving them real weight in the planning system, they simply do not have the bite required. Given the scale of the threat from development footprints, pollution and overabstraction, we cannot afford further delay, nor can we wait until 2030 for the abstraction licence reforms to take effect. We must ensure that spatial development strategies can direct development away from vulnerable chalk stream catchments. It is a practical and necessary step to prevent irreversible harm to these globally rare habitats. Although we support Amendment 38B’s intent, we would not be able to support it in a Division today, for the reasons laid out by my noble friend Lady Scott, but we will look to find other avenues to push forward this agenda.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, but I want also to give a general statement of thanks to everybody who has engaged with this Bill. We have discussed a huge variety of topics and gone through some very technical issues. I have been very grateful for noble Lords’ patience as I have sought to find answers to the questions that have arisen during our debates, but also for the willingness—which is the best aspect of this House—to move these debates forward constructively and helpfully. I have really appreciated that, and I am very grateful for the many meetings that we have had and the late nights that we have sat over the course of this Bill. I give you all my great thanks for that work.
I will respond now to some of the points raised in the debate. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich mentioned that local nature recovery strategies do not capture the catchment area of a river. He points to the exact reason why we think the water White Paper and the Bill that will follow it are vital for the proper protection of chalk streams that we are all seeking. We know the main issues facing chalk streams. I cannot remember who talked about it—I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—but I too have stood in more than one chalk stream, because I live in Hertfordshire, where we have a lot of them, and I know that the issues of abstraction and pollution cannot be addressed in this way. They need to be addressed through the forthcoming water Bill, and my colleagues in Defra are keen to do that. The National Planning Policy Framework, which sets out planning policies and decisions, should protect chalk streams as valued landscapes and sites of biodiversity value, and local plans should identify, map and safeguard them as local wildlife-rich habitats.
I liked the phrase that the right reverend Prelate used, which was that housing and development should fly in formation with nature. I totally agree. I hope that, as we have gone through the process of the Bill, noble Lords will have noted that it is the Government’s intention, as we pursue the building of homes and infrastructure, to see a win-win for both nature and development in order to deliver what we need while protecting the important natural resources around us.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for her remarks. I know that the concerns around EDPs are real. She spoke about our ambitious and bold new framework, but we have listened. In local government we have a test-and-learn approach, because we all learn from each other as well as from things we have done ourselves. I hope the noble Baroness and other Peers will agree that the commitments I have set out today enable us to do that with EDPs as well. I am grateful to her and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for all the work that they have done on this issue. Their flow chart was a great help. I was not trying to mark their homework, and I hope they will forgive me; we were just trying to expand the flow chart that they had made, to make it, I hope, more helpful. We will continue to work with them on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, asked about consultation. Natural England is required to consult the public and any public authority that it considers relevant on a draft EDP for a period of at least 28 working days. Natural England must seek the views of relevant local planning authorities as part of its consultation. I am afraid it is not possible to give a timeframe for when we will return to the House ahead of the first EDP being developed. However, the noble Baroness will be aware that each EDP will need to include monitoring requirements that will form part of the draft EDP when put out for consultation, so she will see the timeframe set out as we bring those EDPs forward.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said she did not like the Environmental Audit Committee or the Office for Environmental Protection, the organisations that I was looking to, to work with Natural England. Natural England will have the data, but those organisations will help provide the scrutiny for this. Without using those organisations, I do not know where we go with that, but I hope we will be able to convince her that they are organisations that can do this effectively. We are willing to listen to any suggestions that she may have.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for her welcome for the EDPs issue. I understand that she may have ongoing concerns on chalk streams, although I hope I have reassured her on some of those points.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to the plethora we now have of habitat regs, EDPs and biodiversity net gain. We need to simplify the guidance on this, and I hope that he will continue to work with us on that mission.
My noble friend Lady Young spoke about clarity for developers. That is exactly what we are trying to deliver as part of the Bill, and I am grateful to all Peers who have helped us to do that.
I hope I have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, on the independence of scrutiny. We want to use organisations that are well respected to help with the scrutiny of the EDPs.
I will reply in writing to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, on the habitat regs on Ramsar sites in Somerset. On the issue of Natural England data and unlocking homes, these things have a cumulative effect, so I hope that the money that Natural England has spent will help it to have the structures and processes in place to continue to work with us to deliver the homes that we all want to see. I hope that that work is ongoing. I look forward to working with Natural England and others.
