Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
Rolling out technical excellence colleges is one way that Labour is rewiring our skills system, to unlock opportunity for our young people and drive growth for our country, and alongside techs for construction, clean energy, digital and advanced manufacturing, they will build the talent pipeline to deliver our industrial strategy. Applications for defence technical excellence colleges will open shortly, creating pathways for engineers, cyber-experts, and technicians.
Will Stone
I thank the Minister for his response. Recently I have been engaging with fantastic defence companies such as Rowden Technologies. Its owner, Rob, is keen to support me setting up a technical college in Swindon to support our emerging drone cluster, so will the Minister meet me to see whether we can push that further?
Josh MacAlister
I appreciate my hon. Friend championing the work of local businesses such as Rowden’s, and other defence industries across the UK, and I will gladly ask my noble friend the Minister for Skills, who I am sure would welcome the opportunity to meet him in the coming weeks.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
The Government’s new relationships, sex and health education guidance will help to ensure that young people learn about healthy, respectful relationships, and understand that consent is essential. That supports our unprecedented mission to halve violence against women and girls within a decade.
Ian Roome
Many parents are concerned about how schools address the sensitive issues of consent and sexual violence. What action is the Department taking to ensure that those subjects are being taught in schools by appropriately trained professionals, to safeguard both pupils and teachers?
Olivia Bailey
That is exactly what our new RSHE guidance aims to do, to give schools the support they need to ensure that our young people are taught about healthy relationships, and to learn about critical concepts such as consent.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I know the Minister will share my concerns about some of the rise in regressive attitudes to sex, relationships and women among some subsets of young men, but far from being the drivers of that problem, young men should be the solution. Fantastic groups such as Beyond Equality show that at their heart, by giving young men spaces to explore their own sense of self, manhood, and healthy relationships on their own terms, they can have incredible and transformative impacts on gender attitudes to sex and a wider relationship ethos. How can we ensure that as part of our reforms we create more opportunities for those spaces at the heart of every young child’s education?
Olivia Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for all the work that he does on this important topic. I agree with him wholeheartedly, and I very much hope and expect that our work with schools to ensure that healthy relationships are taught in them will mean that young men get the exact space that he is asking for.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Kate Osamor (Edmonton and Winchmore Hill) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Tackling child poverty is a moral mission for the Labour party, because we believe that someone’s background should not determine what they go on to achieve in life. Scrapping the two-child limit will mean that we can deliver the largest reduction in child poverty in a single Parliament, and we will publish the child poverty strategy in the coming weeks.
Jim Dickson
The Government’s very welcome decision to end the two-child cap on benefits will, alongside free school meals and breakfast clubs, transform the lives of 2,500 children living in my Dartford constituency, and contribute to our manifesto goal of tackling child poverty. Will the Secretary of State tell the House when more schools in Dartford will be eligible to join the roll-out of free breakfast clubs to primary schools across the country?
Bridget Phillipson
Labour’s free breakfast clubs have already served 5 million meals, including in Knockhall primary school and Sedley’s primary school in Dartford. Applications are now open to join the next wave from April, with 2,000 more schools set to join in the next financial year, making the clubs available to half a million more children. I encourage eligible schools to get their applications in by the end of the week, so that we can give children in Dartford, and across our country, the best start to their day.
Kate Osamor
I welcome the announcement that the two-child benefit cap will be scrapped, lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. However, according to the Institute for Public Policy Research and Praxis, there are an estimated 382,000 children in poverty whose families are subject to no recourse to public funds and who will not be helped by that measure. Will the Secretary of State promise me that the child poverty strategy will include extra assistance for migrant households?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising her concern. We are working with the Home Office and with colleagues across Government in developing the child poverty strategy. We will focus on ensuring that vulnerable children are protected and their welfare is safeguarded, and that vulnerable migrant children receive the support they require.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Rural areas have deep pockets of deprivation, and nearly 18% of children in Glastonbury and Somerton live in poverty. How will the Minister ensure that the child poverty strategy sufficiently focuses on child poverty in rural areas?
Bridget Phillipson
I recognise the particular challenges faced by many rural communities, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising them. We have been considering such matters through the development of the strategy. The taskforce has been working across Government, including with colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to understand some of the challenges. We are expanding childcare and new free breakfast clubs, and the lifting of the two-child limit will make a big difference to children and their life chances in every corner of our country.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Teachers across Leicester South, where, in some areas, child poverty is unfortunately near 70%, tell me that student anxiety and poor health are rising, partly driven by insecure, damp and cold housing. Schools are unfortunately being forced to act as frontline welfare services, absorbing pressures that should never fall on teachers alone, such as helping people to fill in forms. Will the Minister reassure them that the child poverty strategy, which is to be published this week, will address the link between child poverty and poor health?
Bridget Phillipson
Yes, we are looking at that question and at the issue of temporary accommodation that the hon. Member raises. This is a cross-Government strategy and not for the Department for Education to solve alone, although the lifting of the two-child limit is an investment not just in our children and their life chances but in our schools and education. I have heard too many stories of teachers and staff across the country having to pick up the pieces because of wider societal failure. Ending the two-child limit rights that wrong, and invests in our young people.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
Our curriculum and assessment review recommended the introduction of new V-levels, which will simplify the qualification landscape while giving students choice and flexibility. The Department for Education is now consulting on plans to introduce the qualifications. We are also proposing the introduction of new T-levels.
Gareth Snell
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a governor of the City of Stoke-on-Trent sixth-form college. The Minister will know that the further education sector welcomes V-levels to fill the gap between T-levels and A-levels, but he will also know that the Department is continuing with a programme of defunding some existing BTECs before the V-levels come online, meaning that some young people will be denied the opportunity of the right course for them during their FE career. Will he seriously consider freezing the defunding programme until V-levels are online, so that we protect student choice for students now and in the future?
Josh MacAlister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue, and I will be happy to ask my noble Friend in the other place to meet him. The qualifications that we are defunding are large qualifications that directly overlap with T-levels. The Government’s policy is very clearly to back T-levels as a good choice for students in colleges.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
In Bath, our economy depends on highly skilled workers in engineering, the creative industries and the digital sector. Employers tell me time and again that the current apprenticeship system simply does not deliver the pipeline they need. Will the Government be serious about growth by replacing the broken apprenticeship system with a more flexible skills and training levy, as well as guaranteeing apprentices at least the national minimum wage?
Josh MacAlister
I thank the hon. Member for this timely question, following the Budget last week, when the Government made the welcome decision to change the apprenticeship system by fully funding apprenticeships for small and medium-sized enterprises, which will open up opportunities for many more. The latest data shows that under this Government, apprenticeship starts, progression and completion are up, up, up.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
The UK wants a consistent and mutually beneficial relationship with China. We should be frank about where we disagree, but also find targeted opportunities to collaborate. We are clear that any attempt by a foreign state to intimidate and coerce universities in the UK will not be tolerated. My Department is working with vice-chancellors to further our resilience.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer; I know that she takes the issue of Chinese influence incredibly seriously. The free speech legislation brought forward by the previous Government required the monitoring of bodies that are supported by the Chinese or funded and supported by the Government of China. That was dropped. Will the Secretary of State look at bringing it back?
Bridget Phillipson
I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s long-standing interest in this area. Our national security is of the utmost importance, and the Office for Students already has extensive powers to require information from providers to investigate any breaches. If we are to introduce new reporting requirements, we must ensure that they add value without being overly burdensome, but I can be absolutely clear to the right hon. Gentleman and to this House that we expect universities to be alert to risks and to take action.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
We know that academics at British universities have been harassed by Chinese agents and pressured by their own administrators to censor their work. Sheffield Hallam, for example, blocked research by Professor Laura Murphy into the treatment of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang. Ministers make noises, but we have not yet had any action. Following on from the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), when will the free speech legislation be enacted? Will Ministers commit to closing down every single Confucius institute in the country?
Bridget Phillipson
The hon. Gentleman references a particular institution, and the House will appreciate that I am not in a position to comment, given the ongoing investigations in that area. I can be clear to this House that any attempt to intimidate and coerce universities will not be tolerated. I should also be clear that as a country, we welcome Chinese students. Chinese students enrich our campuses and our communities. They will always be welcome, but where there is evidence of concerning behaviour or attempts to intimidate, universities can and must take action.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
With huge thanks to the work of Professor Becky Francis and the wider team, we are reforming the national curriculum to ensure that it sets up young people for success in a changing world. We are raising standards in oracy, reading, writing and maths, equipping every young person with the knowledge, skills and breadth of education they need to succeed. We will also deliver a digital national curriculum to ensure that teachers can teach a broad and rich curriculum, linking subjects and knowledge.
Jessica Toale
Last week during UK Parliament Week, I visited LEAF Studio, a specialist sports and performing arts school and sixth form in my Bournemouth West constituency. While all schools have welcomed the curriculum modernisation, I have a specific question from Mr Jones at LEAF Studio: will drama be made more accessible for children in the curriculum?
Georgia Gould
I can absolutely reassure Mr Jones that drama is included within English in the current national curriculum and is compulsory up to the age of 16. The Government plan to strengthen curriculum content for drama and English and ensure that GCSEs and arts subjects are fit for purpose. I know how much brilliant work drama teachers do, and how that supports children with self-expression and confidence, hopefully setting them up for many careers, including the one we are all here doing today.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
Year 9 students at Quarrydale academy in Ashfield are currently studying politics, and on their display board they had the words “extreme right-wing parties”, “Nazi party” and “fascism”. At the side of those words, they had pictures of Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and me. Does the Minister think that should be on the curriculum?
Georgia Gould
We have strict rules about political impartiality within our education system and we are clear about those rules. All schools should apply them.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
Last month’s curriculum review demonstrated that the Government are fixated on watering down the curriculum, whether that is scrapping the English baccalaureate or changing Progress 8. These changes will lower standards for our children and harm them in the long term. The Minister thanked Professor Becky Francis, and she was right to do so, so why have the Government ignored the independent curriculum review and decided to change Progress 8 and lower outcomes for our children?
Georgia Gould
I am surprised that the Conservatives are continuing to attack this curriculum review when it has been broadly welcomed by businesses, by schools and by education leaders. Our response has also been broadly welcomed. The review strengthens standards, forms a new statutory year 8 reading test and improves access to triple science. It will engage young people who have fallen out of education. It includes a strong focus on standards and a focus on breadth—we want our young people to have both. The previous Government did not invest in the arts, and we are continuing to invest and rebuild in the arts in our curriculum.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
We back teachers to take the necessary steps to keep classrooms safe and calm, which starts with early identification and help. That is why we are focusing on support given to children and families in the early years, and why our upcoming schools White Paper will transform support for children with special educational needs.
Cameron Thomas
While the suspension rate for pupils without identified special educational needs declined by 75% in the 2024 autumn term, suspensions for pupils with an education, health and care plan increased, according to the Department for Education’s own data. I have previously urged the Government to tackle this crisis centrally, as local authorities across the country continue to prove to be unable to manage. With their SEND reforms already delayed until 2026, how will the Government bridge this divide to ensure that every child is able to succeed at school?
Olivia Bailey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his interest in this important issue, and I recognise the statistics to which he refers. The Government take the issue extremely seriously and we will be setting out our plans in the White Paper in due course. We are investing in the early years, which is my own area, and ensuring that we have the Best Start in Life family hubs in our communities and SEND-trained professionals, so that we can identify special educational needs early and give children the support that they need before problems escalate.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
The Minister will be aware of the horrific case of Harvey Willgoose, who was stabbed to death by a fellow pupil who had previously brought an axe into school. Parents are rightly worried about such situations, so does the Minister agree that safety must come first and that any child who brings a knife into school must be expelled, regardless of their background—no ifs, no buts?
Olivia Bailey
The case that the hon. Member raises is absolutely horrific. If a child has brought a knife into school, I do not think that there is a headteacher anywhere in the country who would think that that child should continue to be in school.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
In July, the Secretary of State promised a better SEND system, with strengthened support, improved access and more funding, yet even a charitable interpretation of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s analysis of the Government’s decision, announced at the Budget, to absorb SEND funding into core budgets shows several billion pounds of unfunded SEND commitments. Parents around the country are worried that the support that they have fought hard for their children to receive may now be taken away. Will she explain how she will deliver strengthened support, while seemingly having to cut billions from SEND funding through upcoming reforms? Can she guarantee that children will not lose support because of this change?
Olivia Bailey
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, but I encourage her to read the documents from the Treasury and the OBR. I am glad to have the opportunity to clarify the matter, given the wilful misrepresentation of the situation by the Conservative party. Those deficits are council deficits—they will not be coming from the schools’ budgets. In fact, over the course of this Parliament, this Government will be investing more into SEND. It is irresponsible for Opposition Members to cause such concern to families when they know full well that what they are saying is wrong.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
The Government’s mission is to open up opportunity for every child and we are working with schools across the country to strengthen attainment. That includes regional improvement for excellence and standards teams, recruiting 6,500 teachers, a refreshed high-quality curriculum and tackling barriers to attainment, including child poverty.
Connor Naismith
I am concerned about attainment levels across secondary schools in Crewe, where, on average, only about 46% of pupils achieve a grade 4 in English and maths. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what further support we can provide to our hard-working school leaders and teaching staff to help raise outcomes and ensure that every child in Crewe gets the opportunities that they deserve?
Georgia Gould
I know how hard the leaders, teachers and support staff in Crewe will be working, and we want to get behind them to deliver outcomes for students. We will support schools to use formative assessments in writing and maths, and introduce a new statutory reading test for all year 8 pupils, to prevent children slipping through the net. Of course, I will be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this further.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I welcome the ambition for greater attainment, but does the Minister agree that cancelling the large programme uplift funding for schools offering the international baccalaureate, as the Government have recently done, has left year 11 students, particularly at schools like Tonbridge grammar school, which I have the privilege to represent, somewhat lost and therefore struggling to achieve the attainment of which she speaks?
Georgia Gould
Colleges can continue to fund the international baccalaureate. We are focused on raising standards for all students, and we are already seeing the difference that that is making in increased attendance and increased investment in the school system.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
I appreciate the strength of feeling regarding the adoption and special guardianship support fund. Last month, I met campaigners, adopters and those running adoption services to discuss their views. This year, we have invested £50 million in the adoption and special guardianship support fund, and we have approved applications for nearly 14,000 children since April. I want to work with families and those delivering adoption support towards a positive and sustainable solution for the future.
Alison Bennett
Alison Roy is a constituent of mine. She is a therapist and works with adopted children. Last week, she drew to my attention the BBC Radio 4 programme “File on 4” on the impact and state of adoption, which highlighted that more than 1,000 adopted children have been returned to care in the past five years. Does the Minister think that per-child cuts to the ASGSF will help or hinder keeping children with their adoptive families?
Josh MacAlister
I thank the hon. Member for drawing the attention of the House to a very powerful radio documentary, which I listened to last week. We do not have perfect data on this issue, but the data that we do have shows that cumulative adoption breakdowns have been at a rate of 4.8% over the past 12 years. I think that is too high, and it is the view of the Government that it is too high. We want to ensure that we get adoption support right for families, and I will go through a process of engagement with those who work in the sector and families affected to ensure that we can make improvements to it in the future.
Lisa Smart
I am an adoptive auntie, and I know the power that comes to young children when they are in a stable, loving family and the impact that that can have on their lives. One of my constituents from Romiley tells me that despite a likely diagnosis of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder for two of her three adopted children, their therapy funding will soon come to an abrupt end, and there is no clarity on whether it will be extended. The only way she can see for her family and for many others like them to achieve safety, security and certainty for their children is through that support. Will the Minister update the House on whether they plan to extend the adoption and special guardianship support fund? If so, will they consider making a multi-year funding guarantee to offer adoptive families and—let us face it—some of the country’s most vulnerable children greater certainty about future support?
Josh MacAlister
We want to ensure a sustainable, long-term future for adoption support in this country. I will set out plans in the near future that will hopefully address a number of the concerns that the hon. Member has mentioned. That sits on top of the really quite widespread changes and improvements we are making to children’s social care, with £2.4 billion of investment over the next three years to ensure that earlier family help is there for all families, regardless of their legal status, whether they are an adopter or a birth parent.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I met people from my regional adoption agency just last Thursday—I thank them and all their partners for their excellent work—who raised the adoption and special guardianship support fund, recognising that the quantum in resource is not there and that the demand is so high. Will the Minister meet the all-party parliamentary group on adoption and permanence to talk about the future of the fund and work with people who have lived experience to ensure that we get it right in the future?
Josh MacAlister
I know that my hon. Friend has been a long-standing campaigner and champion for these issues. When I was doing the independent review of children’s social care, she was a powerful voice advocating for support for adopters, and has continued to be one. I will gladly speak to and meet the all-party parliamentary group.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
In 2017, the Government’s spending watchdog estimated that free schools would create 57,500 surplus places. This Government took the sensible, pragmatic decision to pause a number of proposed free schools due to real concerns about value for money. We recognise the need for clarity, and we will provide a substantive update on this project and others in the mainstream pipeline review very soon.
Jim McMahon
The previous Government announced the free schools for sixth-formers programme over two years ago. It is now over a year since this Government announced a review of that programme, meaning that the local authority, alongside parents and other sixth-form providers, has been waiting over two years to find out whether Eton Star sixth-form college will go ahead. Can I urge the Government to give clarity on that programme before Christmas?
Of course, that deals with academic education, but vocational education in my town is important too. Can I ask the Government to pay some attention to the mismatch between apprenticeship vacancies and when children are leaving school? So few vacancies are advertised in July and August; the highest number of vacancies is in February, six months after young people have left school. Surely there is a mismatch?
Josh MacAlister
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. As somebody who was a teacher in Oldham, I know many of the institutions he is referring to, and I particularly know about the great work that is done by Oldham sixth-form college and the secondary schools in his constituency. We want to make sure that where we are spending significant sums on capital investment, which the Budget and the spending review allow us to do, it reflects the Government’s priorities around special educational needs and extra school places. We want to get that right, and we will provide an update very soon to my hon. Friend and others.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
As was mentioned earlier, the Government took the sensible, pragmatic decision to pause a number of free school applications in order to consider real concerns about value for money and to make sure new places are created in parts of the country that need them.
Paul Holmes
Parents and pupils deserve a school system that builds on success, not one that holds it back. The coalition Government opened 24 free schools in 500 days, yet this Government have spent over 400 days reviewing 44 already-approved schools. Free schools outperform non-selective state schools at every key stage, so why are this Government blocking more children from accessing a good education?
Josh MacAlister
There is a very simple answer to that question: the last Government left us with crumbling school buildings and a limited capital budget to allocate across the entire school estate. We have to balance rebuilding crumbling school buildings—which, as the National Audit Office and others have highlighted, were in a deteriorated state—with the need to prioritise extra school places in parts of the country that need them. That is what the country expects from us.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The special needs budget mess is not the only uncertainty caused by this Government. The special needs White Paper is overdue, and 44 approved mainstream free schools and a number of approved special needs schools are in limbo. Schools, trusts or councils that want to open new special needs schools do not know the policy, the budget, or whether they will be allowed to open at all, so by what date will we get the White Paper? When will we get an answer to the budget mess, and when will we be told whether those free schools can go ahead? The Minister has just said “very soon”, but we had been promised an answer before Christmas. Will he get on with it?
Josh MacAlister
The reason this Government need to create a policy and a budget for this system is that it was left in a complete mess—not that many months ago, the former Education Secretary described it as a “lose, lose, lose” situation. Getting the special educational needs system right and fixing it will take time, but we have already put £740 million of capital into the system. As the hon. Member highlighted, there is a list of special school projects; we are looking through those projects now, and will make a decision very soon.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
The Department is working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England to improve access to community health services, including speech and language therapy for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, and we have extended the early language support for every child programme.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
Currently, about 60,000 children are waiting for their first speech and language therapy appointment, and some are waiting for over a year. As with a lot of SEND problems, this happens because health and education are not working that well together. Can the Minister tell me what we are doing to bring allied health professionals—including speech and language therapists—closer to schools, so that families do not fall through the cracks?
Georgia Gould
I welcomed the opportunity to discuss this issue with my hon. Friend last week, and I am grateful for his work on the Health and Social Care Committee on the subject. We agreed about the need for partners to work together to fix the SEND system, and I will be working closely with Ministers from the Department of Health and Social Care to move towards a better system which works for all.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
My constituency sits in Kirklees, which continues to face some of the most severe pressures in the country in relation to high needs and SEND provision, including long waits for EHCP assessments and strained specialist support. What additional resources will the Department provide to ensure that children with special educational needs and disabilities in areas such as my constituency receive timely and proper support?
Georgia Gould
In this financial year we have already put £1 billion into the high needs budget and £740 million into specialist places around the country. We are committed to helping schools to provide an inclusive service, and we will be setting out more plans in the schools White Paper.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
We are committed to investing in improving the SEND system, and, as I said a moment ago, we have invested an extra £1 billion in the high needs block and £740 million in specialist places. The core schools budget for 2026-27 will total £67 billion, an increase from £65.3 million in 2025-26. That additional funding will provide an above-real-terms per-pupil increase in overall schools funding, which will take per-pupil funding to its highest ever level and help us to transform the SEND system.
Clive Jones
In Wokingham there are not enough SEND places for pupils, which means that they have to travel outside the borough and sometimes a long way from their homes to go to school. In 2022, Wokingham bid for two SEND schools and were given those two schools, but nothing has happened since then; the Government have still not committed any funding to the schools. Will the Minister tell me now when the funding will be released so that the council can start building them?
Georgia Gould
We are absolutely committed to the education of children in their local communities, and I have seen the difference that the £740 million we have put into specialist places has made: children can now be educated in resource bases linked to schools. In relation to the two schools that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, as the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), said earlier, we hope to provide those answers as soon as possible.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
This morning I visited the Nido Volans Centre, a specialist college in my constituency, and enjoyed a delicious cup of tea made by two students, Marco and Jason. Nido Volans means “Fly the Nest”, and the college provides education and training on independent living and employability skills for young people with special educational needs and disabilities up to the age of 25. Will the Secretary of State join me in celebrating Natspec’s The Power of Specialist FE Awareness Week, and will she assure me that the Government’s SEND reform proposals will fully recognise the vital role of specialist colleges and the need for sustainable funding, so that every young person who can benefit from a specialist college placement has access to one?
Georgia Gould
I should very much like to celebrate this week, and I agree about the importance of access to specialist colleges and helping children into work. I have visited specialist providers and seen how proud headteachers are to be helping children into supported internships and helping them with their next steps. They are doing incredibly important work. Our schools White Paper examines how we can help children with special educational needs to thrive into adulthood.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
On 16 June I asked the Secretary of State what she understood to be the drivers behind the phenomenon of the exponential rise in the number of children with special educational needs. She replied:
“My Department, and the Department of Health and Social Care, are keen to understand…the drivers”.—[Official Report, 16 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 11.]
May I ask what work the Secretary of State has done in the intervening six months, and what she understands better today than she did on 16 June?
Georgia Gould
Again, we are absolutely committed to supporting children with special educational needs, and to understanding why we are seeing increases. Much of the evidence suggests that we are much better at diagnosing and understanding their needs, which is a positive development, but we are continuing to work with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to review the evidence and understand how we can best intervene and support children—and, critically, not have to wait for a diagnosis, but be able to support children at the point when needs emerge.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I really welcome the Government’s increasing funding for SEND. However, almost 8,000 children in Liverpool now require an EHCP. The number has doubled over the past three years, with many parents struggling to find a school place that meets the needs of their child. Can the Minister please provide assurances to the Liverpool Parents and Carers Forum that the plan in the Budget to move the financial responsibility for SEND from local authorities to the Department for Education will be given the funding it needs to provide support to children who need it, including for earlier intervention, adequate specialist places and inclusive mainstream support?
Georgia Gould
I can assure my hon. Friend that we are already investing in special educational needs, and we will continue to invest in special educational needs.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
Learning to enjoy books is a critical foundation for every child. As we get ready for the National Year of Reading in Hartlepool and across the country, our new “best start in life” family hubs will support families to read, and new books and libraries for schools will ensure that the benefits of reading reach right into adulthood.
Mr Brash
My constituent Lyndsay Hogg has successfully brought a Penguin little library to her community in Hartlepool. It is designed to celebrate Penguin’s 90th anniversary, and the aim is to promote the joy of reading. Hartlepool borough council’s leader, Labour’s Pamela Hargreaves, inspired by Lyndsay’s brilliant work, has promised to expand this excellent idea right across the town. Does the Minister agree that this fantastic initiative will help families with access to books and inspire a love of reading, and will she commit to visiting Hartlepool to see these little libraries for herself?
Olivia Bailey
I do agree. I would love to visit, and I congratulate Lyndsay Hogg and Hartlepool borough council on this brilliant idea. “Matilda” is one of my favourite Penguin books, and it is a perfect allegory for our times: smart women who love reading standing up to snake oil salesmen and bullies.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Reading to children at the start of nursery and school is especially important for those who suffer from special educational needs. As we heard last week, the Office for Budget Responsibility has questioned the £6 billion that has been taken away from local authorities. I know that the whole House wants to resolve the issue of SEND, so can the Minister give an assurance about when we will get further details to make sure that, by 2028, the whole sector knows how each child will get the best provision possible, especially those in South West Hertfordshire?
Olivia Bailey
I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s question already, so I will simply say that this Government are completely committed to ensuring that every child gets the best possible start in life, including by repairing the broken system of family support services, which were decimated by the Conservatives, and by ensuring that every single child has the opportunity to read, to talk to their friends, to play, to communicate, to get ready for school and to have the best possible start in life.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
I have seen the difference that fully accessible schools make for young people. Pupils have proudly shown me the sensory spaces that they use to self-regulate, and schools have helped create inclusion hubs, supporting young people to thrive. The Department has invested £740 million in high needs capital to support children and young people with SEND, including through adapting classrooms to improve accessibility.
Vikki Slade
Over the last 16 months, I have visited most of my 42 schools—some more than once—so I have seen some really effective use of occupational therapy principles, such as removing sensory triggers and updating lighting and layouts. At Colehill first school, the staff have simplified and rectified the décor throughout the school, and are looking to invest in wooden and natural materials to create a calming environment. However, schools in Mid Dorset and North Poole receive over £2,000 per pupil per year less than those in other parts of the country, so there is little left for this sort of project. Given the focus on inclusion, what can the Minister offer in terms of smaller capital grants to fund this work?
Georgia Gould
I thank the hon. Member for sharing those wonderful examples of best practice. That is the work we want to do to ensure that all our schools are inclusive, and there is obviously a lot to learn from her constituency. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), will bring forward an estate strategy, and we will continue to invest in specialist places within mainstream schools.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Failed, humiliated and made to feel too much trouble for schools to look after—that is how one Derby mum says she and her son, who has cerebral palsy, felt when, after a staggering 14 months out of school, he was offered a school place that still did not meet his needs. Does the Minister agree that we urgently need to invest in schools to ensure that their facilities are fit to enable children with special educational needs to attend fully?
Georgia Gould
I am so sorry to hear that story. Sadly, I have heard too many such stories, of children kept out of education because schools are unable to meet their needs. That is the legacy we inherited, and that is why we are investing £740 million in improving the accessibility of our school buildings.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Last month, the independent curriculum and assessment review published its final report, and I would like to reiterate my thanks to Professor Becky Francis and the panel for all their work. We will reform progress 8 to balance a strong academic core with breadth and student choice, so that every child can both achieve academically and thrive personally, and we will consult on this shortly.
Damian Hinds
Professor Francis was clear that the EBacc grouping should be kept in the progress 8 measure under the heading “Academic Breadth”. The Government have overruled the review, which is quite a big thing to do. The Secretary of State herself used to be a student of modern languages. Have they learned nothing from their terrible error in 2004, or what does she have today against modern languages and humanities?
Bridget Phillipson
I do love modern languages, and I was a very keen student of them myself, but I am afraid that, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, the EBacc did not drive improved access to modern foreign languages. He knows that—he will have looked at the data. I do not think that the system as it stands provides the right balance: it unnecessarily constrains student choice, it affects students’ engagement, and it has hampered progress in subjects that strengthen our economy and society. I believe in high standards, strong foundations and academic achievement, but I also believe that access to music, sport and vocational subjects should be the right of every child, not just the lucky few.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
The Department has invested £740 million in high needs capital in 2025-26 to support place creation for children and young people with SEND. Local authorities can use this funding to create specialist places in mainstream schools, enhance accessibility and provide special school places for pupils with the most complex needs.
Bob Blackman
I thank the Minister for that answer. The last Government approved the new SEND school in Harrow, which is supported on a cross-party basis and by all headteachers in Harrow. At the moment, young children have to travel an hour and a half each way to get to specialist schools, which is costing the taxpayer huge amounts of money, and that is unacceptable for those children with special educational needs. All we need is the Department to give its approval, and that school could go ahead and start almost immediately. If this funding is available, will she make it available to the London borough of Harrow to start the school that everyone wants?
Georgia Gould
The last Government approved a huge number of things that were not funded, which is why this Government were left with a black hole that we are sorting out. I have travelled around the country talking to parents, and we have heard time and again about how they were failed by the last Government. We are investing in the SEND system. In answer to the hon. Member’s specific question about the school, we will be coming forward with more plans shortly.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Labour believes that background should not determine what people go on to achieve in life. We see child poverty as a moral scar on our country. When last in government, we lifted 600,000 children out of poverty. During their time in government, the Tories plunged 900,000 children into poverty. The seismic decision taken at last week’s Budget to remove the appalling two-child limit will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, and that will rise to 550,000 children along with other measures such as the expansion of free school meals. This will drive the largest expected reduction in child poverty in a Parliament, transforming life chances, investing in our children and delivering for schools.
Joe Robertson
The Government have taken responsibility for SEND funding away from local authorities such as the Isle of Wight council, but they cannot explain where the money is coming from. Surely the Secretary of State understands how concerned parents are up and down the country. She can reassure them right now and explain where the money is coming from, or is she, in fact, planning cuts?
Bridget Phillipson
I recognise the very real worry that parents across the country have about the system of support for children with SEND, which the hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party left on its knees. He would do well to reassure parents, not to scaremonger. I suggest that he goes away from here, reads the Budget document and what the OBR has to say, and does not listen to those on his Front Bench.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
I am really grateful for the work of that school. I set out today the further investment we are putting into schools, including into special educational needs. We are focusing our funding on all schools, but particularly on supporting schools in the most deprived areas.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
There is a good reason why we have an independent economic forecaster in this country. That is because, thankfully, it does not let the Government get away with saying that £6 billion can be absorbed across Government at a time when the spending review has already allocated all the money. So let us have no more of this nonsense: where is the £6 billion coming out of? Is it SEND or is it schools?
Bridget Phillipson
Let me be absolutely clear: these are council deficits. They will not be coming from school budgets. Over the course of this Parliament, we are investing more in SEND. We are picking up the pieces of a system on its knees left behind by the party opposite. Either the right hon. Lady has not read what the OBR has to say, or she is wilfully seeking to mislead parents and to scaremonger. It was not a priority for her in her conference speech; it is not a priority for her now.
Mr Speaker
Sorry, but we cannot get away with “mislead”—that is like “lying”. I am sure that the Secretary of State will wish to withdraw the comment.
Laura Trott
The right hon. Lady can rail against the forecasts, the Tories, her own leaky Back Benchers and probably, privately, the Treasury all she likes, but the spending review has set departmental budgets for the year in question. There is not £6 billion down the back of the sofa, so unless she can say where else the £6 billion is coming from out of Government resource departmental expenditure limits—clearly, she just failed to do so—it must be coming out of schools or SEND. So let us try again: will she be straight with teachers, parents and her own Back Benchers, and tell us what is being cut? Is it SEND or is it schools?
Bridget Phillipson
I do not know whether the right hon. Lady listened to what I just said. It is not coming out of school budgets. [Interruption.] We are investing—
Mr Speaker
Order. Please—[Interruption.] Order. It is not helpful for the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) to speak back at me either—that is completely wrong. And if we are setting educational standards, I do not think this is a good way of doing it.
Bridget Phillipson
The OBR published projections about SEND costs alongside the Budget. They were hypothetical illustrations, which the right hon. Lady would know if she went away and read the OBR document. The Treasury has been clear that the cost will be covered across overall budgets, but we are investing more in SEND and more in capital. We are delivering for our children and will be setting out further plans for reform next year. If she wants to work with us to get this right, I would be grateful—
Mr Speaker
Order. Please, we need to get more people in. I call Lauren Edwards.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. My noble Friend the Minister for Skills is working across both Departments to ensure that we bring the very important work on careers and early entry to work programmes together across the Government. I have myself seen great collaboration between both Departments in my own constituency. The Government are still committed to improving work experience for children in secondary schools and early careers education as well.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
We found out last week that the international student levy will raise £445 million from our universities, but only 1% of that will go to the maintenance grants that Ministers have claimed to justify this damaging tax on our universities. Worse still, the flat fee design hits hardest the universities doing the most to serve students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether more or fewer disadvantaged students will access university as a result of this policy?
Bridget Phillipson
We are investing the international student levy into support around skills and access to high-quality further and higher education colleges targeted at students who most need that support in subjects most closely aligned to our industrial strategy and Government priorities. That will make a huge difference to young people from not very well-off backgrounds, allowing them to access university. We are backing our universities with the measures that we have set out on tuition fee increases, which will give our institutions stability.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Bridget Phillipson
The Conservatives might not be serious about tackling child poverty, but the Labour party is and always has been. This Government will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, alongside other measures such as Best Start family hubs, expanding childcare and new free breakfast clubs—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I think I have heard enough; I do not need a running commentary on whether somebody might or might not be a turkey. Okay, let us move on.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
Georgia Gould
I will look into the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised. It would be very helpful if he could write to me on those issues.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
Bridget Phillipson
That is why we have put an extra £1 billion into high needs budgets this year. The capital the right hon. Gentleman so casually dismisses is in order to deliver more specialist places for children closer to home, including in mainstream schools. He must surely recognise that the system we have at the moment just is not working; I have heard from too many parents and too many schools that change is needed. If the Conservatives want to get serious about that change and work constructively on a big challenge we face, I would really welcome that. Sadly, however, we just get these cheap shots all the time.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Josh MacAlister
My hon. Friend himself was an apprentice before entering this place, and he welcomed the Secretary of State to his constituency to open a construction technical excellence college not that long ago. The main thing that I took away from the Budget last week, which is extremely welcome, is that we will fully fund apprenticeships at small and medium-sized enterprises for people aged 16 to 24 from the next academic year, which will do a lot to answer my hon. Friend’s question.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
A game of strategy, tactics and sometimes outright brinkmanship might sound familiar to the Cabinet at the moment, but I am actually talking about chess. Meadow View primary school in my constituency has qualified for the London chess classic, which takes place tomorrow. Will the Education Secretary join me in congratulating the pupils on getting so far and wishing them luck?
Bridget Phillipson
I absolutely join the right hon. Lady in wishing those pupils the very best. It is a wonderful opportunity for all the young people taking part.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Red Hall primary school in Lower Gornal is sited on either side of a busy road, connected by a zebra crossing. Children are put at risk each day as they cross between the sites, as there is no patrolling and frequent unsafe driving. I have urged the council to act. What work is my right hon. Friend doing with the Secretary of State for Transport to ensure adequate funding and support for road safety?
Josh MacAlister
If my hon. Friend writes to me with the details, I would be very happy to speak to colleagues at the Department for Transport.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Despite the Secretary of State’s robust answer on Chinese influence on academia, dare I set her a little homework? If she would like to take a look at the relevant section of the non-partisan Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on China, published in July 2023, she would find a lot of interesting and worrying information in it.
Bridget Phillipson
I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s expertise and interest in this area, and I would be very happy to look at that report.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
I was pleased to see that the forthcoming curriculum reforms acknowledge the importance of financial capability for young people, but there is the immediate challenge of the scant financial education that exists now, which must be addressed. Can the Minister update the House on how the Department is working with civil society and the financial sector to ensure that young people are getting quality financial education now?
Georgia Gould
Young people always tell me how important it is for them to get a financial education. It is something we recognised in our response to the curriculum review, and that we are committed to working with civil society to deliver. If my hon. Friend has ideas of organisations that we can work with, we would be very open to that conversation.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
In Herefordshire, families of children with special educational needs, and indeed Herefordshire council, have been waiting more than 18 months for an update on two crucial schools: a new free school, with specialist provision for children with autism spectrum disorder, and the rebuild of Westfield special school. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can make progress on ensuring that those vital school places are provided locally?
Josh MacAlister
As I have previously said to the House, it is really important that we get the policy regarding special educational needs and the future of the schools system in exactly the right place. We are getting there, and very soon I will be able to share an update on those projects. I would be happy to meet the hon. Member in the near future.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
City of York council has gone from “requires improvement” to “outstanding” in all areas due to the innovation it is driving. In particular, it has been working on halving the number of children in social care, ending the use of agency workers and setting up a SEND hub. The director of children’s social care would like the Secretary of State to visit. Will she come to York and see what we are doing?
Bridget Phillipson
I was recently in York with our hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), but I would be delighted to return and to talk about the brilliant progress that the council has been making in those important areas.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
My constituents want politicians to work on a cross-party basis to improve SEND education. Is the Secretary of State committed to working cross-party, and if so, what steps is she taking to do that?
Bridget Phillipson
I would love to do that, but sadly what we have heard from the Conservatives this afternoon demonstrates the challenge we face as a Government in engaging seriously on these big and deep questions. We will always engage with Members of Parliament from across the House as we bring forward reforms, but I suggest that the hon. Member asks his hon. Friends to get serious about making change happen.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The NSPCC revealed that in 2022-23 some 9,000 sexual abuse offences that were recorded by police involved an online element. What has been done in schools to improve children’s safety online and to ensure that whatever changes need to be made are made now?
Josh MacAlister
Strengthening our child protection system is a key priority for this Government. Very soon we will bring forward plans for the child protection authority. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill contains a number of measures that would make a big difference to the safety of children across the UK, although those measures are unfortunately being blocked and frustrated by colleagues in other corners of this House.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
There is nowhere in the DFE budget from which £6 billion could possibly come other than the core schools budget, so either SEN funding is being cut, the core schools budget is being cut—that implies 5% per head—or the Secretary of State has an explicit agreement with the Chancellor for the money to come from somewhere else, or from new taxes. Which is it?
Bridget Phillipson
It is not coming from the core schools budget—I could not be more clear. It will come from across Government budgets, and it is a matter for the next spending review. [Interruption.] It is! Alongside that, we will set out reforms in the new year to improve outcomes for children with SEND—something that the right hon. Member and the Conservative party failed to do over 14 years. They should hang their heads in shame at what they left behind.
Mr Speaker
Order. Given that the following statement arrived late, Front-Bench Members need extra time to read it, so we will suspend the House until 3.42 pm.
Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
I would like to make a statement to the House on two separate but related matters. The first is regarding communication with the public in the lead-up to the Budget. I understand that this is a topic that has held much interest and speculation over the weekend and I would like to take this opportunity to give a formal statement to the House on the Government’s position. Secondly, the Government have also today received the results of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s investigation into the early release of the “Economic and fiscal outlook” at the Budget last week. I know that the House will be concerned to know the findings of that report, and I will turn to that in a moment.
On the first point, the Chancellor has been consistent and up front with the public about her considerations in the lead-up to the Budget last week. First, she was clear on her priorities at the Budget, which were to cut NHS waiting lists, to cut the cost of living and to cut our debt and borrowing. The Budget delivered on those priorities. Secondly, she was clear on 4 November that a lower productivity forecast would mean lower tax receipts. The OBR confirmed at the Budget that tax receipts are £16 billion lower as a result of the reduced productivity forecast.
Thirdly, the Chancellor was clear on 4 November that she intended to build more headroom. She has done that, with headroom against the stability rule of £21.7 billion. Fourthly, she was clear in the summer that the policy decisions we took on welfare would need to be paid for at the Budget, and the Budget document shows those decisions costing £6.9 billion in 2029-30. Finally, the OBR has now confirmed that the Chancellor knew on 4 November that she had only £4.2 billion of headroom against her fiscal rules, meaning that once the cost of those policy decisions was accounted for, there would be a deficit of £2.7 billion against the stability rule.
The combined effect of this information is that on 4 November, the Chancellor knew that the Government would be in deficit against the stability rule before any of this Government’s priorities for the Budget had been delivered, or any additional headroom built. In the light of that information, and knowing about the OBR’s productivity downgrade, the Chancellor knew on 4 November that challenging decisions would be required on tax and spend. The subsequent decision to freeze personal tax thresholds for a further three years shows that this was correct.
The Chancellor took the step of delivering a speech before the Budget, precisely so that she could be up front about the circumstances that she was facing and the decisions that she would need to take. She has been honest and consistent with the public in everything she has said.
Last Wednesday, before the Chancellor began her Budget speech, the Office for Budget Responsibility published its entire “Economic and fiscal outlook” online. Let me be clear: this is a very serious breach of highly sensitive information. It is a fundamental breach of the OBR’s responsibility; it is a discourtesy to this House, and it should never have happened. The OBR rightly took full responsibility and issued an apology to the Chancellor later that day. It has conducted an investigation into how the report came to be published prematurely, and it sent its report, including its findings, to the Treasury and the Treasury Committee today at 12.30 pm. The report states:
“We are in no doubt that this failure to protect information prior to publication has inflicted heavy damage on the OBR’s reputation. It is the worst failure in the 15-year history of the OBR.”
It adds that the
“responsibility for the circumstances in which this vulnerability occurred and was then exposed rests, over the years, with the leadership of the OBR.”
The report notes that this has
“inflicted heavy damage on the OBR’s reputation”,
and caused significant disruption on Budget day,
“to the Chancellor’s disadvantage”.
The report goes on to make it clear that a significant and long-standing issue has allowed external users to gain early access to the OBR’s publication, which contains full details of its forecasts and the Chancellor’s Budget.
In the days since the Budget, there has been speculation about the kind of error that led to the “Economic and fiscal outlook” being published early. The report today confirms that the cause was not
“simply a matter of pressing the publication button on a locally managed website too early.”
The report concludes that the cause of the OBR’s error was “systemic issues”, and that the investigation has made it clear that
“the problem exposed last week was not a new one.”
Indeed, the report reveals that the OBR’s EFO in March was accessed before the Chancellor delivered the spring statement to the House. That underlines just how serious the situation is. Let me underline that as a Government, we take seriously the need to ensure that the OBR never allows this to happen again.
The report notes that common and fairly basic protections to prevent early access, including passwords and random-character URLs, were not used. It further notes that two configuration errors, which were not understood by the OBR’s online publishing function, prevented the safeguards in its online publishing software from being effective.
I am also very concerned that the report notes that
“it is very likely that the weaknesses that caused the premature accessing of the November 2025 EFO were pre-existing. Indeed, it appears that the March 2025 EFO was accessed prematurely”.
These findings are very serious indeed. The fact that market-sensitive information was prematurely accessible to a small group of market participants is extremely concerning, and the fact that this may have been the case on more than one occasion makes the situation even more severe. We do not know at this stage the extent to which market behaviour may have been affected on this or other occasions as a result of information being available early.
I want to share one further bit of information from the report with the House. On the morning of the Budget, the first IP address to successfully access the EFO had made 32 prior attempts that day, starting at around 5 am. That volume of requests implies that the person attempting to access the document had every confidence that persistence would lead to success at some point. Unfortunately, that leads us to consider whether the reason they tried so persistently to access the EFO is because they had been successful at a previous fiscal event. At this time, we do not have answers to all those questions, but the Treasury will make contact with previous Chancellors, to make them aware of developments relating to previous fiscal events. The OBR has rightly conducted its initial investigation as quickly as possible, and it is right that both the Government and the Treasury Committee now take time to consider the report and its findings. The Treasury Committee will have the opportunity to carefully question the OBR tomorrow, at its post-Budget hearing.
Furthermore, in response to paragraph 3.4 of the report, which set out that the problem exposed last week is not new, I can confirm to the House that the Government will work in conjunction with the National Cyber Security Centre to take forward the recommendation that a forensic examination of other fiscal events be carried out—although I note that the report finds no evidence of hostile cyber-activity. In addition, the report says that the OBR
“could not, in the time available, carry out a deeper forensic examination of other recent Economic and Fiscal Outlook events and we recommend that such an exercise is, with expert support, now urgently carried out”.
We will make sure that work is carried out urgently. We will look at wider questions of the systemic risk that this incident has uncovered, including the report’s conclusion that the OBR’s information security arrangements
“should have been regularly re-examined and assured by the management of the OBR.”
This Government are committed to the independence of the OBR and its role at the heart of economic and fiscal policy making. The Chancellor and the whole of the Treasury value the independence of the OBR and our constructive relationship with it over the past 16 months, in challenging economic times. The strength of that institution is a vital pillar in the Government’s economic and fiscal policy making, and we will respond to this matter with the seriousness it demands.
Mr Speaker
In the light of press reports on this matter, I remind the House of the rules and conventions relating to parliamentary language. As “Erskine May” sets out, unless a discussion is based on a substantive motion, certain personal criticisms, including accusations of lying or deliberately misleading the House, are not permitted. I know that the House will want to be at its best. We take this very seriously.
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
I begin with the matter of the report on the OBR leak. We will of course study that report in detail, but as the right hon. Gentleman concluded by saying, “We will respond to this matter with the seriousness it demands”, I seek immediate reassurance that this will not include scapegoating the OBR to distract from the serious questions surrounding the handling of the Budget by the Chancellor, Ministers, the Treasury and No. 10.
Let me turn to the other matters that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury addressed in his statement. We expect those in positions of power to act with transparency, openness and integrity, but it is increasingly clear that, in recent weeks, the conduct of people in Government fell short of those standards. That is not just my view; indeed, a member of the Cabinet is quoted in today’s press as saying:
“The handling of this Budget has been a disaster from start to finish.”
The impression has been given that there was a concerted attempt to paint an inaccurate picture of the public finances, designed to give political cover for policy decisions around increases in taxes and welfare spending. On 4 November, the Chancellor delivered a pre-Budget statement in Downing Street, in which she said that the OBR would be downgrading its productivity forecasts, meaning lower tax receipts. The Chancellor herself says that the statement was meant to set the context relating to the public finances and the need take difficult decisions on tax, but—this is the key point that the right hon. Gentleman did not address—she failed to mention that the net result, in the OBR’s review of the economy, was that there was an increase in tax revenues, not a black hole. To quote the OBR’s Budget report:
“In isolation, the reduction in productivity growth could have lowered revenues by around £16 billion… However, the boost to receipts from higher inflation and changes to the composition of nominal GDP growth…more than offset this.”
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury argues that there was a need to increase headroom, but that was not the justification for tax rises that was given before the Budget—although it is effectively an admission that the decision to leave such a small amount of headroom in the previous two fiscal events was irresponsible. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s argument fails to acknowledge that a significant proportion of the increase in taxes was used to fund policy decisions on spending, specifically on welfare.
On 14 November, the media were briefed that income tax rates would not be increased, following the improved forecast from the OBR. We now know that that was simply false. As I pointed out in my letter to the OBR before the Budget, the finalised pre-measures forecast came weeks before that, on 31 October. Even after the Budget, in a Guardian interview, the Chancellor said that income tax rises had remained on the table well into November
“because we didn’t know the size of the downgrade, the productivity”.
That is not true.
Since then, on Friday, the OBR took the unprecedented step of publishing its estimates for headroom in each of its pre-measures forecast rounds. As a result, we now know that at no point was there a deficit on the scale suggested to the media. Why did the Chancellor claim that she did not know the size of the headroom forecast by the OBR in November, when its final forecast was submitted on 31 October? At what point were the Cabinet informed that the forecast still showed a surplus, and why did the Chancellor suggest that the OBR’s review of the economy had led to a significant deterioration in the public finances?