In the meantime, I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords of our intention to protect our precious chalk streams. As noble Lords have heard me say many times, I live in Hertfordshire; it is definitely in my interests to protect those chalk streams. I believe that we now have the right processes in place, and I hope that the reassurances we have given over the sequencing of EDPs will help noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
The Minister gave me encouraging reassurance about independence and referred to two bodies that would be doing the monitoring and evaluation. Could she repeat for me—I think I missed it—which bodies they are? Are they fully independent of Natural England and the Environment Agency?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have not made an approach to these organisations, so I do not want to commit them to doing this, but if the Environmental Audit Committee or the Office for Environmental Protection wanted to get involved in the scrutiny of EDPs, we would be very happy to facilitate that.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I thank all who have contributed to this debate and in particular the Minister, for her customary care in the answers she has given us.
What we agree on, across all sides of this House, is that chalk streams are precious, irreplaceable habitats that are gravely endangered. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for giving a sense that he would like to continue to press this in other ways. My view remains that we need clear legal protections for chalk streams and other irreplaceable habitats so that developers and planners know where they stand and the public can be reassured that protections will not easily be wiped out overnight. With this in mind, I seek to test the will of the House.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 39, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 39A.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 40, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 40A.
ExxonMobil: Mossmorran
(1 day, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s Official Opposition’s thoughts are with the 450 workers at Exxon Mobil’s Fife plant, who now face losing their livelihoods. That plant had been a cornerstone of chemical production in the United Kingdom for 40 years. These are skilled people—proud people—and whole communities are now wondering what comes next. They deserve our sympathy, of course, but sympathy will not keep an industry alive. This closure was not unavoidable; it is happening because of this Government’s policies.
The chief executive of the Society of Chemical Industry, Sharon Todd, put it starkly:
“Without further government action to address high energy costs for industry, and a greater consideration of the importance of fossil carbon for material feedstocks, industrial resilience in the UK is undermined and further closures are increasingly likely”.
What a verdict—and it is one that the Government cannot pretend they have not heard. We on these Benches have warned Ministers repeatedly. Industry has warned them repeatedly. Everyone who actually makes things in this country has warned them repeatedly.
But the Government simply will not listen, and the price of this stubbornness is being paid by workers, manufacturers and communities up and down the country. ExxonMobil is not alone; we are seeing exactly the same story in steel. Everywhere you look, energy-intensive industries are struggling with the same crushing energy costs, and the pattern is not subtle. The Government’s energy policy is pulling in the opposite direction to its supposed number one priority of growth. You cannot claim to have a plan for growth while presiding over some of the highest electricity prices in Europe. It just does not add up.
Only a few weeks ago, the US ambassador to the UK, Warren Stephens, warned Ministers that high electricity prices are deterring investment from the world’s strongest economy and our closest ally historically. Then we have ExxonMobil’s UK chairman, Paul Greenwood, who said that the company had spent months warning the Government about the risks to the plant, only to be ignored. He said that
“these are deliberate Government policies that are undermining us”.
When global companies start talking like that, something is seriously wrong.
This closure lands at the same moment that Make UK published a report warning that surging energy costs and cumulative taxes are threatening the future of Britain’s industrial base. Ministers have no excuses left. These are the results of decisions made in Whitehall: a slow-motion sustained act of industrial self-harm. Even Unite and GMB—hardly allies of these Benches—warned Ministers that their ban on new oil and gas development would devastate supply chains and destroy skilled jobs. When both employers and unions are saying the same thing, it seems that only this Government could fail to hear it.
And what exactly has this achieved for the environment? Nothing, because now we simply import more oil and gas instead of producing it ourselves. Meanwhile, the Minister in the other place, the Secretary of State for Net Zero, posts on X claiming that bills remain high due to fossil fuel dependence, yet Ofgem has confirmed that policy costs are the major driver.
Minister can no longer hide from the consequences of their own decisions. We have major international investors describing the UK as “mismanaged” and “uninvestable”. South Africa’s richest woman called Britain a “scary country”, saying that she
“wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole”.
When global investors are talking about the UK in those terms, something has gone profoundly wrong.
As we said during the steel debate a few weeks ago, high energy costs and new unemployment burdens looming from the Employment Rights Bill, plus scatter-brained and ideological policies coming out of DESNZ, are all squeezing the life out of British industry. Will the Government reverse their ban on North Sea oil and gas? Will they stop pouring unaffordable subsidies into wind and solar while heavy industry collapses under the weight of energy costs, or are they determined to preside over a full-scale de-industrialisation? British workers, British industries and British communities deserve a lot better than this; they deserve a Government who listen, support industry and understand growth, and the Government are failing on all three counts.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this is quite clearly a blow for the area of Fife, and especially for the direct and indirect workers of the plant. Just as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said, our thoughts go to them and their families as they seek to find ways of coming to terms with the blow.