We now know that the briefings to the press were not just inappropriate but inaccurate. Those briefings can only have come from inside Government. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury finally give us a clear answer: was the Chancellor aware of those briefings, and did she authorise them—yes or no? Will he commit to a full investigation by both the permanent secretary and the Financial Conduct Authority into those briefings, and will he explain why the Chancellor chose to opine repeatedly on the OBR’s forecasts before the Budget, when those forecasts were provided to her in strictest confidence?
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister claimed this morning that the OBR’s publication on Friday was simply responding to a request from the Select Committee, but the OBR’s report on Wednesday said that it had already planned to write that letter. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirm that it was, in fact, a proactive choice by the OBR to publish that information, which clearly suggests that the OBR was concerned that the record of who knew what, when, would otherwise be less than clear? It is a matter of profound regret that although the Chancellor chose to appear before the media yesterday, she did not see fit to appear here today. Her credibility is in tatters, and to the long list of her failings in respect of these matters should be added that of disrespecting this House.
James Murray
I was unclear from what the shadow Chancellor said at the beginning of his comments whether he, like us, values the role of the OBR in the Budget-setting process. We value its independence and we value its integrity. That is why we take what happened last Wednesday with the utmost seriousness, and we are determined to pursue it.
The shadow Chancellor went on to make a series of points, which I will address, but he fails to acknowledge that the productivity downgrade was real. The £16 billion hit to the forecast as a result of the productivity downgrade was real. I wonder why he does not want to acknowledge that. Could it be because the productivity downgrade was the result of things that his Government did over the 14 years that they were in office? Could it be the fact that the productivity downgrade was the result of a review by the OBR of policies including cuts to public investment, the mishandling of Brexit, and the record of the previous Government? That is perhaps why he does not want to acknowledge that point. The productivity downgrade by £16 billion was real. The need to build headroom was crucial. Both were principles that guided the Chancellor going into the Budget, as was the importance of cutting the cost of living, cutting NHS waiting lists, and cutting Government borrowing.
The shadow Chancellor will remember from when he was in government under the Conservatives that the process involving the OBR and the Treasury is an iterative one that runs until Budget day. When the Chancellor delivered her Budget, the “Economic and fiscal outlook”, which, as we have discussed, was published slightly early, set out the context for the decisions that she took. The shadow Chancellor raised the issue of information security. I am sure that he will have received the letter from the permanent secretary sent on 25 November, which stated:
“As Permanent Secretary, I place the utmost weight on Budget security. I will continue to keep all aspects under review to ensure the integrity of the Budget process.”
Finally, the shadow Chancellor asked where the Chancellor is today. I am very pleased to tell the House that the Chancellor has been at the Wales investment summit today, following the announcement yesterday of £1.4 billion of extra investment into Wales—just the latest in £16 billion of new investments announced since the summit was launched.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Members have to learn that they cannot run in front of other Members when they are speaking, please. It looks really bad on TV, and it is not courteous.
Dame Meg Hillier
I, too, welcome the fact that the OBR has put its report out so quickly, so that it can put its house in order and make sure this never happens again. I have been saddened and troubled by the number of leaks, advertent and inadvertent, during the Budget process. Will the Chief Secretary please assure the House that there will be proper discussion in Government about how to prevent them? I need only point him to the words of the permanent secretary at the Treasury to the Treasury Committee on 12 February this year, when he was very clear that leaks can be market moving and must not happen. Let us be clear that the Debt Management Office was still trading during the Budget process, and was selling gilts at a higher price as a result.
James Murray
Mr Speaker, I can reassure my hon. Friend, you and the whole House that this Government take the Budget process and their responsibilities to this House very seriously. As I mentioned earlier, the permanent secretary has made it clear that the Treasury puts the utmost weight on Budget security. The permanent secretary made it clear in his letter to the shadow Chancellor that he will continue to keep all aspects under review to ensure the integrity of the Budget process.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I understand that the Minister says he does not have all the answers to the questions about the incredibly serious security failings at the OBR, but has he requested or received any advice on whether the attempts to access the information might have reached a criminal threshold under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 or a civil level under market abuse regulations? Are there any other arm’s length bodies, related either to the Minister’s Department or to other Departments, that might now need to conduct a similar internal review into their security?
The Budget process has been a mess. There have been leaks on a level that has never been seen before and huge amounts of flip-flopping, which has created uncertainty for households and the markets and has led to businesses putting investment on hold. During the pre-Budget press conference, the Chancellor talked about a reduction in productivity growth, but failed to mention that tax receipts were higher than expected. Why did the Government omit to communicate that information?
Following Sweden’s budget crisis in the early ’90s, its Government changed to a system where the Swedish Parliament saw a draft budget and debated it at length, and Opposition parties could propose alternatives and amendments. Have the Government given any consideration at all to introducing a better system?
On the issue of omissions, on a number of occasions over the past year Ministers have repeated the claim that they would introduce permanently lower business rates for businesses in this country, but they omitted to say that business rates bills would go up because of the higher valuations. Pubs are now saying that their average increase will be £12,000 a year, or 76% over the next three years. Why did the Government omit to mention that?
James Murray
I refer the hon. Lady to the comments I made in my statement about how we are going to take forward the recommendations in the report. As I made very clear, this is an incredibly serious incident, and we take it incredibly seriously. We are going to move urgently to take forward the recommendations in the report.
The hon. Lady asks about other arm’s length bodies and Government organisations. We take security, information security and cyber-security incredibly seriously right across Government, and the spending review focused on ensuring that all Departments and all Government bodies are adequately resourced so that they have the right information technology, cyber-security and information security for the future.
The hon. Lady referred to the Chancellor’s speech on 4 November, where the Chancellor set out the challenges we are facing and the principles that would guide her going into the Budget: cutting NHS waiting lists, cutting the cost of living and cutting Government borrowing. That is exactly what she delivered in her Budget last week. On business rates—I suspect this is a debate for another day, rather than for this statement—I point anyone concerned about increases in their valuations towards the generous transitional relief, which will cap the increase in bills at 15% or less for most small businesses next year.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Having spent the past 18 months arguing that this Government have mismanaged the public finances, the Conservatives have now come to the House to argue that the public finances are fine after all. Their position is patently absurd. Due to the OBR’s productivity downgrade, which was a direct result of the Conservative Government’s decisions, the headroom available to the Government had been cut by 57%. Does the Minister agree that the Conservatives are right to be angry about the state of the public finances, but that they are on the Opposition Benches because they are responsible for it? The Chancellor is on our Benches, making decisions in the national interest.
Mr Speaker
Mr Murphy, I brought you in to ask a short question, not to give a full-blown statement. Please do not test the Chair too often.
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right to draw attention to the fact that the Conservatives want to completely distance themselves from their record in government. We have seen their record in government laid bare in the OBR’s productivity downgrade. That investigation by the OBR resulted in a hit to the public finances to the tune of £16 billion. That was a real consequence for our economy, and we had to take real decisions to correct it.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Mr Speaker, you described the chaos and leaks in the run-up to the Budget as a “hokey-cokey”. Just today, the House had to be suspended because the statement arrived so late, on a Budget that was delivered so early that the Chancellor had not actually given it. That was a few hours after the Prime Minister had had to do a second launch to try to explain the Budget, a day after the Chancellor had toured the studios trying to say that she did not mislead people over it. Would it not have been clearer for the Prime Minister just to say that he was hiking tax to put up welfare?
James Murray
What is clear is that we delivered a Budget to cut the cost of living, cut NHS waiting lists and cut Government borrowing.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Is it not the case that after 14 years of the Conservatives telling the country that politics cannot make positive change, this Government have delivered answers on the two-child limit, apprenticeships, the future economy and decent public services? That is why the Conservatives’ response is as it seems to be. However, this incident has not covered the OBR in glory. I hear Ministers expressing confidence in the OBR and faith in the role that it has to play in the future. Surely, though, this is the moment to say that it is on its last warning.
James Murray
My hon. Friend is right to point out that the OBR plays a critical role in the Budget process and an important role in the robust and transparent fiscal framework that underpins our approach in government. Indeed, the first Bill passed by this Government included the fiscal lock, which prevents the sidelining of the OBR that the previous Government did, causing chaos for people across this country.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The leak of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s economic and financial forecasts on Wednesday was obviously shocking, and it has rightly come up with a swift and complete report on how that happened. The partial information and the leaks from the Treasury over the many months in the run-up to the Budget were, in my opinion, equally shocking, and they caused real-life choices to be made in the economy and dampened confidence. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury therefore commit to an equally thorough and equally rapid leak report to be presented to this House?
James Murray
As I said earlier, the Government take the Budget process and our responsibilities to this House very seriously. As the hon. Lady is aware, the permanent secretary has committed to keeping all aspects under review to ensure the integrity of the Budget process.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
As others have said, given that the “Economic and fiscal outlook” contains highly sensitive information on which billions of pounds can be traded, and given that the investigation report makes it clear that this was not the first time that confidential information had been released before a fiscal event, does the Minister agree that there might be a role for the National Crime Agency, alongside the National Cyber Security Centre, in looking into whether something untoward has taken place?
James Murray
As I set out in my earlier remarks, we will be taking forward the recommendations of the report. In particular, as my hon. Friend mentioned, we will be working with the National Cyber Security Centre to take forward the recommendation of a forensic examination of other fiscal events. The truth is that because of the early publication of the EFO last week, it has come to light from the initial analysis of the OBR that that also happened in March, but we do not yet know if it happened at previous fiscal events, including for previous Chancellors.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
While the detail of whether the Treasury was dealing with a fiscal black hole or a fiscal lack of headroom will be rather lost on most of my Bath constituents, does the Minister agree that the weeks of speculation leading up to the Budget were very damaging, particularly to businesses, and that his Department could have done more to avoid that?
James Murray
I recognise that there was a lot of speculation in the media in the run-up to the Budget. From the Government’s point of view, the Chancellor took a decision to set out her priorities and the challenges going into that Budget on 4 November. We set out the context around the productivity downgrade, the importance of building fiscal headroom, and the importance of cutting NHS waiting lists, cutting the cost of living and cutting Government borrowing.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
It is very worrying to hear about the repeated attempts to access the statement before it was given, and I wonder why Conservative Members are not a little more concerned, given that the same situation may have affected them. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if a Government left themselves with only £4 billion of headroom, they would be taking unacceptable risks with the UK’s fiscal stability?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: imagine if I were trying to defend a Budget to the House that was delivered with just a few billion pounds of headroom—what message would that send about the UK economy? The headroom is there to reduce the cost of Government borrowing and to give us protection against future shocks that might come our way.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
On the process failure of the premature publication of the document, I think there is consensus across the House that it is damaging to the reputations of the UK, the OBR and the Treasury. I welcome the fact that the report says there are issues for the Cabinet Office, the Treasury and the OBR in respect of how documents are hosted. However, on the substantive issue of what the OBR had told the Treasury and the net overall effect of that, there can be no doubt. There may be a dispute about whether £4.2 billion was sufficient or not, but we know for certain that the OBR did not say there was a significant black hole that required a 2p increase in income tax, which was the consequence of the Chancellor’s press conference. Does the Chief Secretary agree that the material distinction between those two issues must not be lost, and that he must face up to the reality of the overall net effect and the impression that was left?
James Murray
The right hon. Gentleman is a former Treasury Minister, so he will know the importance of the OBR’s productivity downgrade and the impact that that has had on the forecasts. He will know that £16 billion is a significant downgrade to have had as a result of that productivity review, and he will know that were I here defending a Budget with just a few billion pounds of headroom, that would not be a position that any of us would want to be in.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary quoted the OBR review, which said:
“The ultimate responsibility for the circumstances in which this vulnerability occurred”
was
“with the leadership of the OBR.”
Has anyone in the OBR leadership offered their resignation, or has that gone out of fashion?
James Murray
That is a matter for the leadership of the OBR. Let me emphasise how important the OBR is as an institution for this Government in providing a robust and transparent fiscal framework that underpins the stability we have returned to the economy.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Two weeks ago, from the Dispatch Box, the Minister said with a straight face to me that he would not take lessons on credibility. I understand the error of my ways now; I should have given those lessons to the Chancellor, because since then we have seen that she has not been entirely truthful with the public—as one of my constituents said to me today while I was travelling down from Aberdeen, she lied to the public. While she was doing that, my constituents were fearing for their jobs through the Government’s punitive energy profits levy. Some 100 more jobs are being lost at Harbour Energy as a result of the Minister’s policies. Why is it okay for them to lose their jobs, yet she keeps hers?
James Murray
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the energy profits levy. Let me be clear: we know that oil and gas have a role to play in our energy mix for many years to come. We want to support that industry while we make the transition to clean power, and that is the role that the energy profits levy will play. We set out at the Budget how the energy profits levy will come to an end in 2030, or sooner if the price floor is triggered.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend will acknowledge, as he already has done, the importance of stability for families and businesses across this country. What we have called fiscal headroom is frankly money for a rainy day, and it is fundamental to being able to maintain that stability—something that was a failure of the Conservative Government for some time. Will he also acknowledge the importance of the way in which the bond markets responded positively to the Budget, for exactly the reason that it delivers us the stability we all need?
James Murray
While the Government do not comment on movements in the bond market, it was very important to us to create that extra headroom in order to bring down the cost of Government borrowing and ensure that we have that buffer for the future.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I have been here a few years and have seen the run to different Budgets. In line with the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), I have to say that this Budget has been utterly chaotic and appallingly dangerous. The reality is that the Minister said there was plenty of speculation in the media. It was not speculation; it was informed statements by the media of what they had been briefed from the Government. The Government know full well the damage that that has done to our reputation, and the unprecedented requirement of the OBR to publish its advice to them demonstrates the damage that they have done. Will the right hon. Gentleman come to the Dispatch Box in all decency and say, “The Government apologise for the mess that they have made”?
James Murray
I will come to the Dispatch Box and say that this Government take the Budget process and their responsibilities to this House incredibly seriously. As the permanent secretary has set out, he places the utmost weight on Budget security. As I have said to several hon. and right hon. Members, the permanent secretary will continue to keep all aspects under review to ensure the integrity of the Budget process.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of the real-world and market impacts we saw last week underscore the importance of following proper process with the OBR? We saw the evidence to the contrary just three years ago, when the then Government chose to ignore and bypass the OBR entirely, causing interest rates and mortgage costs to soar.
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for drawing a comparison between the way in which we as a Government interact with the OBR and the way in which the Liz Truss Government interacted with the OBR. We value the independence of the OBR and the constructive relationship that we have had with it over the past 16 months. That is in stark contrast with the previous Government, who sidelined the OBR and caused economic chaos for families across the country.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Government will not apologise for this sorry and tangled affair, but will they at least learn a couple of lessons, such as the fact that there have always been very good reasons for observing total secrecy until Budget day and, secondly, when not in a financial black hole, do not start digging oneself into one?
James Murray
As the Budget documents and as the EFO makes clear, the downgrade in productivity was real. That was a £16 billion hit to economic forecasts, and it was a challenge that we inherited as a result of what the right hon. Member’s Government did when they were in power. We took the right and necessary decisions to fix the public finances, making sure that we could do so without going down the route of uncontrolled borrowing—like his Government did—or the route of slashing public investment.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Speaker, you were rightly furious last week when this OBR report was prematurely leaked to the public and the markets. It is clear from the independent report that this was an accident waiting to happen due to pre-existing cyber-security failures—pre-existing failures that may well have laid open previous Budgets to this kind of access, which should concern the Conservative party as much as any other party. This is about the integrity of the OBR.
The non-executive directors of the OBR, Baroness Hogg—who is totally independent—and Dame Susan Rice, both conclude that
“ultimate responsibility…rests…with the leadership of the OBR.”
I would not expect the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to say whether he has confidence in the chair of the OBR, but is it not clear that those non-executive directors lack that confidence?
James Murray
It is clear that this is a very serious matter, and it is right that the Government respond to it with the seriousness it demands. As my hon. Friend made clear, this is not—to quote the OBR again—
“simply a matter of pressing”
the wrong button
“on a locally managed website too early.”
This is a systemic issue and a far more serious one, and it deserves our serious attention.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Under the last Conservative Government, we saw years of chaos, incompetence and mismanagement, and very often a lack of transparency and honesty with the British public. The Government promised change, and had a responsibility to deliver a clean break from the Conservatives’ approach to government. Will the Minister acknowledge the damage that has been done to those efforts, and what steps will the Government take to rectify it?
James Murray
One of the reasons we take this matter so seriously is precisely the value that we place on the OBR. We see it as having a vital role in a robust and transparent fiscal framework, which is why we take last week’s breach of information so very seriously.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is really concerning that these leaks have happened before. I understand that the investigation is still under way, but could the OBR tell who was trying to access this information, and can my right hon. Friend confirm that this will be investigated fully? Can he also confirm when last there was headroom as low as £4 billion?
James Murray
My hon. Friend asks what the OBR report was able to conclude. It said that
“We could not, in the time available, carry out deeper forensic examination of other recent EFO events and we recommend that such an exercise is, with expert support, now urgently carried out.”
That is exactly what the Government will be doing.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I think it should be recognised that events such as these allow Ministers and the wider Government to reflect on current circumstances. I am not seeking to scapegoat the OBR, but it is not the messiah—sometimes, it can be a very naughty boy—and it does have to revise its predictions at all times. Is it too traditional to suggest to this Government that the Treasury should be the office of budget responsibility, and that there are good brains in the Bank that could be tapped into? Is now not a good opportunity to reflect on what advice the Government need, whether the OBR is fit for purpose, and whether it should be disbanded?
James Murray
I have a great deal of personal respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I take a different view of the OBR. We value the role of the OBR in a robust and transparent fiscal framework, and it is precisely because we value that role that we take last week’s breach of information so seriously.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
To bring to a conclusion the ensuing debate about who knew what and when, does my right hon. Friend agree that he should publish a detailed timetable of the economic information that the Chancellor was in receipt of, including the return on tax receipts and the impact on wage growth?
James Murray
As my hon. Friend knows, the OBR has already published its forecasts at various rounds during the Budget process. The process is iterative between the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility. I am sure my hon. Friend welcomes the fact that in the Budget, we cut the cost of living, cut NHS waiting lists and cut Government borrowing.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Government have had a lucky break with the coincidence of the OBR’s confession and report on its leak of the Budget details, which has given the Minister an opportunity to use the shame of the OBR to deflect from the real criticism that should lie with the Chancellor, who, weeks before, was using selective information and distorting the forecasts to cover up the fact that she was taking money from those who work to pay those who do not work. Is that not the real shame of what we are discussing?
James Murray
The real focus of the Chancellor has been on cutting the cost of living, cutting NHS waiting lists and cutting Government borrowing. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, like all Members of this House, values the importance of the Office for Budget Responsibility and takes this matter with the same seriousness that we in government do.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
Like many other Members, I have been shocked by the early release of the OBR’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” report, as this kind of error risks compromising the integrity of the Budget process in moving markets. The evidence that has now emerged that this was not the first time that the OBR forecast was accessed prematurely owing to systematic failures in its own cyber-security, is simply unforgivable. Given this appalling failure, which the chair of the OBR himself acknowledges is the worst failure in the organisation’s history, can the Minister tell the House what he thinks it would take for the chair of the OBR to resign?
James Murray
Obviously, the questions about what is done by the leadership of the OBR are for the leadership of the OBR, but I can tell my hon. Friend that the Government take last week’s information breach incredibly seriously. The fact that it was not simply a case of the wrong button being pressed on a locally managed website, the fact that it was a systemic issue and the fact that it had happened at least once before, in March this year—and who knows whether it had happened at previous events—underscore just how serious a matter it is, and just what a failing it represents.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
We know that the Chief Secretary is a very thoughtful, intelligent man, and he will know that the press were being briefed extensively about what the Budget was going to say. They were not making it up. Where does the Chief Secretary believe that that briefing was coming from? Does he believe that it was coming from special advisers, does he believe that it was coming from Treasury officials, does he believe that it was coming from No. 10—or does he think that a Christmas elf had a hand in all this?
James Murray
I know that journalists from all publications need no encouragement to speculate on the contents of a Budget. Let me draw the right hon. Gentleman’s attention to my earlier remarks: this Government take the Budget process, and our responsibility to the House, very seriously.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Like other Members on both sides of the House—I hope—I am deeply concerned and shocked by the fact that the OBR has leaked not just the autumn Budget but previous fiscal events: it is hugely concerning. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Chancellor’s decision to more than double fiscal headroom has been welcomed by markets and will strengthen UK resilience?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the fact that not only doubling the headroom but getting it to £21.7 billion is a crucial step in strengthening the resilience of the UK economy and the public finances, helping to bring down Government borrowing and protect us from future shocks.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
It concerns me that the Minister has today, in this House, misled the House—inadvertently—on three separate occasions, as the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the British people this morning. Cutting borrowing is simply not the case. The OBR’s numbers show clearly that over the next five years Government borrowing will increase by a net £504 billion, which is £60 billion more than was forecast by the OBR back in March. The Minister cannot even claim that it is a percentage of net debt, because all those numbers are increasing, so will he please correct the record?
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am shocked to be picked so early, but I appreciate it.
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. The premature publishing of the OBR report is very disappointing; I think Members across the House can agree on that. It is particularly disappointing for me and for residents in Harlow, because it detracts from a Budget that makes a real difference to families in my constituency by freezing rail fares, freezing prescription charges, lowering waiting times for the NHS and—as the House knows, an area I am particularly concerned about—tackling tax evasion.
James Murray
Not only is my hon. Friend an excellent advocate for tackling tax avoidance and evasion, but he is absolutely right to point to the fact that what is important for people across this country is that this Budget cuts the cost of living, cuts NHS waiting lists and cuts Government borrowing.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is deeply damaging and, dare I say, unprecedented that we find ourselves here today, listening to this statement about OBR forecasts, midway through the debate on the Budget. It raises more questions, not least because the Chancellor chose not to be here today to answer those questions. Why?
James Murray
I do not know whether the right hon. Lady missed my explanation of where the Chancellor was, but I am pleased to announce to the House that the Chancellor is in Wales today, at the Wales investment summit. She is there following yesterday’s announcement of £1.4 billion of extra investment into Wales, and that is just the latest tranche of the £16 billion of new investment announced since the summit was launched.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his statement. The integrity of fiscal forecasting depends not only on technical expertise, but on the public’s confidence in the people who deliver it. Clearly, that confidence has been shaken in the past few days. Can he outline what governance changes he and the Department are thinking about enacting so that those overseeing the fiscal process meet the highest standards of conduct and scrutiny? Does he have confidence in the head of the OBR delivering them?
James Murray
I emphasise to my hon. Friend and all Members of this House that the Chancellor and all of us in the Treasury value the independence of the OBR and the constructive relationship we have had with it over the past 16 months, in challenging times. Obviously, the matter that we are discussing today—the early publication of the report last Wednesday—is incredibly serious. The reason we as a Government are taking it so seriously is that we want to preserve the integrity and independence of the OBR in the future.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I am very interested to learn that the Chancellor is in Wales today. Amid all the message manipulation, she leaves the Minister to explain exactly why the continued freeze on income tax thresholds will hit Wales badly: an estimated five times more Welsh workers will be pulled into the basic rate compared with in the UK as a whole. I can only presume that the Treasury consulted the Labour Welsh Government. Will he release their response specifically in relation to confidence and a cost of living hit?
James Murray
I am sorry that the right hon. Lady does not welcome the fact that the Chancellor is in Wales today to promote investment in Wales, but I can point her to the fact that the decision to lift the two-child benefit cap will benefit children in Wales, that the money off energy bills will benefit people in Wales, and that the changes to the fiscal framework will benefit people in Wales. The decisions that this Government took will cut the cost of living and make sure that we cut Government borrowing, which will benefit people right across the UK.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
The OBR is a valuable institution, and the “Economic and fiscal outlook” is by far the most important document that it produces. Today’s report makes it clear that the OBR’s IT infrastructure was a point of critical failure that should have been identified as far back as 2013. Does the Minister agree that the chair of the OBR now cannot credibly lead the investigatory and reconstruction work, and that he should resign?
James Murray
Events are moving quickly, and I understand that the chair of the OBR has resigned. That is what I understand from messages passed to me.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Through the morass of leaks, one thing is crystal clear: this Labour Government broke their manifesto commitment. The Chancellor said:
“I am asking everyone to make a contribution”,—[Official Report, 26 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 393.]
then went around the studios at the weekend saying,
“I am asking ordinary people to pay a little bit more”.
She is not asking; she is telling the public. Will the Minister come to the Dispatch Box and confirm that if my constituents say they will not pay their taxes, they will not face any criminal or financial repercussions?
James Murray
The Chancellor was clear at the Budget last week that we were taking the fair and necessary taxation decisions to ensure that everyone makes a contribution, but that the contribution of working people is kept as low as possible thanks to the other choices made. Increasing tax on property income, increasing tax on properties worth more than £2 million and reforming gambling taxation all mean that we can keep taxes on working people as low as possible.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
The report on the OBR leak makes deeply worrying reading. I welcome the resignation of the chair of the OBR, because leadership on these issues matters. It turns out that the leak was not unprecedented as we thought last week. It has leaked other documents, and it may need to go back further to look at that. Such leaks could have led to speculation and costs running into millions. Does my right hon. Friend know how many times this has happened before, and if not, does he know when we will know that information? More importantly, does he know how many times the OBR Budget report was viewed externally before the Chancellor delivered the Budget last week?
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and he is right to draw attention to the seriousness of what happened last week. The initial report by the OBR sets out just how many times the report was accessed and shared before the Chancellor had given her Budget speech. There were 32 attempts to access it, starting at about 5 am that day, and it was then shared multiple times before the Chancellor had delivered her Budget speech. We do not have all of the answers to his questions, and the OBR has acknowledged that in the limited time available it has not done forensic analysis of what happened at all previous fiscal events. We know that the EFO for the March 2025 spring statement was certainly accessed. What we will do as a Government is work to make sure we have full information, and urgently find out what was shared—or rather what was inadvertently shared—at previous fiscal events.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
We have had plenty of disagreement today, but I think it is clear that there is consensus that truth and accountability matter. I draw the attention of the House to the campaign by Compassion in Politics for a targeted legal measure that would make it an offence for any politician or candidate to mislead the public deliberately on a matter of verifiable fact. This is being taken forward in Wales, and it has long-standing cross-party support in this House. Will the Government support those of us who are campaigning for a political truthfulness Bill to rebuild trust in politics?
James Murray
This Government take the role of the independent adviser on ministerial standards incredibly seriously and abide by his rulings. We know what damage the previous Government did to trust in politics. It would be foolish to suggest that no Government at any point in the future will ever face difficulties, but it is how the Government respond to those difficulties that matters. This Government have shown that we respond in a way that is transparent, fair and brings an end to any sense that people have behaved improperly.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
On 3 September, the shadow Chancellor stood at the Opposition Dispatch Box and claimed that the hole in the public finances could be as much as £40 billion. As it happens, that was not the case, not least because of the Chancellor’s steadfast commitment to stabilising our economy. Does the Minister not agree that it is a bit rich for the Conservatives to go around claiming that people are talking down the economy and talking up the gap in our public finances, when the only people doing that are them?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is right. I do not hold out any hope that the Conservatives will speak with any consistency or do anything other than try to talk down the British economy. In stark contrast, we are cutting Government borrowing, increasing the headroom, and making sure we have stable public finances and a stable economy, because it is on that basis that we can boost investment and growth.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The demeanour of a good Chancellor should be somewhere between an undertaker and an oncologist—a reassuring presence and no words wasted—not a party entertainer trialling a few tricks before they go on stage, which is what this Chancellor did before the Budget. In seizing back control from the OBR—which is unaccountable and unelected, and should never have been set up in the first place—will the Minister recognise that, unless the Treasury and Ministers are straight with the public, no one will be trusted?
James Murray
The right hon. Gentleman and I disagree about the role of the OBR. We value its role in a transparent and robust fiscal framework. Madam Deputy Speaker, during this debate Richard Hughes has offered his resignation. May I put on record, on behalf of the Government, our thanks to him for his dedication to public service?
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
It strikes me that much of the criticism from the Opposition Benches is rooted in the decision to increase funds to raise the headroom. I know that forecasts are a job for the OBR, but given that it is busy at the moment, could my right hon. Friend advise me on what the likely impact on the markets would have been of having headroom of just £4 billion?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that, had I been here today defending a headroom of £4 billion or less, it would have been a completely impossible task. This Government are determined to ensure that we increase headroom to give us greater stability. By increasing it to £21.7 billion, we have done just that.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
If the Chancellor really takes the integrity of the Budget as seriously as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury says, she would not have leaked so much of it to the media beforehand. There is speculation and then there is being spoon-fed. The only principle guiding the Chancellor was keeping her Back Benchers happy and the only cuts were to confidence. Will the Chief Secretary set out exactly what steps the Chancellor will take to clear up this mess? Will she come back before this House, and will she refer herself to the Financial Conduct Authority?
James Murray
I do not quite understand the hon. Lady’s question. When we got into office in July last year, our task was to fix the mess of the public finances that the Conservatives had left. At this Budget, the OBR’s productivity downgrade revealed further damage—deep scars—that her Government’s actions caused to our economy as a result of slashing public investment and mishandling Brexit, so if anyone wants to come to this Chamber and apologise, might it be her?
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
First, I express my concern about the findings of the leak report, which are completely unacceptable, especially as they are apparently so systemic. The OBR productivity downgrade reduced revenues by £16 billion. Why does my right hon. Friend think productivity growth has, since 2010, so consistently underperformed against forecasts—and in other countries too?
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for his question on the OBR productivity downgrade, which has clearly played a really important and difficult role in this Budget process. What the OBR’s review of productivity made clear is that under the previous Government the decision to cut public services and cut public investment, and the mishandling of Brexit, left deep scars on our economy. Those are deep scars that we had to take decisions at this Budget to correct.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
At last year’s autumn Budget, the Chancellor claimed that 75% of farms would be unaffected by agricultural property relief and business property relief, a figure that has been widely disputed. This year there is yet more confusion over the figures, with the Chancellor implying that public finances were significantly worse than the OBR assessment suggested. After years of being ignored and taken for granted by the Conservatives, how can rural businesses have confidence in this Government’s economic strategy if key figures are inaccurate or misrepresented?
James Murray
I have taken part in a number of debates in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall on the changes to APR and BPR that the Government introduced at the Budget last year. We have debated the figures extensively. Some of the difference in people’s figures stems from the fact that we are talking about estates, which is the right measure when we are talking about inheritance tax, rather than the value of farms themselves. I also hope that the hon. Lady will have seen the change we made to the system at this Budget through the spousal transfer.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will know, the “Ministerial Code” requires Ministers to be
“as open as possible with Parliament and the public”.
Exactly when did the Chief Secretary learn that the Chancellor did not face the shortfall that the Treasury was briefing to the press?
James Murray
As a Treasury Minister, I have obviously been involved in discussions with the Chancellor and the Prime Minister’s team throughout the Budget process. We developed these policies collectively to cut the cost of living, cut NHS waiting lists and cut Government borrowing.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Prime Minister said this morning that politics is about choices. The Chancellor chose not to disclose the improved tax outlook from the OBR when she addressed the country on 4 November; the Chancellor chose to overstate the challenges with the public finances; the Chancellor chose to withhold the more positive forecasts from her Cabinet colleagues; and the Chancellor chose not to be here today to answer questions on her conduct in office. Does the Minister agree that the Chancellor’s position is untenable and that she should now choose to resign?
James Murray
The Chancellor chose on 4 November to be up front with people about the challenges we face. At the Budget, she chose to cut the cost of living, cut NHS waiting lists and cut Government borrowing.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I feel I should declare at the start of this question that I am one of the few people in the Chamber who apparently is not shocked at what has been going on this week. I am also not shocked that a Labour Cabinet member has said:
“The handling of this Budget has been a disaster from start to finish”.
Can the Chief Secretary tell us which Labour Cabinet member said that, and can they have a bigger role in the next Budget?
James Murray
Can the hon. Gentleman tell us why he backed Liz Truss for leader?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Chancellor announced that her plans aim to fund public services, avoid austerity and invest for the future, portraying a positive future and spending that seems manageable. Meanwhile, the OBR forecasts that if borrowing increases in the short term, it could have a potential impact on future spending in terms of welfare and debt interest, which could erode the economy. What steps will the Treasury take after the Budget to ensure that, through the Chancellor’s plans, we are not sacrificing long-term stability?
James Murray
Long-term stability is at the heart of the fiscal rules that the Chancellor introduced at the Budget last year, which were met at the spring statement earlier this year and were met again at the Budget last week. As many hon. Members have mentioned today, the fact that we are meeting those fiscal rules with far greater headroom—£21.7 billion in this Budget—gives us greater stability, helps to bring down the costs of Government borrowing and protects us from future shocks.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Andy Haldane, former Bank of England chief economist, has said that the Government’s “repeated mistakes” and misinformation about the public finances have sucked all the energy from the economy. Chief Secretary, the former chief economist is correct, isn’t he?
James Murray
As we said at the Budget, not only were we setting out to cut the cost of living, cut NHS waiting lists and cut Government borrowing; we were also focusing on growth through public investment in transport, energy, roads, railways and all the infrastructure that businesses need to invest to boost jobs and growth across the country. We invested in every part of the country, with a focus on Wylfa in Wales, Grangemouth in Scotland, the Oxford-Cambridge corridor and the northern growth corridor, because we know that growth has to happen right across the country to benefit people in every part of the UK.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
There has been too much obfuscation today between what the Office for Budget Responsibility did in leaking its report early and the fact that the Office for Budget Responsibility told the Chancellor before she made her statement about there not being the fiscal black hole that she made out. There were leaks to the press, and Mr Speaker stood in this Chamber and admonished the Government for leaking. It was not speculation in the press; this has been nothing but “Jackanory”. How can this Government start to rebuild trust with the public when they are simply trying to do smoke and mirrors and not face up to the fact that they kept leaking to the press?
James Murray
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman heard what I said earlier when I underscored how importantly Ministers in this Government take the Budget process and how importantly we take our responsibilities to this House. I referred earlier to the words of the permanent secretary at the Treasury about the fact that he will
“continue to keep all aspects”
of Budget security
“under review to ensure the integrity of the Budget process.”
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The forecasts are meant to help the Government to decide what to do, but there was nothing in this forecast of oil and gas revenues, which explains why the energy profits levy was kept. We have seen a £6.2 billion downgrade in the expected revenue from oil and gas to the end of the Budget period—a 40% decrease in just a year from what it was bringing in—while production is down 55% and 33% for gas and oil over the period. None of that is to do with the size of the basin; it is all to do with the fiscal and regulatory regime that this Government are imposing on the North sea. It was announced today that 100 jobs are going at Harbour Energy, and there will be more to come. Every job loss from now on is on this Government, because they know exactly what the oil and gas sector has been saying to them—it has been saying exactly the same to me, too, but I have chosen to listen. Why have the Government decided on the back of the OBR forecast to keep the EPL, when they know the impact it is having on jobs, investment and production and the future of the North sea?
James Murray
I can reassure the hon. Lady that since we won the election I have spent many hours with the oil and gas industry in Aberdeen. It is exactly why we confirmed in the Budget last week that we will end the energy profits levy in 2030, or sooner if a price floor is triggered.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
When did the Chancellor first brief her Cabinet colleagues on the realities of the OBR forecast?
James Murray
The Chancellor obviously spoke to Cabinet on the day of the Budget, as is the normal process, to let them know what was coming in the Budget later that day.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury failed to answer a critical question raised by my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor and a similar question raised by the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), so I will ask the question in a slightly different way. Does the Minister agree that the FCA must urgently investigate whether conduct has fallen short of, in particular, part 7 of the Financial Services Act 2012 and article 12(1)(c) of the UK market abuse regulation, and does he agree that no stone should be left unturned in that investigation?
James Murray
The Chancellor has now delivered her Budget, and the Office for Budget Responsibility has published its figures. We have been clear that we were focused on cutting the cost of living, cutting NHS waiting lists and cutting Government borrowing.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
It has been dragged out of the Government that there was no black hole of £20 billion to £30 billion in the run-up to the Budget. In fact, there was a surplus. That means that Treasury insiders were deliberately misleading the press, the markets and our constituents in the run-up to the Budget, when they intended all along to raise taxes on working people to fund increased welfare. Why is the Minister continuing to take the public—our constituents—for fools?
James Murray
I cannot work out if the hon. Gentleman is implying that he thinks a few billion pounds of headroom is acceptable, because the Government certainly do not think it is. We think that having £4.2 billion or less of headroom is not an acceptable position for our economy to be in. We had the result of the OBR productivity downgrade, which had hit revenues by £16 billion, and that is why decisions were necessary to restore the public finances and meet our priorities going into Budget.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
The British public are, by nature, a forgiving people. However, does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury not recognise that obfuscation of the kind we have seen over the weekend deeply damages public confidence?
James Murray
I hate to break it to the hon. Gentleman, but I doubt the British people will forgive the Tories for Liz Truss’s record in office.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
According to the latest House of Commons Library briefing and the economic forecasts, the freeze on the income tax threshold is projected to raise over £38 billion per year by 2029-30. For comparison, the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that by 2030 the freeze will raise approximately £8 billion annually, which is similar to adding 1p to the basic rate of income tax. Does the Minister agree with the Chancellor’s statement that she met Labour’s manifesto pledge not to raise income taxes, and does he agree that she misled the public and this House?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I believe that the hon. Member was trying to say that the Chancellor inadvertently misled the House, but he did not say the word “inadvertently”—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Noted, but we need to be mindful of our language at all times.
James Murray
At the Budget, the decisions the Chancellor took on tax were fair and necessary. Yes, we are asking everyone to make a contribution, but we have also taken decisions on increasing property income taxation, asked people with properties worth over £2 million to contribute more, and changed the way that gambling companies are taxed. All those decisions meant that we were able to keep the tax burden on working people as low as possible.
Iconic Trees and Nature Education
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a register of iconic trees; to make provision about the designation and protection of trees on that register; to require the Secretary of State to review the provision of nature education in England; and for connected purposes.
It should hardly be surprising that, as the Member of Parliament for Hexham, I am often called the hon. Member for the Sycamore Gap. The summer of 1991 saw many landmarks: it was the summer I was born, “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves” was released, and Bryan Adams introduced the Sycamore Gap to a transatlantic audience. It is a profound honour to represent a constituency whose identity is forever marked by the legacy of the Sycamore Gap: a reminder of our rich heritage, the strength of our community and our enduring hope.
Planted in the late-1800s by the previous landowner John Clayton, that sycamore tree stood in an idyllic dip along Hadrian’s wall. It was not just visually iconic; it became a cultural symbol, popularised by numerous paintings, photographs and private moments, and that infamous 1991 film. As the film’s director, Kevin Reynolds, captured, the Sycamore Gap was
“one of the most quintessentially idyllic spots in the world…I found it so special and I wanted to share with people how special it was.”
He is most certainly right.
That iconic tree touched the lives of so many, and not only in the north-east but right across the world. It was a picturesque destination for hikes, stargazing and family walks, and it was popular for sentimental moments, such as marriage proposals or the scattering of a loved one’s ashes. It provided an opportunity to connect with over 1,900 years of north-east heritage, with its situation along Hadrian’s wall. There really is, and was, no place quite like it. The legacy of the Sycamore Gap hardly needs recounting. Hon. Members across the House will agree that the Sycamore Gap tree was not just a landmark; it was a majestic symbol of resilience, of north-east identity and of belonging.
It is difficult to put into words the events that took place on the evening of 27 September 2023. The felling of the Sycamore Gap tree sent shockwaves that not only went through the north-east but reverberated right across the world. For many, it felt like an attack, with a beloved landmark taken from us overnight and a piece of our shared identity toppled. Communities throughout my constituency and beyond mourn not just a tree, but the memories, the heritage and the sense of place that it embodied. It illustrated the true fragility of the natural and cultural treasures that we so often take for granted.
In one night, a devastating and barbaric act of vandalism toppled a landmark that has symbolised north-east heritage for centuries. But if there is one thing to note about the north-east’s spirit, it is its resilience. Communities across Northumberland and the north-east—a region that is so often overlooked—have banded together in solidarity, facing hardship head-on and standing stronger as a result. While grieving for a landmark lost, that resilience has translated into lessons learned.
I pay tribute to the outstanding work of the Northumberland national park and the National Trust, which have been working tirelessly alongside Historic England and the Hadrian’s Wall Partnership to ensure that a fitting legacy for both nature and people can flourish following that terrible act of vandalism. At The Sill—the national landscape discovery centre—the largest section of the felled tree is now on public display. I had the pleasure of visiting it during the unveiling of the exhibition, recognising the lasting connection that the display will offer for future generations.
Just this week, saplings taken from the original Sycamore Gap tree are ready to be planted as part of the National Trust’s “tree of hope” initiative. Each sapling will carry a message of hope and resilience, with 49 saplings—each representing a foot in the height of the tree at the time of its felling—being distributed right across the country. Last week, a sapling was planted in the grounds of Hexham hospital, offering a symbol for those visiting loved ones. A sapling will soon be planted to commemorate the tragic murder of Holly Newton in my constituency and to recognise the phenomenal work of Holly’s mother, Micala Trussler, and her charity Holly’s Hope. I take the opportunity once again to put on record my thanks and admiration for her dedication and campaigning to secure a change in the law, which I fully support.
As the closest school to the Sycamore Gap, Henshaw Church of England primary school will plant a sapling on its grounds, as will Northumberland national park in the new year. I look forward to visiting those sites throughout my constituency to pay tribute not just to the tree, but to the people and charities inspiring such hope and resilience.
The legacy of the Sycamore Gap will not just be reserved for Northumberland and the north-east, however. Saplings are being planted in constituencies right across the country. A sapling is being planted in Staffordshire to commemorate the Minnie Pit mining disaster, in Berkshire to honour Greenham common, and in Leeds to recognise the Rob Burrow centre for motor neurone disease at Seacroft hospital. The Sycamore Gap tree’s legacy will prevail and so, too, will the lessons of environmental protection triumph.
One of the defendants expressed his delusional disbelief, claiming that it was “just a tree”, but the tree was, and is, so much more than that. Trees are not “just trees”. Our planet is intrinsically dependent on them. They are vital to sustaining our planet, cleaning our air and supporting our biodiversity and ecosystems. They are homes to nature, wildlife, birds and insects. Without them, our planet would falter. There is also a reason that trees appear so often in our culture and literature: for their symbolic significance. In Greek mythology, the tale of King Erysichthon claimed that the felling of a tree represented a moral failure. In the final book of “The Chronicles of Narnia”, the destruction of trees in Lantern Waste alludes to the end of the world. Without trees, our heritage would flatline, our ecosystems would fail and our history would be forgotten.
I am therefore calling for a register of iconic trees, from the Ankerwycke yew in Berkshire associated with the sealing of Magna Carta and the Major oak in Sherwood Forest, legendary home of Robin Hood, to the Fortingall yew in Perthshire and the Crowhurst yew in the churchyard of St George’s church—the list goes on. Such trees can and should be classified as iconic for holding widely recognised cultural, historical, ecological and symbolic significance. Alongside a register of iconic trees, a curriculum review can and should incorporate the value of understanding the legacy of trees and the role they play in local communities, and allow nature to be an educator for future generations. Teachers and schools have a unique role to play in facilitating children’s connections with nature so that they too can understand how to protect our local heritage and engage in climate protection.
Tony Gates, chief executive officer of the Northumberland National Park Authority, has said:
“The felling of the Sycamore Gap tree has shown just how much nature and landscape mean to people and to their very wellbeing… We are determined to honour the spirit of Sycamore Gap through opportunities to connect with the tree, and to create a legacy for both people and nature.”
This Bill would not be possible without the outstanding work of Northumberland national park, the National Trust, and local organisations and individuals right across the Hexham constituency. I thank every single person for their dedicated commitment to honouring the legacy of the Sycamore Gap tree, and I hope that any Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers on the Front Bench will note the contribution of the Northumberland national park and look favourably on a rethinking of the national parks funding formula.
Though the Sycamore Gap tree has fallen, its legacy stands unshaken. It is our solemn responsibility to honour that legacy, to recognise the hope, endurance and unity that it inspired and to safeguard the iconic trees that shape our national landscape and ensure that they are cherished, protected and never consigned to memory alone.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Joe Morris, Michael Wheeler, James Naish, Laurence Turner, Leigh Ingham, David Smith, Dave Robertson, Markus Campbell-Savours, Feryal Clark and Sir Alec Shelbrooke present the Bill.
Joe Morris accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the first time; to be read a second time on Friday 16 January 2026, and to be printed (Bill 339).
Budget Resolutions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ed Miliband)
It is a privilege to open this Budget debate on a theme of paramount importance to our country: the cost of living crisis facing Britain’s families. Whatever our party, we should take a step back and think about the history of the last two decades since the financial crisis, during which we have seen: the stagnation of real wages, only this year getting back to their 2008 levels; the worst progress on living standards in the last Parliament since records began in the 1950s; an epidemic of in-work poverty such that, according to the Resolution Foundation, seven out of 10 families with children who live in poverty now have someone in work; home ownership falling from two thirds of young people in the early 1990s to less than half today; and the biggest rise in energy bills in generations earlier this decade when Russia invaded Ukraine, on top of public services facing strains as never before.
Each of those on their own would cause people to doubt whether this country really works for them. Together, they represent a perfect storm that makes people question their basic assumptions about our economy, society and country. This is the condition-of-Britain question of our time, and it is the backdrop against which this Government were elected 17 months ago. The mission—the driving purpose of this Government and this Budget—is to tackle that crisis. That starts from an understanding that this crisis is due to not accidental circumstances but a governing ideology, and that our response must be to change course in three ways.
First, we need to make fair choices that favour ordinary working people, not the rich and powerful, who have been favoured for too long. Secondly, we must invest in and rebuild our public services and infrastructure so that we never return to austerity, which was such a disaster for the social and economic fabric on which so many people rely. Thirdly, we must endeavour to change our economy so that it produces more good jobs at good wages that sustain a decent living for people, ending the hollowing out of our economy and our communities. That is what this Government are about; that is what this Budget seeks to deliver.
First, then, I want to talk about fair choices. An illuminating chart—I love charts—on page 33 of the Budget Red Book shows the impact of decisions since the 2024 autumn Budget. It shows the progressive approach of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. It shows that every decile will be better off as a result of her measures, except the richest 10%, with the greatest gains as a percentage of income to lower and middle-income families. That includes raising the national living wage and the national minimum wage, freezing rail fares for the first time in 30 years and freezing prescription charges, as well as two measures I want to focus on.
The first measure is lifting the two-child limit in universal credit, which goes to the heart of the affordability crisis that so many face. I think we need to have a debate about this issue. According to a Department for Work and Pensions document published on the day of the Budget, since its introduction in 2017, the two-child cap has put 300,000 children into relative poverty. That is the equivalent, as the document says, of 100 children every single day—more than three primary school classes each day being pushed into poverty. It is also part of a wider picture. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 7.1 million low-income households—one in four across the UK—have gone without essentials in the last six months, in one of the richest countries in the world. That is why we have acted on the two-child limit. Two million children will be helped, and 450,000 fewer children will be in poverty by the end of the Parliament.