The closure will see many highly qualified and specialised workers laid off at a time of severe cost of living pressures. The company has talked about supporting its employers and possible relocation available for some, but what about contractors and the wider supply chain? As far as I am aware, no task force has yet been set up to manage this, so can the Minister please update your Lordships’ House on how the wider workforce will be helped as this crisis bites? It is reported that only around 50 staff are being offered jobs, and nearly 500 miles away in Hampshire. Can the Minister confirm how many have actually agreed to relocate? What are the Government doing to protect and create highly skilled, high-quality jobs located for those who cannot move far from their homes, their communities and their wider family? More generally, much is made of the transition to net zero, which we wholeheartedly support, but there is a danger of the old jobs disappearing more quickly than the new ones are being created, and this mismatch will make growth very difficult, if not impossible.
There has, not unexpectedly, been some finger-pointing—indeed, we just saw some—trying to work out who is to blame for this. But we should understand that this plant has been in trouble and making a loss for five years. If economic and trading environments are causing the closure, both this Government and the last Government are culpable. But I also point to Brexit. All the products made at Mossmorran are exported to the EU. Can the Minister outline how much Brexit contributed to the plant’s demise? Given that there will no longer be these exports from the plant, what is the effect on our balance of trade?
This is, of course, a further blow for the Scottish economy and UK-wide manufacturing, and it comes fast on the heels of other company closures. The common denominator seems to be a combination of long-standing depressed demand alongside the policy environment—and the overwhelming issue, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is the cost of energy. Energy was a problem when the noble Lord was in government and it remains a problem now. This is not to downplay today’s news confirming the £420 million a year committed to reduce electricity costs for the UK’s most energy-intensive industries—but that is jam tomorrow; it does not start until 2027.
There is a desperate need for further and more rapid intervention, as many UK chemicals operations face risk of closure before the British industrial competitiveness scheme, as it is called, comes into effect the year after next. There also remains considerable uncertainty about which businesses will benefit from this new support. Can the Minister fill us in on what the process will be for deciding which businesses and sectors qualify for this subsidy? What specific steps are the Government taking for the here and now? We understand what is happening in 2027, and we have seen the long look into the future that is called the industrial strategy, but what is happening now? We need to find a way of making sure that there is long-term investment in our manufacturing and chemicals industry.
The Scottish Government have a responsibility for the economy and jobs in Scotland, so why is there no meaningful mention of them in the Statement? Will the Minister outline what conversations were being had with the Scottish Government and when, and how the Minister sees the role of the Scottish Government going forward?
To conclude, energy-intensive industries are in decline across the UK. Every chemical business across the UK is paying more for its energy than competitors elsewhere, as was the case under the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, as much as 400% higher than in America. Closures at Grangemouth, Prax Lindsey and now Mossmorran risk forcing downstream operators to import resources at higher cost. Britain’s once dominant chemical industry is continuing to suffer. The UK’s chemical output has reached its lowest level for a decade. The latest business survey of members of the Chemical Industries Association shows that 60% of chemical businesses report falling sales with a further 20% seeing no growth. More worryingly, many report strategic reviews.
Closures reduce our already dwindling industrial capacity and reduce our ability to deliver essential materials for our country’s critical national infrastructure, be it health, energy, food or defence. If the Government want to continue to have a chemical industry, then we need much more action to address these unsustainable costs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords for their statements today, and I entirely agree that our thoughts are with the workers and the families of those affected by the closure.
While this Government inherited a precarious economic position from the previous Administration, it is imperative that we continue to move forward and pursue the right pro-innovation, pro-business policies which generate growth. We were disappointed to learn of Exxon’s announcement of the closure of its Fife ethylene plant. This follows months of engagement with the company and a commitment to explore all the opportunities to retain the site’s operations. However, it is my understanding that there was no credible buyer for the plant. Of course, if there are potential purchasers who wish to explore what is possible, the Government would be happy to work with them. We would be happy to find a solution, whether that is the ongoing operation of the plant or repurposing the site for new uses.
As noble Lords will know, the Government and ExxonMobil have been discussing the operating environment around the plant since April, and officials endeavoured to meet Exxon every week since August. Last weekend, Ministers from across government were in contact with the company to discuss this decision, and I expect there will be further conversations over the coming months. The Minister for Industry was clear that the Government are prepared to step in and support industry where it is feasible to do so, as we did with Harland & Wolff, Tata Steel and most recently British Steel. Sadly, in this instance, the Government are not able to provide support without a fundamentally sound business proposition. No intervention would represent value for money without one.