As I understand it, the Conservatives oppose the policy change because they claim it is about helping people out of work who are undeserving. We need to unpack this false claim. The inescapable fact that the Opposition want to run away from is that around 60% of families impacted by this policy are in work, not out of work. These are people for whom work simply does not pay, like in the case—highlighted by the Child Poverty Action Group—of Shauna and her husband, who have three children. Shauna’s husband works full time and she says,
“This will make a big difference because we’ve had to incur debts. Hopefully it will mean I can cover the last bills that come in each month instead of being in the red. I could buy a new mattress for two of my children. They can feel the springs on the mattresses they’ve got that they’ve had for many years.”
That is the condition-of-Britain question.
How does the Leader of the Opposition describe Shauna and her husband? She calls them “Benefits Street”. These are people working all the hours God sends, working hard, trying to do the right thing: the very people the Conservatives claim to stand up for. How dare she!
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
When it comes to making decisions about poverty, it is difficult, so I would be grateful to understand the Secretary of State decision to change the winter fuel payments, which the Government’s own analysis said put 100,000 people into relative poverty and 50,000 people immediately into absolute poverty. Those are decisions that he and his Government made because they were concerned about the finances of the country. The Opposition now have similar concerns with regard to the child benefit cap changes, and yet the Government have made a different decision. Could he explain the reasons why there is a difference?
Ed Miliband
Well, the hon. Gentleman’s question is out of date, because, in case he had not noticed, we changed the policy on winter fuel payments. Let me just say this to him: he will have to answer to his constituents. Some 1,500 children in his constituency will be helped by our changes to the two-child cap, and he is saying, “Rip that help away.” Let us have the argument about this.
Ed Miliband
I will in a moment.
On the one hand, 60% of these people are working—and the Conservatives do not really want to explain why they want to cut help for those people. But let us discuss the 40% of households that are not working and will be impacted. What we are seeing here—I am old enough to remember—is a re-run of the last Tory Government and their attempt to blame the poor for their poverty. Leaving that aside, however, what the Conservatives are actually saying is, in truth, that they believe in punishing the children of people who are out of work and on benefits—
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that that is absurd, but it is not. The Conservatives believe in punishing children—
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Ed Miliband
I will give way in a moment—let me make my point.
The Conservatives believe in punishing children for having another brother or sister. Children with only one sibling—two children in total—get the full amount, but if they have two siblings, they do not. How is that fair? How is that right? As the Chancellor said very powerfully in her Budget speech, is that good for our economy and our society? Of course it is not.
Wendy Morton
If the policy is so good, how will the Secretary of State explain to working people that they will be £18,000 worse off than those on benefits? How can that be fair?
Ed Miliband
This is all about working people, as I tried to explain earlier in my speech. Sixty per cent of people—[Interruption.] Please listen for a second. Sixty per cent of families who will benefit from the measure are in work. If the right hon. Lady wants to ask about the Chancellor’s wider Budget strategy, let me say that I absolutely fully support it, because it was a fair Budget. Yes, it did raise taxes on those with expensive homes—a policy that I advocated for 10 years ago, as a matter of interest—as well as on gambling companies and on landlords. [Interruption.] Members should read the Red Book. The measure is part of a fair Budget. By the way, the Conservatives will have to explain to people up and down the country why they want to leave hundreds of thousands of children in poverty. That is not fair or right, and it is bad for our country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ed Miliband
I will make a bit more progress.
The second policy I wish to focus on is the Chancellor’s decision to take £150 off the cost of energy bills—that will be important for families across the country. It has been possible only thanks to a principled decision that she made to shift the cost of some levies into public spending, which is itself possible only thanks to her Budget decisions, including raising taxes on the wealthiest, moving into public spending 75% of the cost to households of the renewables obligation, and abolishing the energy company obligation, with £1.5 billion extra allocated for the warm homes plan.
I notice that the Conservatives now seem to claim that that was their idea in the first place, but there is a crucial—
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Ed Miliband
I will in a moment—let me develop my argument.
The Conservatives say that this was their idea in the first place, but there is a crucial difference: they proposed abolishing the renewables obligation—
Ed Miliband
But they had with no way of paying for it. “Yes”, says the hon. Gentleman. This is quite extraordinary—all the sins of opposition combined into one. The Conservatives had 14 years to do it, but they never did, and suddenly it is such a great idea to just abolish the renewables obligation.
Ed Miliband
“Yes”, says the hon. Gentleman—although, of course, he was an Energy Minister and he never did it. [Interruption.] He looks a bit sheepish now, doesn’t he? That is rare for him. Basically, I think the Conservatives’ argument is that they would just rip up all the contracts that the Government have signed—including lots of contracts that the Conservatives themselves signed—sending a message to every investor in Britain that the British Government will not honour the contracts that they sign. If it had been a remotely serious policy, they would have carried it out when in government, but it was not a remotely serious policy, because they are not a remotely serious party; that is the truth. In fact, it is all more Liz Truss. They will the ends; they want the cut in energy bills, which is good, but they do not have the foggiest idea of how to pay for it. Taken together, the choices made in the Budget, including on energy, will make life more affordable for people, and will begin to tackle the problems that I have outlined.
Harriet Cross
We are talking about £150 off energy bills that are already £200 higher than when the right hon. Gentleman came into government, and £300 was meant to come off those bills. Will bills be higher or lower than when he came into government last year?
Ed Miliband
If we look at the average of bills in 2025 versus 2024, they are lower. I hope that the hon. Lady will support our cuts to energy bills in April, when they come in.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Ed Miliband
Let me make a bit more progress. My second point is about public spending. In the spending review and the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made the crucial decision not to return to austerity. She could have made a different choice and cut public services—I think that is what Conservative Members would go back to doing—but we know the impact of that approach from the last 14 years. This is about the living standards of millions of people across our country who cannot buy their way into private health care or private schools. This can be hidden by the smokescreen that Conservative Members want to put up, but the Chancellor has made the incredibly important decision to invest in the future. That has enabled the Government to cut NHS waiting lists by more than 200,000, roll out free breakfast clubs in schools, expand free school meals, fund the expansion of free childcare, and announce the biggest boost to investment in social and affordable housing in a generation. Conservative Members are back to austerity.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for what he is saying, but on the £150 energy dividend for people across the United Kingdom, the Red Book lacks detail about how the policy will work in Northern Ireland. Perhaps he could indicate whether the support will be £150 in Northern Ireland, as it will in England. We must ensure that people receive the same in Northern Ireland as they do on the mainland.
Ed Miliband
The hon. Gentleman asks an important question; let me write to him with the detail on his point. We want as many people as possible across our country to benefit from this policy. By making different choices from those made in the past, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is able to invest in the long term. She is delivering the highest levels of public investment that this country has seen in four decades.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
At the last general election, the Secretary of State and all his colleagues said that they would raise taxes by £7 billion, and that their plans were fully funded and costed. What democratic mandate does he claim to have for increasing taxes by £66 billion, and debt by a further £70 billion?
Ed Miliband
The mandate that the British people voted for was a mandate to change this country, given the problems that we inherited from the last Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ed Miliband
Let me develop my argument, because this point is crucial: we can tackle the affordability crisis that people face only by investing in the future. Our vision of what makes an economy succeed is different from that of Conservative Members. We believe that public investment crowds in and does not crowd out private investment; that the only route to economic success is a Government who support industry and workers with a proper industrial strategy; and that rights at work and strong trade unions are not an impediment to a good economy but an essential ingredient of it. Nowhere is that more apparent than in clean energy. Since the election, we have seen the largest public investment in home-grown clean energy in our history, leveraging private sector investment—that is the point—of more than £60 billion. We have the largest nuclear building programme in half a century, with Sizewell C, small modular reactors, and fusion at West Burton, which the Conservatives failed to deliver. There is funding for carbon capture in Teesside, Humberside, Scotland and the north-west, which the Conservatives failed to deliver, and we have the first new publicly owned energy company in more than 70 years in Great British Energy, which they opposed.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
In the east of England, we welcome the Government and private sector investment in Sizewell C, and a clean energy supply chain that will stretch from Suffolk through to Essex. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Budget offers tax incentives to start-ups and scale-ups in that sector, which will help that supply chain to flourish and bring energy bills down even further?
Ed Miliband
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When we recently announced the small modular reactor fleet at Wylfa in north Wales, we saw the huge opportunities, not just for the areas where nuclear power stations are being built, but rippling across the supply chain. That is why I am so proud of the investments that we have been able to make. What is the result?
Ed Miliband
I will not, for a few minutes. The result is new jobs building wind turbines at Siemens Gamesa in Hull, new jobs making transformers in Stafford, new jobs making heat pumps in Derby, and new jobs at Sumitomo’s new factory at the Port of Nigg—some of the 400,000 additional clean energy jobs that we expect our mission to support by 2030. That is the difference.
What is the Conservatives’ policy? They want to rip up the Climate Change Act 2008 and abandon net zero by 2050, which was their legacy. As a result, they have been roundly condemned by British business. Energy UK says that abandoning that target will scare off investors. The Confederation of British Industry says that it is a “backwards step”, because the Climate Change Act is
“the bedrock for investment flowing into the UK”.
Baroness May—they do not like to talk about her—called it a “catastrophic mistake”. And get this: even Boris Johnson —rarely have I quoted Boris Johnson—says that
“in my party, it’s all about bashing the green agenda, and personally I don’t think we’ll get elected on…saying what rubbish net zero is.”
Normally—I have experience of this—Oppositions stick by what they did right in government, and trash what they did wrong. The right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) is pursuing a novel approach to opposition: trash anything that they did right, and double down on everything that they did wrong. Nowhere is that more true than in our dependence on fossil fuels.
At this point, I express my sincere thanks to the right hon. Lady’s colleague on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who sadly is not here. Last week, I was talking about the causes of the energy bills crisis of 2021. He shouted out—I checked Hansard—“Because Putin invaded Ukraine!”. Obviously, he is one of the finest minds on the Opposition Front Bench, and he is right about that, but he has given the game away. This relates to affordability and this Budget debate. The lesson from the worst cost of living crisis in generations is this: it came about because Putin invaded Ukraine. What was the cause of higher bills? Why were we worse hit than many others? Because we were so exposed to fossil fuels. It was not the price of renewables that soared; it was the price of gas, including from the North sea, priced and sold on the international market. That is what happens when we do not have clean, home-grown power, and when we are at the mercy of petro states and dictators. What is the strategy of right hon. Member for East Surrey now? To double down on the Conservatives’ failure. She literally says that we should cancel the allocation round 7 auction.
Ed Miliband
Yes, the right hon. Lady says. The Conservatives are the people who lost it all in the fossil fuel casino, and now they say, “Let me just have one more go at the roulette wheel. This time it will be different. Cross your fingers and hope for the best.” Let us think about this. What are they betting on? In today’s world, at this moment of all moments, with the world at its most perilous for generations, their policy is to cross their fingers and hope for everlasting peace in the world and no geopolitical instability.
Ed Miliband
I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman. With Russia still at war in Ukraine, with deep tensions in the middle east, and with NATO being tested, this is ridiculous irresponsibility from the Conservatives. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) should listen to this. We know that half our recessions since the 1970s have been caused by fossil fuel shocks, and the world is so much more unstable. Here is the worst thing of all: it was not the Conservatives’ energy bills that they were betting with; it was the British people’s. Families, business and the public finances are still paying the price of their failure, and there has not been a word of apology or contrition.
The right hon. Member for East Surrey now has to pretend that black is white, ignore the dangers, and claim that fossil fuels are cheaper, when actually strike prices for solar and onshore wind in last year’s auction were nearly 50% cheaper than the levelised cost estimate of building and operating a new gas plant. The truth is that the Conservatives have learned nothing and must never be let near the levers of power again. The difference between us is that we make fair choices; they would double down on unfair choices. We invest in the future; they would return us to austerity. We are building an economic future for the country; they would destroy the economic opportunities and security of the clean energy economy.
To conclude, this is a Budget that, despite the challenges, provides a clear direction of travel on the biggest issue of our time: the affordability crisis. This is a Budget that shows a Government who are acting on the No. 1 issue facing the British people. This is a Budget for fair choices, for investing in public services, and for creating a better economy. That is why this Budget deserves support in the Lobby tomorrow night.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
That was a fine performance, but anyone listening to it out there will think that the Secretary of State is in cloud cuckoo land. The Government have taxed working families up the wazoo. They have taxed tens of thousands of people out of their jobs. They are clobbering them left, right and centre with rising bills, and for what? It is not for growth—no, there is none of that coming—but so that they can go on a welfare spending spree.
In the election, Labour promised the public that it would not lift the two-child benefit cap, just like it promised that it would not raise taxes on working people. It has broken promise after promise, and it has fudged the reasons why, to say the least. In this debate, the Government want a thank you from the public because they have handed them back a tiny fraction of the money that they took from them. I can tell you that the public are thinking of a phrase that ends in “you”—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The shadow Secretary of State knows not to use the word “you” when she is obviously not referring to me.
Claire Coutinho
The public are thinking of a phrase that ends in “you”, but the first word is not “thank”. The Government want to talk about the cost of living, but they are clobbering low and middle earners with tax rises and higher bills. That is why the majority of the country says that this Budget will leave their family worse off. The majority of the country has also said that they think the Budget is unfair. The Secretary of State talked about fairness, but the public do not feel that it is fair, and they are right. All the things that hurt disposable income are up: inflation, bills and taxes are up. The things that help—growth and employment—are down. Household disposable income has been revised downwards because of this Budget.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The shadow Secretary of State wants to talk about fairness. One of the practical consequences of retaining the two-child cap was that in order to be exempted from it, 3,000 women had to declare to a Department for Work and Pensions official that they had been raped. [Interruption.] An Opposition Member is saying “wind up”. Will the shadow Secretary of State clarify why she thinks that measure would be fair?
Claire Coutinho
The hon. Member makes an impassioned case, but why did Government Members not make it at the election? Why did the Government remove the Whip from seven Labour MPs who voted against keeping the cap last year? Why did the Government make all Labour MPs vote to keep the cap, including the Secretary of State? That is the question that Members need to ask. The Government want to be known for having helped people with the cost of living. They must think that the public are stupid. Everyone out there can see that everything that the Government are doing is making the cost of living worse. They do not understand the basics, and the situation is apparently so bad that No. 10 has been giving Back Benchers lessons about Government debt. Given that we have seen Labour Back Benchers cheer at two job-killing Budgets, perhaps the Government need to expand the curriculum.
Wendy Morton
Is it not the truth that we have in front of us not the Budget of the Chancellor, the Prime Minister or the Cabinet, but the Budget of the Back Benchers?
Claire Coutinho
My right hon. Friend is right, and here is the problem: this Budget might have made the Back Benchers happy, but it is not the Budget that they promised at the election. Let me help them. To start with inflation, we left Labour with inflation back under control at 2%. That took difficult decisions, which needless to say Labour opposed, but it was important to do that because inflation hurts: it picks the pockets of families who find themselves working just as hard but able to afford less and less. However, under Labour, inflation has doubled thanks to the choices it made at the last Budget.
We have now broken away from our international peers—Labour Members can check the graphs—and we have significantly higher inflation than Europe and the United States. In fact, we have the highest inflation of any major economy, and the OBR has said that, compared with March, it now expects inflation to be higher for longer. Why? It is because Labour has chosen to make the cost of energy and the cost of food more expensive, and to pursue policies that will push up rent. People’s weekly shop is up because of Labour’s choices: taxes upon taxes—a jobs tax, a packaging tax, a family farm tax. These are Labour’s choices, and they mean that the average family will pay almost £300 more for their groceries this year. With Labour’s war on farmers, is it any surprise that a pack of mince, a family staple, is up 40% this year alone?
Let us take housing: rent is going up by £700 this year for the average renter. Labour does not understand that a lower supply of homes to rent means higher rents, yet it is written in black and white in the OBR document that its new housing taxes risk
“a steady long-term rise in rents”.
Labour’s choices mean that the cost of going away on a family holiday will set people back up to £400 extra because of its flight tax. Those choices mean that food will cost £300 more, rent will cost £700 more and holidays will cost £400 more—that is £1,400 more and I have not even got to energy bills or taxes yet. On energy, where do we even start?
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady has repeatedly suggested that energy bills are going up—[Interruption.] If she does not believe me, perhaps she will believe Martin Lewis, the money-saving expert, who tweeted earlier today:
“I’ve just got the new predictions for the April Price Cap, which is a cut in cost of 4.2%. Without the Budget changes, it would be predicted to be rising 3.5%.”
Will she correct the record and explain why she does not support the work that we are doing to cut energy bills?
Claire Coutinho
I will come to what Martin Lewis says about the hon. Gentleman’s party’s policies in a second.
Labour promised £300 off energy bills, but bills have gone up by £200 instead. Going by his own election promise, the Secretary of State owes the public a £500 cut. Why have those bills gone up? It is because of the costs introduced by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. Hon. Members do not have to take my word for it—they can just listen to Martin Lewis, who says that wholesale prices have plummeted but energy bills are up because there are countless costs landing on those bills thanks to the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) wanted to talk about Martin Lewis a second ago but he does not want to hear about him now.
Among those costs are the cost of backing up wind farms and switching them off when it is too windy, all the grid costs that are multiple times higher because of the system that Labour is creating, the warm home discount that everyone is paying for through their bills, the carbon tax that has gone up by 70% this year, and the tax on gas to pay for hydrogen that is coming in January. I am not sure whether Labour Back Benchers know about all these costs, but they add up to hundreds of pounds extra. No wonder the Secretary of State never did a costing; he did not want anyone to know the truth. He is piling hundreds and hundreds of pounds on to energy bills, and now he wants a round of applause for this £150 off them.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
On that point, will the right hon. Lady give way?
Claire Coutinho
Let us talk about that £150. If someone has a gas boiler, the figure is £130. I remind the Secretary of State that that is almost everybody in the country. Oh yes, and if they pay tax, the amount has not come off—it has just been moved from their energy bill to their tax bill. Most importantly, that amount does not even touch the sides of what this Secretary of State will cost people in the end. Like so much of what Labour says, it is just sleight of hand. The real question is this: since the election, have bills gone up or down? The answer is up.
The Secretary of State should be honest that this policy was never part of his plan. It is not part of Great British Energy or clean power 2030—all the things that he promised would lower bills. In fact, it is a tacit admission that he has failed. The centre knows that his plan cannot lower bills. In fact, if the reporting is correct, the Secretary of State fought against the policy, but he has been forced into it, because his promise to cut bills by £300 has become a national embarrassment to them all. It is taxpayers who are bailing him out to the tune of £7 billion.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Lady not share the concerns already articulated by the Confederation of British Industry that simply to scrap the Climate Change Act and the important work of this Government in pursuing net zero targets would be a “backwards step”? That would actually be to the detriment of people’s energy bills and inward investment into our economy and would kill off jobs. Those are the words of the CBI, after all.
Claire Coutinho
We can exchange quotes, but the hon. Gentleman might want to—[Interruption.] Let me respond. He can go and check the quotes of the most respected energy economist in the country, Sir Dieter Helm, who says that the Government’s plan is locking people into higher bills for longer. One of the fundamental problems we have in this country is that energy costs are too high, and the Secretary of State is locking people into those higher prices for longer. If the Government truly want to cut bills for everyone, they should use our cheap power plan.
Do you know what is extraordinary, Madam Deputy Speaker? The Government have come up with a package that costs the Exchequer more, cuts bills by less and does nothing to cut energy bills for struggling businesses. Food bills are up. Rents are up. The costs of holidays are up. Energy bills are up. That is cost after cost after cost because of the Government’s policies, and they want a round of applause for moving a fraction of those costs off energy bills and straight on to people’s tax bills. Only people with the Labour party’s grasp of numbers could think that that is a good deal. The Secretary of State says that there is an affordability crisis, but he does not explain the cause; the Government are the cause. That is before we even get to tax.
Taxes on student loans, taxes on income, taxes on saving, taxes on housing, taxes on driving, taxes on pensions, and even taxes on taxis—if Labour could, it would tax the air that we breathe. Taxes are rising more in this Parliament than in any since the 1970s. The freeze in income tax thresholds means that the average worker on £35,000 a year will lose £1,000 in tax by the end of the decade. That is an extra two weeks they will be working, not to feed their family but to pay for Labour’s benefits bill.
Let us be clear. When the Government say that they are asking for a contribution, they are not asking, are they? It is not like anyone can say no. I do not know whether there has ever been a more irritating formulation of words than that phrase, which we have heard so much over this weekend.
There will be so many people out there who will look at this Budget and think, “Why do I bother? Why do I get up at 5.30 am? Why do I work overtime? Why do I barely see my family? Why am I going to pay more tax for people on benefits who are not working those hours?”
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady says that people will pay for people on benefits, but some 60% of those people on benefits are working. Does she not agree that we are supporting people into work?
Claire Coutinho
Let me make this point to the hon. Gentleman. The average person on benefits in work is working 20 hours, sometimes less. Why should a family with kids who are not well off and are working 40, 50 or 60 hours a week be worse off than a family on benefits working far fewer hours?
I quit a job in the City to go to work for the Centre for Social Justice and work with people fighting poverty, and I have worked with struggling families in some way since I was 16. It is not compassionate to make welfare pay more than work. It is not a helping hand; it is a trap.
The Government should also talk to the many couples who have put off having children or stopped at one or two children because they cannot afford it. Younger brothers and sisters simply will not be born. Those missing children are a personal tragedy for every couple who are having to make that choice, but there will be more of those decisions, because the Government are loading more and more costs and taxes on to hard-working families.
Lloyd Hatton
Can the right hon. Lady explain to the House what it would mean for the 1,360 children in her constituency, and the nearly 1,700 children in my constituency, who would remain in levels of relative poverty if we chose to pursue the two-child benefit cap for many more years, as she is suggesting?
Claire Coutinho
We have a fundamental difference in belief. Labour Members believe the best way out of poverty is welfare; I think the best way is jobs and growth, but the Government are killing those things.
The problem with the Labour party, as we can see from its policies, is that it clearly thinks the only answer to the cost of living is redistribution, even past the point at which there will be no one left to redistribute from. Conservative Members know that jobs, low taxes and low costs improve the quality of life, but the Government are killing those jobs—every month under them, parents are losing their jobs. What do Labour Members think the cost of living is like for those families who have lost their salaries under this Labour Government? There are 170,000 fewer people on the payroll since the election. Young people cannot get a foot on the jobs ladder—because of this Government, the cost of hiring a young person has gone up by £4,000. They say they are raising the minimum wage, but they are crushing businesses’ ability to pay for it. The result is hiring freezes and redundancies, and for all those people just above the minimum wage who are also struggling, there will be no money left for wage progression. The best way to improve living standards is growth, but this was not a Budget for growth; it was a Budget for Labour Back Benchers. That is why it did not contain a single growth measure.
Labour’s entire approach to the economy has been to raise the cost of basic goods, to raise taxes, and to crush wages and employment. The Government are expecting a shrinking group of hard-working taxpayers to pay for more redistribution, to cover the costs that they are choosing to impose on the public. In the words of one Labour Cabinet Minister, this Budget has been a “disaster”. Those are not my words—according to a No. 10 source, they think they are the words of the Secretary of State. Labour will not be known as the party helping people with the cost of living; it will be known as the party that has broken its promises to working people, broken its promises on tax and on bills, and broken the social contract that sees work pay more than welfare.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Colleagues can see from looking around the Chamber that the speaking list is very long, so Back Benchers are on a speaking limit of six minutes.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)
This Labour Government are rebuilding our economy, rebuilding our public services and addressing the cost of living pressures that our constituents face. This Budget will make a huge difference to my constituents’ lives, thanks to the cuts to energy bills, the freeze on rail fares, increases in the living wage and action to tackle child poverty. Inflation is coming down, and forecast interest rates are also coming down. Growth is forecast to rise this year, and business investment is forecast to rise over the course of this Parliament.