We know that it is a concerning time for those affected, which is why our focus is now on supporting the workforce. The Minister for Industry met Unite to explore options for supporting the affected employees, and Exxon is taking steps to mitigate the impact of its closure decision, as any responsible company would, with some employees being retained to support the decommissioning of the site and others being offered relocation and training packages to Exxon’s other assets at Fawley and Southampton. Discussions about the precise allocation of those roles are ongoing and I cannot confirm at this time exactly how many people have decided to make the transition to other sites. Regrettably, this falls short of supporting the entire workforce in finding new employment, which is why the Department for Work and Pensions is engaged in supporting those impacted. Officials in the department are also in contact with representatives from Fife Council and the Scottish Government and are working together on a task force to provide further support. Today, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland met the Scottish Government and the Fife local authority to convene the first of those discussions and will continue with that task force over the coming months.
I stress that this closure is not representative of UK industry as a whole. Through our modern industrial strategy, we are channelling support to the eight growth sectors of the economy, including clean energy, defence and advanced manufacturing—all areas in which Scotland is incredibly strong. Far from being uninvestable, since July, we have seen more than £250 billion of investment committed into the UK, alongside 450,000 jobs. Only recently, we have seen further investment into AI growth zones and small modular reactors.
Both noble Lords talked about energy costs. Your Lordships know that bringing down energy costs for British businesses is a key part of our industrial strategy. Although it is important to note that electricity costs were not a major factor behind this site’s closure, we are pressing ahead with unprecedented support for our energy-intensive industries so that they can properly compete and win in the global economy. Last month, we pledged to increase the discount on electricity network charges from 60% to 90% for businesses in sectors such as steel, cement, glass and chemicals; this discount will slash costs for a whole host of businesses not just in England but across the UK. We know that around 550 of our most energy-intensive businesses will save up to £420 million a year on their electricity bills from next April thanks to this one change.
To that end, our new British industrial competitiveness scheme, announced for consultation today, will reduce electricity costs for more than 7,000 eligible manufacturing businesses. We want to save them up to £40 per megawatt hour, or up to 25%, from April 2027; that will cover the foundational and frontier areas, as defined in the industrial strategy. This will be subject to further consultation, as set out in the papers today.
On the point about engaging and working with the devolved Governments, the Scottish Government have been heavily involved in the ExxonMobil discussions, with meetings at the highest level. I thank my colleagues, both there and in the UK Government, who have been engaging on this issue for such a long time and trying to find a way forward. We will continue to work constructively together both to support the hard-working employees of the Fife plant and to ensure that they are fully supported over the coming weeks and months.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, last week was another sad one for the UK oil and petrochemicals industry, as well as for the company employees, contractors and those in the general supply chain who rely on it. The imminent closure of Mossmorran comes in addition to the Grangemouth and Lindsey refineries. What comes next? There is not much left.
Mr Greenwood, the chairman of ExxonMobil UK, mentioned four reasons why the plant at Mossmorran is being closed. Due to time, I will concentrate on just one: the decline in a cheap and abundant source of ethane from the North Sea. We know that there is a large untapped supply of ethane in the North Sea, but this Government have increased taxation on the producers in various ways to prohibit them making any money—making them less competitive—and have prevented any more licences being issued in this basin. This has a snowball effect of closing the North Sea down, reducing a revenue stream to the Exchequer and seeing the workforce continue to fall, as well as, by inference, increasing hydrocarbon imports from overseas where job numbers go from strength to strength.
Equally important are the significantly increasing carbon emissions on a global scale. Just because the imports arrive in the UK emissions-free does not mean that we are not responsible for the increase in emissions from our own production, which are significantly less. Production continues elsewhere in the world and its subsequent transport for our use is more emissions-intensive.
Does the Minister agree with me that this country must, therefore, ensure the continued and increased flow of North Sea hydrocarbon production, rather than having to increasingly purchase product from overseas? This would keep the significant but rapidly reducing onshore and offshore oil and gas industry alive for the foreseeable future; more importantly, it would keep the remaining jobs secure. Electricity generation, green or otherwise, will not satisfy our complete energy needs for many decades to come—if ever—so why do this Government continue to penalise this nation?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
We are co-ordinating the scale-up of industries that will shape the future of the North Sea, going as far as wider offshore wind, carbon capture and storage and hydrogen. The Government have committed over £9.4 billion in investment to carbon capture, with a total of £22 billion for hydrogen and carbon capture this Parliament. That is a huge, positive step for our economy and for jobs in the North Sea.