We inherited a dire situation, with public services on their knees, chronic under-investment and a fiscal black hole. For 14 years, Tory Governments presided over austerity, stagnant wages, the chaos of leaving the European Union, and the Liz Truss mini-Budget fiasco that sent markets into a panic, mortgage rates soaring, and inflation rates to over 11%. The cost of leaving the EU is now estimated to be far more than previous estimates: a recent report by Stanford University found that Brexit is reducing the UK’s GDP by 6% to 8%, with the impact accumulating gradually over time. That report also found that investment has reduced by between 12% and 18%, employment has reduced by 3% to 4%, and productivity has also reduced by 3% to 4%.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way at such an early stage in her excellent speech. She has talked about the impact of austerity on the country’s finances; I would add that austerity has had a huge impact on productivity, particularly in my constituency, where we have seen 13-hour waits in A&E and year-long waits for appointments. Does my hon. Friend agree that that means people cannot go back to work, which affects their productivity?
Rushanara Ali
I fully agree with my hon. Friend. That is why it is vital that we rebuild our public services and invest in our national health service, to ensure people are able to contribute to our economy.
We also inherited a mountain of debt, with the previous Conservative Government having borrowed £1.5 trillion between 2010 and 2024. The fact is that austerity, Brexit, covid and Tory economic mismanagement have left our economy in peril, and our constituents are suffering the consequences in the form of rising prices and flatlining wages. For the poorest and most disadvantaged, the cost of living crisis has been a daily struggle for years. The Trussell Trust distributed approximately 60,000 food parcels in the 2010-11 financial year. By 2024-25, the number had risen to 2.89 million. This is the poisoned inheritance that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is tackling, so of course she had to make tough choices with the hand that she had been dealt.
The decisions made in this Labour Government’s second Budget to lift 450,000 children out of poverty, help families with the cost of living and enable record investment to be made in our NHS will help a great many children. In my constituency, the scrapping of the two-child cap will lift more than 6,000 children out of poverty.
Rushanara Ali
I am going to make progress, as many colleagues want to speak.
The minimum wage and the living wage are being increased to support the lowest paid. The 250 new neighbourhood health centres, which are part of the shift towards the prevention of ill health, will help to tackle stark health inequalities.
More widely, in less than 18 months this Labour Government have secured three landmark trade deals, with £150 billion of inward investment from US companies, which is a solid vote of confidence in Labour’s economic plans; investment in the jobs of the future, in AI and green technologies; and clean energy projects set to create 400,000 jobs by 2030. That is thanks to the work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, who has led the way on this agenda, in the last Labour Government as well as this one. We should be proud of the five cuts in interest rates since Labour came to power, and for the first six months of the year the UK was the fastest-growing economy in the G7.
As has been pointed out, wages have been growing faster than inflation. Real wages rose by more in the first 10 months of this Government than in 10 years under the last Conservative Government. I am especially proud that 3.5 million workers are receiving a pay rise worth £1,400 this year because we have boosted the national minimum wage. We are investing in the health of the nation, with 5 million extra NHS appointments—double what was promised. We are investing in housing, with a record £39 billion for the social and affordable homes programme, and we are investing in young lives, with free breakfast clubs in primary schools as well as 30 hours of free childcare.
This Budget is delivered in tough times, after years of under-investment, low productivity and stagnant wages. The decisions that have been made will deliver on our manifesto pledges, ensuring a stable economic platform, investment in our economy and a fairer society. For many children, this Labour Budget will deliver the opportunities that are desperately needed instead of obstacles, and the chance of a better life.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
This is a Budget driven far more by political calculation than by the economic realities that the country faces. The Chancellor has an enormous majority—on paper, at least—and the country desperately needs change, but we now have a second Budget in which the Government have failed to demonstrate that they have any big ideas to get the economy moving. However, before I go into that, I want to focus on some positives.
I welcome some of the announcements that the Chancellor made last week, which will help households that have been struggling with the cost of living. Lifting the two-child benefit cap will be worth up to £5,000 a year to each of the more than 500 families in my constituency who have been impacted by the cap. Too many children and families have been trapped in poverty because of the decision to impose it and the Government’s previous stubborn decision to keep it. I just wish that this had been done a year ago, and I give my commiserations to the brave Labour Members who lost the Whip after standing up for a policy that their party now finally accepts.
I also welcome the Government’s action to cut energy bills by removing the renewables levy, which is something that we Liberal Democrats had been calling on the Chancellor to do. It will make a difference to families struggling with sky-high fuel bills. However, I wish that the Government had gone further, rather than removing just 75% of the levy and only for three years. We were proposing to fund the renewables obligation instead from a windfall tax on the excess profits in the banking sector that have resulted from quantitative tightening—something that would have happened now, unlike the deferred taxation that the Chancellor is proposing, which may or may not happen. Both those changes will make struggling families’ lives a little easier, and are very much welcomed.
Similarly, doubling remote gaming duty—something we have also been calling for—is clearly a sensible move. It is one way to raise much-needed revenue without increasing the burden on hard-working families, but it is comparatively small, raising only £1 billion a year. The sad truth is that these are all small wins in the context of the huge challenges we face.
Peter Swallow
Before the hon. Gentleman gets to the part of his speech that I do not think I will like as much as what he has said already, does he welcome the freezing of rail fares for the first time in 30 years, which means almost 300 quid off a season ticket into London for commuters in Bracknell?
Charlie Maynard
Yes, I welcome it.
The OBR has marked down economic growth for each of the next four years, which is bad news. We have a ballooning debt, which now sits at £2.9 trillion. Our debt costs have tripled in the last five years—yes, that is the Conservatives’ fault—and our Government debt is now more expensive than Italy’s. Yes, this all happened on the Conservatives’ watch, but we now have a situation in which 11% of Government spending goes on covering the interest payments, not on paying down the debt itself, and the Chancellor has given no indication that she is serious about addressing that.
Across the five years of the forecast, the Chancellor proposes to deliver a reduction in our net borrowing of just 0.04% of GDP, and I question her tactics. What is the sense in taxing salary sacrifice schemes when we know the strain that the state pension and social care systems are under and when we need people to save more, not less? Does common sense not tell us that discouraging people from saving for retirement now will only lead to a greater burden on the public purse in the long run?
Then there is the desperate state of our special educational needs and disabilities provision. The SEND national deficit overspend is forecast to reach £17.8 billion by March 2028. The Government have said they will cover costs directly from that point on, but they have given no answer as to how this huge bill will be settled up. In Oxfordshire alone, the SEND annual overspend is expected to reach £153 million by March 2026. Why are we waiting two and a half years to do something about that?
As per policy decision 37, the Government determine that they will go further on efficiencies and savings in public services, but not just yet. There are zero governmental cost savings in each of the next three years and then, miraculously, we expect £4 billion in savings in 2029-30—the other side of a general election. How can the country take the Government seriously when they take this approach?
That last instance highlights the problem with the fiscal framework the Government have set themselves. The rule that the current Budget must be in surplus in 2029-30, and the aim of ensuring that debt is falling as a share of the economy by ’29-30, are all well and good, but entirely excluding the intermediate years from the calculation serves our country extremely badly. This Government are gaming the system, in the same way the Conservatives did before them, by adjusting everything in year five to perfectly line up, with more spending early on and tax rises deferred, possibly into the never-never.
Let us look at international examples of how national Budgets are set to understand why the UK is so ineffective at controlling its debt. The Government could take inspiration from the Swedish model of tax scrutiny. Thirty years since introducing changes, and aided by strong economic growth, Sweden has reduced its national debt from nearly 80% to 32%—and yes, Sweden had covid too. Meanwhile, our national debt stands at around 95%. A key component of the solution is that we need to substantially strengthen the scrutiny powers of this Chamber when it comes to the Government’s financial management. This four-day debate clearly does not provide an effective scrutiny function, and there is no meaningful ability for Parliament to amend the Budget once it is announced. Our country is the poorer for this approach.
Secondly, of course, we need to seek a deal with Europe that captures the economic benefits of the European market, which is five times bigger than our own, while maintaining control of our borders. This should start with negotiating a new customs union with the EU. Last month, the US’s National Bureau of Economic Research published a paper that found that Brexit had cut UK GDP by between 6% and 8%, with the economy now £170 billion smaller than it would otherwise have been. The House of Commons Library found that we are losing £90 billion in tax revenues every year as a result of Brexit—an enormous number. That is equivalent to two thirds of the UK’s entire annual Budget deficit of £138 billion; to nearly 80% of our entire annual debt expense of £114 billion; or to our defence, security, prisons and courts budgets combined. The Government now finally acknowledge that Brexit has left our country poorer, weaker and more divided, but they are still unwilling to do almost anything material about it.
I was elected by my Witney constituents in 2024 to do all that I can to make their lives better and our country better. This Budget is a key lever through which to do so, and I am deeply dismayed at the lost opportunity that it represents.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I commend the skill and courage of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who has faced the most difficult inheritance of any post-war Chancellor since Hugh Dalton in 1945. I welcome the cost of living measures, the cut in energy bills and the increase in the minimum wage, and the lifting of the two-child cap is very welcome too. In addition, I commend the work that my hon. and learned Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has begun on tackling financial exclusion.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has been particularly skilled at increasing capital funding, and I will campaign for more of it to be invested in Harrow, not least in council or co-operative housing. Indeed, the lack of new socially rented housing being built in Harrow by the Conservative-run council is a disgrace. Not one new council home that had not already been agreed has been built since the Conservatives took over control, making the housing crisis in my constituency much worse.
More capital investment in schools in Harrow West is certainly needed. After 14 years of Tory neglect, there are classrooms that cannot be used, windows that cannot be shut, roofs that need fixing and sports facilities that need modernisation. Crucially, more investment is needed in our NHS too. Notably, a new intensive care unit at Northwick Park hospital is needed to ease pressure on the A&E unit and improve the quality of care.
I welcome the explicit mention in the Budget of the role of co-operatives in our economy and the publication of the call for evidence on co-operative growth. Co-operatives and mutuals are rarely given the attention they merit, yet the opportunities for growth and, crucially, for the locally owned growth they generate are significant. I hope the Treasury will bring forward its own specific call for evidence on how credit unions, mutual insurers and building societies can expand to play their part in growing our economy.
The standout issue for co-operatives is their ability to issue capital instruments that do not lead to de-mutualisation. This has been done successfully in Australia, where 600 million Australian dollars has already been raised to grow mutuals, notably in the elderly care sector. There is serious interest from co-operatives here in using similar capital instruments to invest in social care. The movement is vital for tackling financial exclusion, and for delivering jobs and better opportunities in our country’s most deprived neighbourhoods.
The banking industry should partner with, and invest in the growth of, credit unions and community development finance institutions. Many British banks do so already in the US, where it is a requirement; they should do so in their own backyard too. The Government cannot double the size of the co-operative and mutual sector of our economy on their own. Businesses in the sector need to do that themselves, but greater interest, imagination and urgency from the Treasury—which, under the Conservative party, paid only passing attention—in tackling the finance, legislative and capacity challenges that the sector faces will be critical.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor, in the run-up to the Budget, rightly drew attention to the impact of Brexit and the dismal trade and co-operation agreement negotiated by the Conservative party. The OBR continues to estimate that the impact of Brexit has been a 4% hit to our GDP, with sustained damage to our tax revenues, to jobs and to family finances. In short, it has been an unparalleled act of economic self-harm, with the TCA easily the worst trade deal ever negotiated. I welcome the steps that the Government are taking towards a sanitary and phytosanitary deal to lower food prices and reduce border delays, and a youth mobility scheme and energy co-operation make obvious sense too. These will benefit growth, but I believe that we should go further and use the 2026 UK-EU summit to agree on the ambition of a more profound reset. With imagination and sustained business encouragement, a better deal to lower trade barriers could be possible.
The recent EU-Swiss deal is interesting for the greater flexibility the EU has now shown to a close and serious partner. As we rebuild our country’s relationship with our allies across the channel, it is surely time, within our red lines, to be bolder in our ambitions to strip away the red tape that the Conservatives love about trade with Europe, particularly for goods exports. The needless rules, the different standards and the extra unnecessary checks they introduced in the TCA are making it harder for British businesses to sell into the EU. Mutual recognition of qualifications and easing business mobility restrictions are worth exploring too.
Ms Creasy
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful point about going further on our relationship with Europe. Does he recognise that the OBR says that Brexit, as negotiated by the previous Government, is one of the “structural challenges” facing our manufacturing industry, so perhaps again being part of the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention, for example, would be one way to help businesses with all the extra paperwork created by the rules of origin changes?
Gareth Thomas
I understand that the Department for Business and Trade, my former Department, is about to issue a call for evidence on exactly how to negotiate membership of that, and I very much look forward to its happening.
If we are to get faster and more significant growth, we have to take the axe to more of the red tape that Boris’s trade deal introduced, so I urge my right hon. Friends to continue to be bolder and more ambitious for a deeper and more profound EU reset agenda.
Lastly, I think we should consider in the coming months how to rebuild the fiscal space to fund the development assistance that gives us so much soft power. That assistance supports our security needs, and it is vital to the effectiveness of key parts of peacekeeping, global health and the empowerment of those whose prospects are being damaged by poverty, conflict and climate change. I look forward to supporting the Budget in the Division Lobby tomorrow.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and may I say what a delight it is to see you in the Chair this evening?
I was not going to start by saying this, but I agree with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, when—and I may misquote him slightly—he spoke about “decent jobs at decent wages.” I absolutely agree, and that is what we all want to see in every one of our constituencies right across the country. However, I do not believe that this Budget goes any way towards delivering those decent jobs at decent wages, and certainly not in Staffordshire.
As we look at what is happening, we are seeing inflation rising. G7 comparisons are trotted out, but we will have the highest inflation in the G7 this year and also next year. The OBR has forecast that inflation will stay higher for longer, and why is that? It is because of the Chancellor’s last Budget. I am not sure whether this Budget will have helped reduce those pressures, but the initial indications certainly seem to be that it will not. This is a real problem because it is impacting people’s real lives. We are seeing food price inflation rising in 2025: it was 4.9% in October, up from 4.5% in September. This is having an impact on everyone’s lives—on their household incomes and how they get by.
This is a very bad Budget for jobs in Staffordshire, because nothing is being done at all for the ceramics industry. It is not as large an employer as it used to be 30 years ago, but it is still an important employer, whether at Dunoon in my constituency, Steelite, Churchill or so many other great businesses producing pottery in Staffordshire. This Budget will make it more difficult for them to produce pottery in Staffordshire, because it will mean they have higher costs. Having spoken to some of those working in the ceramics industry only last week, I know that a third of everything they spend is on energy costs. To compare this with the United States or continental Europe, producers are looking at half the price of what Staffordshire businesses are paying for their energy costs. How are we able to compete on the global stage if we do not help those producing in this country to have energy costs that mean they are competitive? I appreciate that the Minister summing up is the Secretary of State for Transport, but I hope that she will be able to respond to that point.
One of the most successful technology companies in this country is based not in London or Cambridgeshire, but in Stoke-on-Trent, and it is called bet365. It is the world’s leading technology company for betting. It employs 5,500 people in Stoke-on-Trent, and it is the single biggest private sector employer there. Those who work there live not just in Stoke-on-Trent, but right across Staffordshire, the north-west and the country. However, this Budget could destroy one of our most successful technology sectors, and for what? On the gambling tax increases, the OBR noted in its analysis:
“The behavioural responses to these changes are uncertain but are estimated to reduce the yield by around one-third. We estimate that operators will seek to pass through around 90 per cent of the duty increases by increasing prices or reducing payouts, leading to a reduction in consumer demand which reduces the yield from the measure by £0.5 billion by 2029-30. The elasticities used to estimate the demand effect also capture potential substitution to the illicit market, and substitution between different forms of gambling due to the tax differentials introduced through this policy.”
This will be a hammer blow to jobs in the city of Stoke-on-Trent and in Staffordshire.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The right hon. Member mentions that bet365 is based in Stoke. Could he explain to us why it is also based in Gibraltar and Malta?
Sir Gavin Williamson
This company operates internationally: bet365 is one of the most successful technology companies in this country, and it operates right across the globe. It is quite understandable why it does so, but the hon. Gentleman probably does not care about jobs in Staffordshire. He has probably not ever thought about jobs in Staffordshire, and he does not mind if they all move to Malta or some other jurisdiction. That is not for him to worry about, but it is for me to worry about, as it is for other Members who represent seats in Staffordshire.
This Budget is an absolute hammer blow to an industry that is providing high-quality, well-paid jobs in Staffordshire and in a city that has seen the decline of coalmining, the decline of ceramics and so many job losses over so many decades, and bet365 has been one of the most responsible employers by investing in the local community, investing in charity and paying its taxes here in the United Kingdom. In fact, its owners are the highest payers of tax in the whole United Kingdom. This will see jobs being lost right across my county. It is destroying the old industries of Staffordshire while at the same time destroying the new industries in Staffordshire, making sure that the people of Staffordshire will be worse off and suffer as a result of this Budget.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this third day of the Budget debate, and a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), and I associate myself with the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas).
In the short time available, I wish to cover a few areas, the first of which is the fiscal stance of the Government in relation to the cost of living. Overall, I believe that the set of measures announced by the Chancellor last week will indeed cut the cost of living, tackle NHS waiting lists, and reduce the deficit and the debt, which is much needed. Having worked in financial services before entering this place, I have observed debates on fiscal probity and prudence with great interest, but I would like to remind Members—certainly those on the Government side of the House, but also those across the House—that fiscal responsibility or fiscal prudence is not just an end in itself; it is a means to an end. It delivers economic and financial stability, and ultimately lowers inflation.
I welcome the fact that measures in the Budget will reduce inflation more than expected. By increasing the headroom, we are enabling the central bank to, in time, reduce interest rates at a faster rate, which will not only support mortgage holders but support businesses to expand their operations. In the long run, it will also help to reduce our national debt. Given that over a third of our national debt is held by overseas investors, it is incredibly important that we respect their wishes and be fiscally responsible.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero gave a tour de force on the various measures we are taking to reduce the cost of living, certainly with regard to energy bills and rail fares. My constituents in Buckingham and Bletchley will benefit from frozen fares, whether they travel from Bletchley or Milton Keynes to London Euston or to elsewhere in the country. When I was out knocking on doors with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds) on Saturday, people on the doorstep particularly welcome the frozen prescription charges, as well as the broader investment in the NHS. In Milton Keynes we have seen lots of investment over the past few years, enabled thanks to the fiscal responsibility of this Labour Government, such as the £500 million investment in the new hospital in Milton Keynes. Just last week the Milton Keynes University hospital confirmed the construction of two new operating theatres, beginning early next year, all thanks to a Labour Government.
The final area I wish to cover is the pro-growth measures the Government are pursuing, some of which were announced last week. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West gave a very compelling argument for the need to increase the capabilities of our co-operatives and mutuals, which are an excellent feature of our economy. I want to highlight the role of UK listings relief, the expansion of the enterprise management incentives eligibility criteria, and the extension of the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts. It is incredibly important, in the globally competitive economy in which the UK is operating, that Britain is the best place to start, scale and ultimately list a business, and I welcome the measures provided in the Budget.
In conclusion, the Budget very much contributes to the financial prosperity of our economy, but we will need to go further, in the coming years and in the forthcoming parliamentary Session, on regulation, pro-growth tax reform and more inward investment—the Chancellor was in Wales today to bang the drum for more investment in the UK. As the Prime Minister said in his speech this morning, in the long run we also need to control benefit expenditure. The previous Government oversaw a ballooning of welfare and benefit expenditure. On the Labour Benches we believe in the virtue of work, but we must not use the failings of the previous Government to shirk the responsibilities of the future.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a particular pleasure to speak with you in the Chair this afternoon, inspiring envy, I am sure, from your new legions of fans.
On Wednesday, the Chancellor said that energy prices were one of the greatest drivers of the rising cost of living. She accepted that the cause of high energy bills must be tackled at source—in other words, at the supply side—and she recognised that the rush towards net zero is driving up energy bills for the British people. Thus far, the Chancellor and I are in agreement—stranger things have happened—but none of that seems to inform the Budget she actually served up. She promised to cut energy bills by shifting certain so-called green levies from bills on to general taxation, but that does not change the fact that the British people will still bear the costs of this Government’s net zero delusions. It is an attempt to hoodwink the public by shifting the costs from energy bills on to general tax bills.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) has repeatedly made clear, the answer is not to rearrange how those costs fall, but to stop imposing those costs altogether. The pursuit of net zero is sadly leaving this country worse off and is making almost no impact on global emissions, as countries such as China and India race ahead to open more coal-fired factories. Even those who have supposedly done everything right are still being crushed. One business in my constituency has invested £1 million in renewables, but it has still seen its energy bills triple. For far too many businesses, those sorts of rises in their energy bills will be the final nail in the coffin.
And rises are coming. Largely thanks to the Government’s policy on energy, Ofgem is again set to raise the energy price cap in January, meaning higher bills for the British public. Any short-term cost savings will quickly be eaten up as a result. The savings the Budget claims to offer are a mirage. Does the Chancellor believe that the British people are not smart enough to notice that, or does she simply not understand how it will play out?
The long-term picture is no better. Last week, our energy system operator officially warned that, thanks to the Government’s plans to cripple our North sea oil and gas industry, we will be at serious risk of running out of gas. Yet the Chancellor’s Budget maintains the windfall tax regime, which is destroying domestic production. They continue to spend vast sums of taxpayers’ money on schemes designed to cripple that industry in the long term.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
The hon. Lady and I have had exchanges on this issue before. At the start of the year, the CEO of Centrica recognised that it was the lack of gas storage that was putting £100 on electricity bills and £100 extra on gas bills, and that was down to the decision, in 2017, of the Conservative Government not to invest in Rough. Will she now acknowledge that that was a mistake?
Katie Lam
The gas is already stored in the North sea. The problem with the industry, and what is making it unprofitable, is the Government’s determination to hammer the oil and gas industry.
The Chancellor gave no clear verdict on the nuclear regulatory review. Instead, she promised that the Government would set out their plans in three months’ time. That means more delay and uncertainty for companies that might want to invest in British nuclear, and ultimately more delay in reducing the bills of British families and British businesses. This is not a Budget that will make any improvement to the lives of ordinary, hard-working people. It is a Budget that bakes in net zero, which means more taxes on the British people, more businesses forced to close their doors, more reliance on other countries to keep the lights on, and more emissions exported to countries like China.
No country has ever succeeded without cheap, abundant energy. For businesses, high energy costs can be the difference between success and bankruptcy. For people working hard to make ends meet, high energy costs can be the difference between having money to set aside at the end of the month or needing to dip into savings. Punishing those businesses and those people even more in pursuit of arbitrary net zero targets is profoundly cruel. The immense damage wrought by the cost of living crisis cannot be overstated. High energy bills mean families forced to cut back on after-school clubs for their children, businesses forced to cut back on staff, and young people forced to delay buying their first home even further.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Does the hon. Lady agree that it is the linking of electricity prices and of renewable energy prices to gas that is creating these high energy prices, and that de-linking them would immediately cut prices for the consumer?
Katie Lam
That is not the immediate problem. The energy prices currently being baked in by the prices the Government are agreeing at the moment will see energy prices sky high for years and years regardless of what happens to the price of gas.
The Conservatives’ cheap energy plan will save households hundreds of pounds and offers a much-needed lifeline to British industry. I very much hope that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero will adopt at least some of its measures.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As always with a Budget, there is far more to say than one can fit in a speech, but I just want to start by saying that the decision by the Chancellor to increase the headroom is not one that will garner many headlines or capture the public’s imagination, but it is probably one of the single most important things in the Budget. We simply could not have had another year where every bit of speculation on policy led to speculation on the markets, pushing up borrowing costs and leading to a constant cycle of uncertainty. I hope that this increased buffer and the move to annual forecasts will mean that we get some stability back, and that we will see the OBR—under new leadership—make far more accurate predictions and forecasts in the future than it has made to date.
I support the measures in the Budget that have been introduced to put more money into people’s pockets. My constituents will welcome another above-inflation increase in the minimum wage and the freeze to prescription charges, as well as the £150 reduction to average household energy bills, rising to £300 for the poorest households. Energy and transport costs make up a significant proportion of household expenditure, particularly for those on the lowest incomes. I hope that the rail freeze will also apply to Merseyrail, which is the main rail line for my constituents. It did seem a bit odd that we could not get confirmation from the Government last week that the freeze would apply to Merseyrail, but I see that the Transport Secretary is present—hopefully she will be able to confirm by the end of the debate that she does indeed have good news for my constituents on that score.
I am also proud that Labour is treating child poverty with the seriousness that it deserves. I welcome the measure announced by the Chancellor to scrap the two-child benefit cap that has forced so many families into hardship and harmed children through no fault of their own. This measure alone will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, meaning that, alongside other measures previously announced, we will see more than half a million children taken out of poverty. More than 2,000 children in my constituency alone will be lifted out of poverty as a direct result of this Budget.
I have heard commentators say that scrapping the cap was a measure simply to appease Back Benchers like me, but I think that really belittles the moral case for action. Let us be clear: this cruel policy did not achieve its initial aims, often punished families for changes in circumstances that were beyond their control, and ultimately cost our economy far more than the £3 billion a year that it saved.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
I wonder if my hon. Friend will allow me to raise the case of a single mum in my constituency who unexpectedly became pregnant a third time. It was a time of anxiety for her. She used food banks periodically and worried that she would not be able to afford toys for her kids at Christmas. Does my hon. Friend agree that the two-child benefit cap imposed by the Conservatives is the cruellest Tory policy of all?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is right to point out that the policy punished children for being born, which is not something any Labour Government should be part of.
We hear that this decision may encourage people not to work, but we all know from the statistics that a majority of people in receipt of benefits are in some form of employment. As for the wider cost, the Child Poverty Action Group estimates the cost of child poverty to the country to be about £40 billion a year, so not only is scrapping the cap the morally correct thing to do; it is also the best thing for our country economically.
While I understand the pressures facing the Government, I hope that the fiscal circumstances will improve in such a way to see income tax thresholds readjusted to take account of the inflationary pressure recently experienced. Going forward, we must continue to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders carry the burden to ensure that more and more working people are not dragged into paying tax by fiscal drag.
I have to say, I would like an explanation of the Chancellor’s comments about how those in receipt of the state pension will not have to pay any tax at the point that the state pension reaches the tax threshold in future. Of course they should not have to pay any tax on it, but why should a pensioner who might have a small private pension of £20 a week have to pay tax on that and their state pension? Once we start to look at some of the implications of the policy, it becomes clear that there are a number of unintended consequences. I hope that when the extra headroom that has been created by this Budget goes on to inspire further ideas in future Budgets, we can look at stopping some of the anomalies that the fiscal drag has created.
I will conclude with a few words on the automotive sector. I am proud to have in my constituency a Stellantis factory—or a Vauxhall Motors factory, as it is more commonly known round where we live. It is a site I have fought hard for over the years. Of course, the factory now manufactures electric vehicles. I welcome that the Budget reinforces the commitments that were made to our automotive sector in the industrial strategy for manufacturers. I am pleased that funding for DRIVE35 has been expanded by £1.5 billion, providing £4 billion over the next 10 years, which will help to build on the important investment the automotive sector needs.
I am also happy that plans to change the rules for the employee car ownership schemes have been delayed from next year until 2030, as that would undoubtedly have left many of my constituents hundreds of pounds a month worse off. Having now seen the impact of that policy, I hope the Government go the whole hog and cancel it altogether.
Dr Luke Evans
I have the automotive industry in my area too, and electric vehicles are really important. The implementation of the pay-per-mile change for electric vehicles is causing huge anxiety, as is the impact on the second-hand car market. We do not understand how this measure will work. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must be clear on this, as it will have a big impact over the next two to three years while it is discussed?
Justin Madders
The hon. Gentleman must have seen my speech, because I am just about to talk about that issue. He is right that there are a number of unanswered questions.
First, it is important to say that we do need to change to a pay-per-mile system for electric vehicles. The revenue we raise from fuel duty is clearly going to go down over the coming years, so there has to be a change.
Several hon. Members rose—
Justin Madders
I am sorry; I am not going to take any more interventions.
I think the pay-per-mile system is the right thing to do, although I do have concerns about the timing and how it will work in practice. I have to say, I did enjoy putting the question to Conservative Treasury Ministers when they were in government and never getting any answer at all, so I am pleased that this Government are at least acknowledging that this is an issue that needs tackling.
The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) is right to raise concerns about what the change will mean for the sector. The OBR has forecast that there could be around 120,000 fewer electric car sales over the forecast period, which of course will not be welcome news, and certainly is not helpful for our emissions targets. It is worth pointing out that the automotive sector is already at a precariously low level of production, and of course not all sales of EVs will be for UK-manufactured vehicles. In my opinion, we really ought to be giving generous discounts—the majority of those cars are built here, so we absolutely need to see more done to boost demand. Measures such as the electric car grant, which was launched earlier this year, continue to support people who want to switch to EVs, particularly with vehicles actually made in this country—that is a very important part of the scheme. However, even with that generous incentive, the pay-per-mile proposals will see us lose ground.
The Budget also contained measures on boosting charging infrastructure, which is really important, as it will give people confidence to make a purchase, but we cannot pretend that everything in this Budget goes all the way. That is, of course, before we get into the practicalities, so we need further thoughts on implementation.
This is a progressive Budget. It is a Budget that protects the most vulnerable, puts money into workers’ pockets and begins to rebalance the tax system and to make it fairer. There is no doubt that there is much more to be done in the longer term: we need to see faster improvements in our crumbling public services; food inflation remains stubborn, and is predicted to continue to be high over the medium term; housing costs mean that for many, renting—let alone buying—is still out of reach; and social care costs still mean that many people lose their home at the end of their lives, so we need that review of social care to deliver. Those are longer-term challenges, but for today, I believe the Chancellor has played a difficult hand pretty well.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State opened this debate by saying that we should look at the backdrop of the general election, which was a surprising way for him to open discussion on the Budget, not least because a central theme of the Budget is Labour doing the very opposite of what it said it would do at the general election. That can be seen first and foremost with the £26 billion of additional tax—on top of the £40 billion in tax in the Government’s first Budget—when Labour said at the general election that it had fully costed proposals and that it would not need to tax working people. Indeed, Labour said at the general election that growth was its No. 1 policy objective, and yet what do we see in the official documents from the OBR? We see growth forecasts down every year of the forecast.
Even the topic of this debate—“bearing down on inflation”—is the opposite of what the OBR says is happening, with inflation staying higher for longer as a result of the measures the Government have taken. Labour inherited inflation at 2%, and yet it is now forecast to stay at 3.5% next year and to be at 2.5% the year after. Indeed, on the topic of the cost of living, nothing hurts people’s incomes more than inflation, which pushes up bills and the cost of food and erodes people’s income.
The Government also promised to deliver jobs, but we can see the consequences of their first Budget: the changes to national insurance—the jobs tax—have meant that unemployment has been up every month that the Government have been in office, and the graduate recruitment situation is the worst on record. In response to this Budget, the OBR forecasts that unemployment will be at 4.9% in 2026-27. This Budget is supposed to be “bearing down on inflation”, but inflation is up. The Government talk about addressing the cost of living, but people are being taxed more, and more people are unable to get a job. Graduates in particular are being hit. We can see the difference between what Labour said at the general election and what it is delivering.
That all matters, because away from the big numbers—the billions that get quoted in Budget documents—are a whole series of individual measures that will bear down on people’s incomes and prospects. The Government’s measures will bear down on the small business owner who does not have the same security as a big public sector organisation, and who has put their own capital at risk; they will see a 2% increase in the dividend tax, on top of the corporation tax that they already pay. The measures will bear down on the pension saver, through the changes being made to salary sacrifice. The Government are also freezing income thresholds.
It is interesting that Labour Members cheered a Budget in which the Chancellor did the opposite of what she said last year that she would do. Last year, she said that it would be a breach of the manifesto to extend tax threshold freezes, and that is exactly what she did this time. It is worth looking behind the headlines, and bearing in mind what the official data says this will cost: in today’s prices, by 2030, the measure will cost a higher-rate taxpayer £600 extra, and a basic-rate taxpayer £220 extra. Those decisions will have real consequences on people’s take-home pay.
I represent a rural constituency, but this Government seem to dislike rural communities. We saw that last year with the family farm tax, and we are seeing it with the electric car mileage scheme, which disproportionately penalises rural communities. Again, that change was not in their manifesto. Looking at the consequences of the last Budget, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that national insurance changes are costing the average worker £900. These policies have real costs.
The tax changes are being sold as raising more money for, among others, the NHS. At the general election, the Government said that they would end the resident doctors’ strikes, but another one has been announced today. The NHS Confederation has said that this is not a Budget for the NHS, and under the Budget, an estimated £3 billion extra in drug prices will have to be absorbed. An announcement has been made that standards may be changed so that real mental health funding is flat, and just goes up in line with inflation, which is not the change that the Government promised.
Steve Barclay
I am happy to; perhaps the hon. Member wants to come in on the Government’s pay offer.
Mr Charters
I wanted to come in on the right hon. Member’s point about inflation. I am sure that he will welcome a Budget that reduces inflation. If he looks at the Blue Book—[Interruption.] Hang on a minute. Look at the Blue Book. It says:
“Government policy measures announced since March are expected to decrease inflation by 0.3 percentage points”.
Does he welcome that, or is he staying silent on fiscal measures that reduce inflation?
Steve Barclay
Clearly the hon. Member has just had a text message from the Whips Office. The reality is that the Government inherited inflation at 2%, and it is currently at 3.6%, and the OBR—the independent forecaster—forecasts it to be 3.5% next year. It takes a certain genius to intervene to show that the Government are going in the wrong direction.
This Budget is presented as being transformative for the NHS and for other services, but take community services; community health services in all our constituencies are hugely important. Waiting lists have been at about 90,000 since the general election, particularly for children, but we do not hear too much about that from the Government. We have heard very little in this debate about productivity, so let me close with one example. Last month, the Health Foundation said that there was only a one in six chance of the Government achieving the 2% annual productivity growth target that they set. Members might wonder why that matters. If productivity growth is at 1%, it will cost an extra £9 billion a year for the NHS. There is only a one in six chance of delivery, but if the Government do not deliver, there will be a very significant cost to the NHS.
This Budget puts up tax on working people in order to pay more in welfare. We can see that in a whole series of measures. We can also see the gulf between what the Government said at the general election and what the Chancellor has delivered. She has not even been consistent with what she said in her Budget last year.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I will impose an immediate five-minute time limit after I call Sam Carling, who has a six-minute time limit.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
That is very generous, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to speak about a Budget that builds on what this Government started last year and takes the necessary decisions to grow the economy and protect working people. With a focus on reducing the cost of living, cutting NHS waiting lists and reducing the national debt, this is a Labour Budget with Labour values.
We have already taken measures to cut the cost of living. We have been improving our energy security, which will bring down energy bills permanently and protect us from the thrall of international markets. We have started rolling out free breakfast clubs in schools, so that parents can get to work on time and kids can start the day ready to learn. We have expanded free school meals and raised the minimum wage, bringing a pay rise to millions of workers.
I am delighted that we are moving forward with further measures. Energy bills are being brought down for households by an average of £150 from April. We are introducing measures to tackle child poverty, which will make this Government the biggest reducers of child poverty since records began. We are lifting over 450,000 children out of poverty and benefiting around 3,200 children in my constituency, according to analysis in the Daily Mirror.
As with last year’s Budget, we see a significant boost to pay for those on the lowest incomes. When the Conservatives, among other parties, decry that by saying that it will impact on inflation, they need to look at the numbers. The OBR forecast shows that Government policy, particularly the energy bills package and the fuel duty freeze, will reduce inflation by 0.4 percentage points in the next financial year. Gilt yields shot down on Wednesday as the Chancellor delivered the Budget. The markets have confidence in our handling of the economy. On Thursday, JPMorgan Chase announced that it will build a new centre at Canary Wharf that will provide 12,000 jobs and boost our economy by £10 billion. That is not the kind of decision that a major player with global reach makes if it does not trust the Government’s handling of the economy. It is a huge vote of trust and mark of confidence in what we are doing.
This is a hugely progressive Budget, as was last year’s. On average, households in the lowest income deciles will benefit most from the decisions taken by this Government from the 2024 Budget onwards. Indeed, by percentage of income, all but the richest 10% of households will benefit from overall policy decisions in 2028-29. When it comes to slashing the cost of living, this Government are backing up their words with real action, reversing the damage done by our predecessors. [Interruption.] Conservative Members are chuntering at me, but I think they need to remember that the last Parliament was pretty much the only one on record in which living standards fell.
People in Peterborough and North West Cambridgeshire are really going to feel the benefits locally. I am delighted that the Chancellor announced £20 million for the new Peterborough sports quarter during her speech. That includes funding for a new Peterborough pool, after the Conservatives closed our regional pool when they ran the council. [Interruption.] Again, I am being chuntered at. The Conservatives closed the pool we had when they ran the council. These are the measures of a Government who are making a difference. By comparison, under our predecessors, living standards were hammered, wage growth was stagnant, and millions more experienced food insecurity.
Labour built the NHS, and we have always been its best custodians. We have proved that in our time in office so far. We promised 2 million extra appointments in our first year, but thanks to massive investment from our first Budget, we hit that target seven months early, and have delivered 5.2 million extra appointments since July 2024. Waiting lists are falling for the first time in 15 years.
Iqbal Mohamed
I welcome the investment in the NHS and the reduction in waiting lists for everyone in our country, but does the hon. Member agree that over time, the money that is going to private companies to reduce the waiting lists should be redirected to the NHS, so that profits do not leave the NHS, and there is more money to treat patients?
Sam Carling
The hon. Member has made his point. As we heard from the Chancellor, all NHS efficiencies will be reinvested in its budget, and I welcome that. My constituents rarely raise with me the specific way in which their healthcare is being delivered. What they want to know is why they cannot get a GP appointment and why they cannot get to hospital on time. What we are doing will deliver changes.
We must also talk about our national debt. Reducing the debt is a necessary and moral issue. Of every £10 we spend, £1 is spent on Government debt interest. Imagine what we could achieve if we had that money available to invest in our local communities. I am therefore delighted that due to the measures that the Chancellor has announced, combined with the action we took last year, debt as a share of GDP will fall consistently. We will achieve a Budget surplus of £22 billion in 2029-30, which would be the largest surplus for over 20 years.
Let us not forget that the UK was the fastest-growing economy in the G7 for the first half of this year, and both the IMF and the OECD forecast that for 2025 as a whole the UK will have better growth than the eurozone, Canada, Japan, France, Italy and Germany. So while Reform and the Conservatives scream doom and gloom, the Government are quietly getting on with the job. The Budget builds on everything we achieved last year, and I know that we will see the cost of living slashed, debt reduced and NHS waiting lists brought down.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
In February, Louise Holmes took me to her restaurant HolmeStores in Dorking, which was especially popular for brunch. It had fantastic food and a beautiful wood-panelled interior. Louise had 12 employees and was thinking about a second site, but she could not afford the employers’ national insurance increase, so today it is closed. Putting my constituents out of business through tax rises is no way to grow our economy.
Americans are twice as rich as they were in 2008; why are we 10% poorer? This is called the productivity puzzle, but actually it is no puzzle at all. Decades of research, including by recent Nobel prize winner Philippe Aghion, show that productivity can be raised by policies that support innovation, such as public research and development. UK Government support for nuclear submarine technology has led to the development of Rolls-Royce’s small modular nuclear reactors for civilian use. The roadblock is that economic policymaking in this country is too often driven towards meeting the OBR’s fiscal rules, while the OBR uses flawed assumptions for growth, such as the assumption that public R&D has no impact on economic growth after five years.
The Budget has been surrounded by controversy about the £16 billion productivity downgrade, but the more serious question is: why did the OBR downgrade productivity in the first place? In the 15 years since the OBR’s inception, it has consistently overestimated productivity, and has had to downgrade it when it has been wrong, which has created enormous volatility in economic policymaking. That is no way to run a G7 economy.
The good news is that the Government have started to adopt some policies that raise productivity. London Business School’s Paolo Sirico—I introduced the Chancellor to his work last year—has quantified the stunning impact that public R&D can have on economic growth. Paolo has shown that from 1950 to 2015, US patents that had a publicly funded component generated 12 times the productivity of patents purely funded by the private sector. The most famous example of that is, of course, John F. Kennedy’s Apollo programme.
Public funding of basic research in universities and laboratories is so powerful for economic growth because it de-risks the cost of developing new technology and generates the discoveries that attract private investment into start-ups and venture capital. In the spring statement, using Paolo’s model, the Chancellor was able to use £2.2 billion of extra defence R&D to upgrade long-term UK GDP growth by £11 billion a year. I therefore urge the Government to adopt a broad public R&D investment strategy for economic growth, like the US, Israel and South Korea. The investment needed is not actually that large—an extra £5 billion a year on public R&D would take us to US levels, as a share of GDP—and, if we borrowed to do that, debt-to-GDP would actually fall because GDP would rise faster than debt over the long run.
I urge the Government to invest £5 billion in public R&D in our leading industries, such as finance, film, defence, healthcare and renewable energy. Then it might be possible to turn our country into one of the fastest-growing advanced economies in the world.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
I joined the Labour party because I believe in equality and justice, and those are two of the values that I use to judge any Budget. Does it create a more equal society, and is the society that it creates more just? Therefore, there are aspects of the Budget that I welcome, such as the removal of policy costs from household energy bills, saving families £150. It is welcome that the parents of 3,730 children in my constituency will be helped by the abolition of the two-child benefit cap and the expansion of free school meals. I welcome the rise in the minimum wage and the living wage.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that rises in the national minimum wage are among the most important of pay rises because of the money they put into the pockets of the poorest workers in our society?
Barry Gardiner
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. He is absolutely right, and that money gets recycled throughout our economy.
I think it is a scandal that more than 60% of people in receipt of universal credit are actually in work—often working two jobs to make ends meet. That is a scandal because it means that those employers are not paying their workforce at a level that we, the rest of society, consider to be enough to live on. We, the taxpayer, are subsidising those companies’ wage bills so that they can pay their shareholders higher profits.
The Budget does not reverse structural inequality or shift the dial on growth. It is also a Budget that whispers when it should be screaming about the catastrophe that will collapse our economy within the next 25 years. Let me talk about the figures that matter and about the budgets that are actually going to change our lives.
Over the past 800,000 years, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has varied between 180 and 300 parts per million. During the last 10,000 years—the period of human civilisation—it has varied between 260 and 280 parts per million, which has given us humans a relatively stable temperature and climate. When we started the significant use of fossil fuels in the 19th century, the concentration of CO2 was at 280 parts per million; today, it is at 424 parts per million.
As a result of those emissions, global mean temperatures have risen by nearly 1.5°C. That is the level that we know gives us only a 50% chance of avoiding dangerous climate change. What does dangerous climate change actually mean? It means the systematic collapse of our economy. It means refugees fleeing parts of the world where life has become impossible because of temperatures persistently above 40°C, drought and failing crops. It means unprecedented societal chaos as supply chains fail and competition for food turns to violence. It means war.
What the Government have failed to understand is that they cannot weigh up the cost of addressing climate change against the cost to the economy, when the whole economy depends on keeping climate change under control, so the first budget we need is a global carbon budget that sets the quantity of CO2 that we can emit if we are to meet our Paris temperature agreements. If we are to stay below the 2°C threshold, we have only 530 billion metric tonnes of CO2 that we can release into the atmosphere. That may sound a lot; in fact, it is only 13 years of emissions at their current rate. The budget to stay within 1.5°C is a lot worse: just 130 billion metric tonnes, which is just three years of emissions at today’s level.
Barry Gardiner
I will not.
Parliament is supposed to be a gathering of the leaders of our community: rational and intelligent human beings capable of horizon scanning and guiding our country to a safe and sustainable future. Instead, it acts like the frog in the pan of gradually boiling water, delaying its escape until too late.
The Budget should have been bold. It should have put our country on a wartime footing with a national programme of retrofit, no new build that is not net zero in its embodied and operational carbon, a huge roll-out of public transport and a major programme of electrification. We have a huge majority, yet we act as though we are afraid of the power that we spent 14 years seeking.
Today, the green economy is growing three times faster than the rest of the UK economy. If growth truly is our ambition, it is in that clean, affordable and secure future that we should be investing. People often talk of a just transition. I prefer to talk of a bloody marvellous one. What’s not to like about warm homes with affordable energy; comfortable, efficient, speedy and reliable public transport; the creation of thousands of new jobs; decent air quality; a secure food system with reliable supply chains; and a stable geopolitical world? We live in an age of public sufficiency and private luxury, as Professor Kevin Anderson said last week at the national emergency briefing. A Budget that was adequate to the challenge we face would have turned that on its head, creating a society where every private home had what was sufficient and every public domain was one of luxury. That would be the just and equal society I came into the Labour party to create.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), who I know holds his views with great sincerity, although I do not agree with many of them.
Before I get into the substance of the Budget measures, I want to address the process leading up to the Budget. People might say that this is a subject of fascination just for those in the Westminster bubble, but in the run-up to this Budget, it went way beyond that. In the weeks—and, indeed, months—before the Budget, virtually every conceivable tax rise was floated as a possibility. Last week, we heard from the Office for Budget Responsibility, and what it said was summed up very well by Ben Zaranko from the Institute for Fiscal Studies:
“At no point in the process did the OBR have the government missing its fiscal rules by a large margin. Leaves me baffled by the months of speculation and briefing. Was the plan to lead everyone to expect a big income tax rise, then surprise them on the day by not doing it?”
Next Wednesday, the Chancellor will come before the Treasury Committee, of which I am privileged to be a member, and we will no doubt ask her about what was happening in those weeks. I do not want to pre-empt the scrutiny of that Committee, but I think everyone across the House must acknowledge what was happening. We all read the papers. We could all see how decisions about where to invest, whether to invest in the UK, whether to employ any more people and whether to have confidence in the future of the country’s economy rested on the way the Budget was prepared for.
I regret very much the error that was made by the OBR. It was clearly a profound error, and Richard Hughes has taken responsibility for it this afternoon. He has done the right thing—the honourable thing—but this will be conflated with the much more serious breach of protocol over several months leading up to the Budget, and we in this House need to come to terms with the implications that this has for our reputation.
There are some things in the Budget that I welcome, but there are some that I do not, including the enormous tax increase. We all fought an election where Labour plainly said that only £7 billion of tax rises were implied. We had £40 billion last year and a further £26 billion this year. This will mean 780,000 of the lowest-paid people coming into tax by the extension of the threshold freeze, as well as a tax on electric vehicles, more tax on property rents, a tourism tax and increases in tax on dividends, savings and unearned income. Employee ownership trusts relief will be halved and salary sacrifice contributions will be limited.
It is obviously the prerogative of every Government to raise tax as they see fit, but what concerns me is the lack of understanding of what it takes to drive growth in an economy. When I look at the implications for the hospitality sector, which is a significant one in Salisbury, I see people who are already bemused by the unexpected increase in employer national insurance, the increase in the national living wage and the implications of changes in employment legislation—and that is before we even heard the measures in last week’s Budget. People are worried about the risks and costs associated with investing in plant, machinery and people.
Chris Coghlan
I thank the right hon. Member, a colleague on the Treasury Committee, for giving way. I agree with many of the things he is saying, but does he not agree that the Conservative party also has considerable responsibility for this situation, through Brexit?
John Glen
I did not support Brexit. Brexit happened. We made a decision as a country, and I do not want to relitigate that. I commend the hon. Member for what he does to promote the discussion about measures to drive forward productivity. I think the Government could learn from some of his observations this afternoon, because until we get to a point where those who create wealth and jobs feel that it is in their interest to do so, we will be dancing on the head of the pin in terms of feeling secure about that trajectory of sustained growth. The burdens that come from this Budget will be significant, and will change the way that people think about investing in this economy. A dynamic economy does not come from ever-higher tax and higher spending on welfare.