Furthermore, the clean energy jobs plan—which has £20 million of funding from the UK and Scottish Governments—will support oil and gas workers in training to access the opportunities in clean energy to create the jobs of the future. Looking at the last few years, there was a 75% reduction in oil and gas production between 1999 and 2024. So this is a very long-term trend in the availability of carbon products from the North Sea, not something that has happened just in recent times.
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)
My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my registered interests. I welcome the Minister’s statement, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about the establishment of a task force, which has happened since the Statement was made in the other place. I declare an interest as a former Industry Minister in Scotland, where there has been experience over the last 25 years of how to respond to closures such as these. Those sorts of task forces, to work well, need to be quickly established, as we have seen in this case. However, they also need to focus as broadly as possible, including on opportunities for outplacement, retraining, preferential access to local colleges, dedicated pathways into other employment opportunities and on the future of the site itself, involving remediation and the possible identification of other investors who would be interested, if not in plastics production, then in associated activity.
For all these reasons, can the Minister confirm the breadth of the scope of the task force? Can she also confirm that His Majesty’s Government will work very closely with the Scottish Government, which have their own PACE initiative—the partnership for continuing employment—in cases such as these?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend makes some very important points about the importance of swift and collaborative action, partnership with all those who can assist in supporting the workers in this situation and looking at their individual needs and the economic opportunities that are available today, and training them for the future.
She is right that the task force has been established, and my right honourable friend Douglas Alexander met with Fife Council and the Scottish Government earlier today. The Government are committed to working with them to deliver a local response and, more broadly, to mitigate the impact on workers. That will include working with the partnership action for continuing employment and looking to support the 50 employees who are going to be retained to support the decommissioning until 2028, as well as the 50 who are being offered relocation and training packages to Exxon’s other assets.
My noble friend makes a very good point about looking broadly and making sure that this is in the context of the local economy.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister know any chief financial officer who talks down prospects for their company? Why does she think the Chancellor spent nine months talking down the UK economy, which has contributed to Grangemouth, Mossmorran and other factories closing down and the subsequent loss of jobs?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I do not agree with that commentary on our approach to the economy. In fact, I want to take some time to talk about the positive signs in the UK economy. The UK was the fastest-growing G7 economy over the first half of the year, with cumulative GDP growth at 0.9%. The IMF forecast the UK to be the second-fastest-growing economy in the G7 in 2025 and the third-fastest in 2026. I am sure that noble Lords frequently hear the Chancellor and the Prime Minister talking about the value of the inward investment into the United Kingdom. They have been integral to securing that inward investment, as this is an extremely investable country.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, it is clearly a tragedy for the petrochemical industry in terms of this plant in Scotland. However, in a way, it is only a precursor for the tsunami that is about to happen to the steel industry if we are not careful. As a third country to the European Union—which we unfortunately are now, due to the Conservative Party—we will now face 50% tariffs on our steel industry, 80% of our exports of which go to the European Union. Can the Minister update us on what her department is doing to prevent that wiping out of the UK steel industry that is about to happen, given our third country status?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The steel industry is incredibly important to the Government. As noble Lords know, the Government have taken action in respect of British Steel, and, as I outlined earlier, in respect of energy costs for the industry. My department has been engaging in discussions with EU counterparts on this to ensure that we properly understand what is going on. We will always take action to protect our industry.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, if no one else has another question, I will ask a very quick one. The Minister referred to £250 billion-worth of inward investment and 450,000 jobs that will be created. I do not expect her to have this information to hand, but would she be willing to commit to write to noble Lords who have participated in this debate with a list of the amounts dedicated, by whom, where and when, et cetera, particularly in reference to jobs? That is because, as we know, since the Government have taken power, 177,000 jobs have been lost.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Yes, I am quite happy to write as a follow-up. I think I said £250 billion, and I originally meant to say 45,000 jobs. I apologise; that was my error—but I can follow up on that point.
Lord Fox (LD)
Just to prolong the agony for slightly longer, when the Minister was answering the noble Lord’s question on oil and gas, she came up with a long list of very creditable investments and changes that are going on. When I was asking my question, I referred to the relative speed of creating jobs versus losing them. Does she accept that it is much easier and quicker to lose jobs than to create them? It is very important that this creative process keeps pace with the destruction process, otherwise we will lose even more skills than we are already.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
It is indeed very important that we continue to create jobs in highly productive, well-paid sectors, and that we provide the skills and training to a broad base of young and older people to take advantage of that. Whether that is through large, single-site companies or through the plethora of SMEs that can create jobs, it is important that we continue to focus on the productivity of our economy, so I agree with that point.