The OBR has downgraded growth in every year. I recognise that, since the global financial crisis, many economies face similar challenges—let us be honest about that—but we cannot go on spending money on welfare unless we address the drivers of sustainable growth in our economy. I fear that the measures in the Budget last week, many of which purported to give long-term benefit, will not provide what those who create wealth need in the short term.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
It is a little over a year since we had the first Labour Budget in 15 years, and since that Budget, many of my constituents in East Worthing and Shoreham have felt the benefit in some way or another. They include the 20,000 people no longer waiting for treatment and getting on with their lives, benefiting from a 15% fall in hospital waiting lists at my local trust since the election; the children at Holmbush primary academy, one of the schools in the early adopters scheme for a free breakfast club, who now start every day prepared, focused and equipped to make the most of their school day; the parents benefiting from the additional free childcare, freeing them up to get to work; and the thousands of workers across Adur and Worthing benefiting from the boost in the minimum wage and wages more broadly, which have increased more in the first year of this Government than in the first decade under the Conservatives.
Now we have our second Labour Budget of the term, a Budget focused on giving people across the country a helping hand with the cost of living. Let us contrast that with the Tories and Reform, who have both promoted their ideas to return to the days of austerity, as if we were not already having a hard enough time trying to tell the difference between them, with another three former Tory MPs having joined Reform just today. But let me tell the Tories on the Opposition Benches and the Tories with Reform masks on over there—oh, what a surprise, they are not there—that when we stood on a promise to change this country last year, we meant it, and I am determined not to let my constituents down by allowing their failed ideas to creep into Government ever again and distract from the very real job of giving our country its future back.
On the other side, we have the Greens accusing us of austerity. They should welcome the record investment in clean energy that this Government are making, including expanding the Rampion wind farm off the coast of my constituency. Unfortunately, their record of ultimately opposing green infrastructure when push comes to shove— or when shovels come to ground—in their constituencies suggests that when it comes to the climate, all they have to offer is hot air. So let me tell them something, too.
In this Budget, we are not returning to austerity, because austerity would not lift 450,000 children out of poverty, but this Labour Government will. Austerity would not expand free school meals to 3,200 children in my constituency, but this Labour Government will. Austerity would not cut £150 off the average energy bill, but this Labour Government will. Austerity would not freeze rail fares, fuel duty and prescription charges, but we will, just as we will cut NHS waiting lists and support the 3,500 small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency with fully funded apprenticeships. Austerity would not rebuild this country, but this Labour Government will.
We will do all that while adhering to our fiscal rules and cutting the national debt over the course of this Parliament. That discipline and stability are important, not just for addressing the amount of interest the Government pay on their debt—to be clear, there is nothing progressive about spending £1 in every £10 of taxpayers’ money on debt interest—but for the cost to individual families. We on the Labour side of the House know that when a Government choose populism over realism, or the economics of fantasy over stability, it is working people who pay the price—those people whose mortgages soared after Liz Truss’s mini-Budget, leaving them scrabbling around to find the extra cash to keep the roof over their heads. As a result of this Government’s determination to deliver economic stability, those mortgage rates are now coming down, with interest rates already cut five times by the Bank of England since last year’s election, saving the typical family £1,000 a year. With this Budget forecast by the OBR to reduce CPI inflation by 0.4 percentage points next year, we can hope for further cuts to interest rates soon.
We are under no illusion: there is more to do. But this Budget is another key step in turning the page on the chaos left by the previous Government. Guided by our Labour values, we are putting the priorities of the British people back at the heart of Government policy and, by doing so, giving working people the stability and investment in the future that they deserve.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I congratulate the Government on keeping one of their manifesto commitments, because their manifesto said, “Change”—it is just that no one realised that would be all that was left in the British public’s pocket when it came to it. I would like to give a second congratulations to the Chancellor, because I gather that she has won an award: best Dubai estate agent for 2025. We know that 250,000 people have now emigrated from Britain because of the impacts of her Budget. I expect she is now going for the next award in 2026.
More importantly, this seems to be a Labour Government who are caught between trying to do things on purpose or by mistake. At the last Budget, they were up front that they were going to tax education for the first time. They did not realise that what they were actually going to do was put up taxes on hospices, pharmacies and GPs—that was all missed. Now a new Budget has come forward, and I call it the “ball of wool Budget”. Why? Because for the first time in history we have had this ball of wool unravel time and again, for weeks upon weeks, until it was finally spun into a yarn that we were supposed to believe, but the British public have seen right through it. It is unparliamentary to use the term “liars”, but I think I can use “Pinocchio”, and I think the Prime Minister and the Chancellor may well fall into that category.
Rest assured, people in Leicestershire and up and down the country see right through this Labour Government. They see what this Budget was all about: trying to placate the Back Benches, and how? It is through £40 billion of tax rises in the first Budget and £26 billion of tax rises in this one. Don’t just take my word for it, because even if, before the last Budget, we believed in the fictional black hole, which was then disproved by the OBR, the Chancellor went on Sky News after that Budget and said:
“We’ve now wiped the slate clean… It’s now on us…we’ve set the spending envelope on the course for this Parliament, we don’t need to come back for more. We’ve done that now”.
She went on:
“there’s no need to come back with another Budget like this, we will never need to do that again.”
Yet here we are with £26 billion more tax on the British public, yet we still have weak growth, high inflation and no living within our means.
The Chancellor has even broken her own manifesto commitment, which she has admitted, because in the 2024 Budget she said from the Dispatch Box:
“I have come to the conclusion that extending the threshold freeze would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips. I am keeping every single promise on tax that I made in our manifesto, so there will be no extension of the freeze in income tax and national insurance thresholds beyond the decisions made by the previous Government.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.]
Yet, one year on, she said from the Dispatch Box last week:
“I am asking everyone to make a contribution.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 393.]
I need to tell the Chancellor that being asked for a contribution is not the same as being told, which is what this Government are doing. What would happen if someone tried to refuse, saying, “No, I’ve paid my fair share”? My constituents say, “I’ve done enough,” but they cannot just say no. They will get a fine or, worse, a criminal record and go to jail. So let us deal with the semantics and say what it is: a naked choice to increase tax on the British public.
In the run-up to the election, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) was prophetic in what he said. We were not listened to, and I understand all the reasons why. He said, “A Labour Government will tax your holiday, your house, your GP, your pharmacy, your flights, your car, your pension, your savings”—have I missed anything? They have taxed charities, and even milkshakes—tax, tax, tax. The public have seen what a Labour Government have done. They were told about it, and they have seen it twice in a Budget. When it comes to the next one, I hope they will remember that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
The hon. Gentleman may have meant to evade the rules with his reference to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, but he did not. I advise him to withdraw those comments.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I congratulate everyone in this House and outside it who fought to scrap the two-child benefit cap and to make the wealthiest pay more. The positive steps in the Budget in that direction, such as the mansion tax, are a real credit to that campaigning.
On the scrapping of the two-child benefit cap, I voted to add that to the Government’s programme last year, and I did so because all the experts said, correctly, that it would be the best way to immediately lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. I am delighted that the Government have got the message and done that. I am proud and delighted that thousands of children in my Leeds East constituency will benefit from this, in Gipton and Harehills, in Garforth and Swillington, in Killingbeck and Seacroft, in Cross Gates and Whinmoor, and in Whitkirk and Colton. It gladdens my heart to see that injustice righted.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
Over 45% of children in Blackburn live in relative poverty. I congratulate the hon. Member on taking a principled stance. He has been proven right, so I thank him on behalf of the children of Blackburn.
Richard Burgon
I thank the hon. Member for his kind words. It is important that we all see our time in Parliament as being part of a crusade against child poverty and to make child poverty history, because no child is responsible for their own poverty. It sickens me to hear some of the talk from the Opposition on this.
Budgets are always followed by days of detailed coverage, but the simple truth is that the Budget and the Government’s whole record will be judged on whether living standards rise. Living standards have been stagnant for well over a decade, since the bankers brought the economy to its knees. Pay has been flat while the price of every essential has increased, and millions struggle with skyrocketing rent, energy and food costs. No wonder the cost of living crisis remains the No. 1 concern for people in the polls.
There are more welcome moves in the Budget to address that—the £150 off energy bills, the freeze on rail fares and the boost to the national minimum wage, to name just a few—but the scale of the cost of living crisis demands far bolder action. As it stands, this Parliament is on track to be the second bleakest for living standards since world war two—the worst being the previous Parliament. People are being asked to take more and more pain. That is why, before the Budget, I called for a package of emergency cost of living measures to give people the urgent relief they need. From cost of living grants to universal free school meals, there are so many ways in which we can take pressure off people who have been really struggling through no fault of their own. All that can be funded by raising tens of billions of pounds in taxation from the very wealthiest and those who are making super-profits by ripping people off, as the banks are doing.
Tens of thousands of people backed my call—such calls will continue to grow as this crisis persists—but I am afraid to say that, instead of going down the road of wealth taxes, the Government have chosen a stealth tax on ordinary people. Millions will face an income tax hike from the extension of the income tax threshold freeze, including 780,000 people who will have to pay income tax for the first time. Putting aside any debates on manifesto promises, that move will squeeze ordinary people even further at a time when they simply cannot afford it. The good news is that the extension will not kick in for another two years, so there is still time for the Government to think again and do the right thing by ditching it.
Just as I did with the two-child cap, winter fuel and disability benefit cuts, I will do everything I can to ensure that that regressive policy is overturned. There are much better alternatives. In 2010 the combined wealth of UK billionaires was £250 billion. Now it is more than £600 billion. Their combined wealth has more than doubled since 2010. How many of our constituents can say that their wages, standards of living or wealth have doubled in that time? We need to push for fairness in the taxation system. We should tax extreme wealth, not load stealth taxes on to working people in the middle of a cost of living emergency.
We all know that much of the economic weakness driving the crisis in living standards is the result of 14 years of terrible decisions by the Tories, but people expect this Government not only to sort that out but to protect them in the here and now. Not doing so will pave the way for the first far-right Government in our history. It is in this context of the cost of living crisis that the siren voices of Reform and the far right get an easier hearing. We must all avoid that. We do not want to end up with the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) —the UK’s own version of Donald Trump—as Prime Minister, so let us work together to lift living standards and stop that.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon). He will forgive me for wondering whether some of his Scottish Labour colleagues perhaps believe that Christmas arrived early for them last week, given that much of the Red Book reads like the Christmas wish list of a potential First Minister of Scotland. There is the investment in Inchgreen dock in Inverclyde, regeneration projects in Kirkcaldy, the Forth Green port and £14.5 million for Grangemouth—I think we know which target seats Santa will be visiting this year—and £820 million in consequentials.
It is not all good news, however. Of course, the investment in Scotland is welcome, including the vital support for the Forth Green port, which should unlock high-skilled jobs for my constituents through growth in green industries, but at the same time we are seeing further job losses at Harbour Energy in Aberdeen. Any investment in renewables must not mean that we turn our backs on oil and gas workers and lose skills and investment.
I am particularly pleased to see that the Government have reaffirmed their commitment to £750 million for Edinburgh University’s new exascale computer—investment that I have consistently campaigned for since the election. That is set to become the UK’s new national supercomputer, with the potential to unlock world-leading research in artificial intelligence, medicine, physics and space, making Edinburgh a strong contender to be the home of the Scottish AI growth zone that the Budget document commits to—a wee hint to the Minister that something else could be popped into a Christmas stocking.
I thank the Chancellor for finally listening to calls, including from the Liberal Democrats, to scrap the two-child cap on universal credit, lifting 95,000 Scottish children out of poverty and helping 300 households in Edinburgh West. However, it is shameful that it has taken this Government so long to finally reverse the cap and the perverse “rape clause”.
Despite that progress, it is not all good news. I am disappointed by the gaps in the Budget, including on things that would have boosted Edinburgh’s economy and helped families in my constituency. I have mentioned the hospitality sector many times in this House. It generates £198 million every year in my constituency alone, where it supports 6,000 jobs. Pubs, restaurants and cafés across Edinburgh are still feeling the pinch from increased energy costs, the impact of employer national insurance hikes, and inflation. The Chancellor could have used this opportunity to cut VAT for hospitality, putting money back into people’s pockets as they go out to celebrate Christmas.
Similarly, there was nothing for the whisky industry, which is also feeling the effects of Trump’s tariffs. Analysis by the Scotch Whisky Association has shown a tax revenue loss of £150 million, following the previous hike in alcohol duty, so the increase in this Budget puts further pressure on a sector that is critical for Scotland’s economy.
I will finish with this thought. In Scotland, many of us hope for a change of Government at Holyrood next year. I heard that from people in my constituency at the weekend. They have the same concerns as people in any other part of the country; they are worried about the cost of energy bills and the state of our public services. Small business owners told me about the pressure that they are feeling without business rates relief in Scotland. They are looking to this Budget to give them some idea of what they might expect from the Labour party in an election campaign in Scotland next year, and whether they will like it. It will be the people of Scotland who decide whether this Budget and its creators have been naughty or nice.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I speak in this debate having listened to the real voices of people across Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove, away from the Westminster bubble and media frenzy. For too many of them, the last Conservative Government were defined by rising bills, falling living standards and failing public services. My constituents’ views were clear: quite simply, this Budget will make life better for them and their families.
David, who lives in Tunstall, is a single dad. He skips meals so that his kids can eat properly. Sarah from Butt Lane told me that she panics when it comes to buying new school shoes every September. Sarah and David work hard—very hard—so I am relieved that their children will be among the 4,400 local children who are lifted out of poverty thanks to the abolition of the two-child limit. Their kids will also join over 6,700 others in benefiting from the extension of free school meals, as well as new breakfast clubs, thanks to this Labour Government. No kid should start the day with an empty stomach.
Over in Talke Pits, I spoke with Lisa, who earns the minimum wage in a warehouse. She told me that, for the past few years, she has felt as if she was
“running up the down escalator”,
but now thousands of people like Lisa will take home £1,500 more a year thanks to the fair decisions that we have made.
On Saturday evening, I went to the Kidsgrove Christmas lights switch-on, where I spoke to an older couple I first met last winter. For many years, they have been turning off appliances to save every possible penny. They told me that cutting £150 off their energy bills, combined with the 4.8% rise in the state pension and protection of the triple lock, will make a significant difference to them.
On the subject of pensions, a former mineworker in Packmoor contacted me to thank this Government for delivering justice for him and his former colleagues. As a result of the actions of this Labour Government, over 800 former mineworkers, canteen and office staff now have more money in their back pockets. As he told me:
“We earned it, David. But we’ve buried too many who didn’t live to see it.”
I also thank my friend, colleague and local councillor, Duncan Walker, who has campaigned on this matter for many decades.
Finally, I turn to Calvin, who contacted me about our record investment into our NHS. Like so many, Calvin was left languishing on waiting lists for years. Locally, waiting lists have already been cut by as much as 50% as a result of an extra 55,000 appointments at Royal Stoke and County hospitals. Calvin told me that he cannot wait to go back to work, and this investment will help many more like him.
This Budget is a serious, responsible and compassionate plan that begins to restore security for people across my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to participate in this Budget debate. I am reminded that in 2005, whenever Tony Blair was seeking re-election for an historic third term as Prime Minister, he celebrated the fact that this country had enjoyed 40 quartiles of economic growth. If anyone cares to think about that, they have to realise that that economic growth commenced two years before he commenced as Prime Minister. I say that because often in this Chamber all we get from our Government is complaints about what the Opposition could or should have done when they were in government, and an Opposition who chide the Government for some of the choices and pressure that they face. However, there are those of us in the Chamber—and, more importantly, in the country—who can look clearly at some of the economic challenges and missed opportunities.
It has been right in this debate that we have heard that a Government who promised not to raise tax on working people raised £40 billion in last year’s Budget. It is right to reflect that this year, having said that that was a one-off, £26 billion will be raised from this Budget. It is right to reflect on the pressure that that is putting on ordinary people up and down this country. It is right to reflect on the numbers who did not pay tax and who will pay tax—5 million additional taxpayers over the course of five years—and on middle earners in this country, 5 million more of whom will pay a higher rate of tax over those five years. Those are choices that the Government brought forth and that people in this country will have to pay for. This debate on the cost of living should lead to the same questions around threshold freezing or two-child limits.
Jim Shannon
In Northern Ireland we have 440,000 children, and 103,000 of them are in poverty. By abolishing the two-child cap, this Government have ensured that those 103,000 children will be lifted out of poverty. The potential is there to do that. Does my right hon. Friend agree that abolishing the two-child cap takes those children out of poverty and makes their lives better?
Gavin Robinson
As my hon. Friend knows, we have campaigned on the removal of the two-child limit. We did not agree with the limit; we do not think it is right, and we think it is immoral for families to be placed in that position. We opposed it when it was introduced, and we oppose it today.
When considering the cost of living, let us reflect on the fact that within two years—by 2027—the state pension will be taxed because of frozen thresholds? It will be taxed in 2027, 2028, 2029, 2030 and 2031 because of choices by this Government. We recognise that pensioners should be entitled to and need pension credit to supplement that, but if their sole income is the state pension, it will be taxed, unlike pension credit. That cannot be right, but it is what has been delivered through the freezing of thresholds.
I am happy to engage with the Northern Ireland Office—I am pleased to see the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland here—about some of the challenges that we face in Northern Ireland. I recognise the additional £370 million through Barnett consequentials, although that is not one year’s addition; it covers a period of years with but £2 million in one of those years. The Secretary of State knows that the challenge this year for our Executive is £400 million—that is the current pressure. What is the one thing missing from the Red Book’s section on Northern Ireland? It is any challenge to the Executive; it is any mention of the fiscal framework and those negotiations that need to take place.
I lament the fact that there was praise for our Minister for Finance in Northern Ireland last week, when he talked about the need for revenue raising in our Province but then went on to rule out every significant aspect of revenue raising. Politically, they are not in that space, yet we have to share power with them. That is wrong. I lament the fact that we have partners in government who say, “We need more fiscal devolution; we need more powers in Northern Ireland”, yet they have manifestly failed to use the powers at their disposal. That cannot continue, and I say that there is a role for national Government in those negotiations.
We welcome that there is a potential £150 of support for energy bills in households across this United Kingdom, but there is no detail in the Red Book—my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked the Secretary of State about that earlier, but he was unable to answer. This measure is coming in in April 2026, yet all we have is a notional offer from the Government to support the Executive in creating a system. Can we have confirmation as to whether annually managed expenditure will be made available to ensure that every household in Northern Ireland will be entitled to £150 on the same basis as in England and Wales? Will that extend to oil boilers? We heard about £130 for gas boilers, but 70% of homes in Northern Ireland are fuelled by crude oil.
I hope the Government will respond to those challenges today, because I do not want to be sitting in four or five months’ time with constituents in Northern Ireland saying, “What of that offer of £150?”, only to find that the support has not been there through AME or through central Government negotiations.
On pensions, I welcome the decision taken to provide an index-linked rise to pensions from 1997, but the Deprived Pensioners Association has highlighted that it is only prospective, not retrospective. It has asked for retrospective index-linked pensions and arrears, because far too many pensioners from 1997 and onwards have had their economic wellbeing curtailed in this cost of living crisis, because of the Government’s failure to introduce this change. It must be retrospective, and I would look forward to that coming about.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
When we stood for election, we promised change—real change that would improve life for people in every part of this country. This week’s Budget moves in the right direction, but if we are to renew Britain, we must be willing to go further. There are measures worth welcoming. Ending the two-child cap will lift around 1,270 children in South Norfolk out of arbitrary disadvantage, and clamping down on illegal activity on high streets, such as minimarts, barbershops, vape shops, nail bars and car washes, will protect honest traders and restore confidence.
We must not, though, allow the good news to distract us from the deeper truth: delivering genuine renewal demands deeper reform. On the NHS, reform must be real, not just rhetorical. Too much of our healthcare system has been shaped around elderly care alone, yet under-30s with serious mental health conditions, and over-50s facing obesity or musculoskeletal disorders cannot be left behind. Without genuine innovation in prevention and rehabilitation, the NHS cannot remain both compassionate and sustainable. Partnership with the private sector must therefore play a role—not ideological outsourcing, but practical collaboration that cuts waiting lists and expands capacity. Labour is uniquely placed to deliver that in a way that strengthens the NHS rather than fragments it.
Welfare reform must also return to its original purpose: helping people to rebuild their lives and get back into work. A modern system should be humane and empowering, not defined by complexity, stigma and delay. If we want to reduce the long-term welfare bill, early intervention and smarter support are essential. Growth underpins all that. If we want world-class public services, we need an economy that can pay for them. That means reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens in sectors that give Britain the global edge. Finance, for example, faces layers of regulation that stifle innovation. A party that is serious about renewal cannot shy away from bold deregulation where it is justified.
Tax choices must be part of this honesty. The Chancellor has ruled out rises in income tax, VAT and national insurance for employees—a decision that protects working people at a difficult time—but that also means that the tax burden will inevitably rise later in the Parliament. We owe voters the honesty to say so.
Our pubs are vital to rural life and to South Norfolk’s villages. Pub landlords rightly tell me that supermarkets have an unfair advantage on alcohol pricing. Pubs are responsible places; they create community, support young workers and act as informal safeguards against harmful drinking. I urge the Chancellor to explore creative VAT options for high-street institutions.
Finally, after 13 months campaigning for fair inheritance tax treatment for farms, I welcome progress, but it does not go far enough. The forestalling clause traps farmers who may not have five or seven years to wait, including those who are terminally ill. That is unfair and unjust, and it threatens the foundations of our food security. Labour can once again be the party of rural Britain, but only if we protect the family farms we depend on.
This Budget makes progress, but progress alone is not enough. To deliver the change we promised, we need deeper NHS reform, a modern welfare system, bold deregulation, honest tax decisions, support for our pubs and high streets, and fairness for rural communities. That is the spirit in which I will continue to fight for South Norfolk.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
One of the most incoherent, damaging and destructive decisions that the Government took last week was not to scrap the energy profits levy. The levy will destroy our oil and gas sector, as the Government have been told by so many sources, including the industry itself, the renewables industry, the unions and Offshore Energies UK. The Government know exactly the impact that keeping the EPL will have on jobs, investment, our supply chain and our transition to cleaner renewable energies.
Iqbal Mohamed
Does the hon. Lady agree that the fossil fuel companies have put all their eggs in the basket of carbon-generating fossil fuels, and have not diversified over the past 30, 40 or 50 years? They have no other sources of income. Why should we pay the price for their profligacy?
Harriet Cross
No, I do not agree, because that is factually untrue. Investment in green technologies, including carbon capture, EV charging point roll-outs, wind and solar, is being driven by our oil and gas companies. They will stop investing in green technologies and our domestic supply if we tax them into the ground, and that is exactly what the EPL is doing.
The Labour Government have kept the EPL, which means that our oil and gas companies are being taxed at 78%, which is more than is faced by any other mature basin in the world. They also removed investment allowances, ensuring that our oil and gas companies are the most uncompetitive when they are trying to invest in the North sea. As a result, the companies and the skills that we need for the transition are moving abroad. Across the UK, we are losing tens of thousands of North sea jobs. That impacts every constituency. Do not think it is just north-east Scotland that is impacted; every single hon. Member in this House has oil and gas worker constituents—energy workers—who are losing their jobs today because of the Chancellor’s choice last week to keep the EPL. That impacts everybody.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
My hon. Friend is right. My constituency on the south coast has Oil Spill Response Ltd, which tackles oil spills. At a recent event, the vice-president of a very big oil company said that it was essentially closing up its operations in the UK and moving 50 miles up the road to Norway. Has she found the same in her constituency?
Harriet Cross
Yes, absolutely. Many flights that take off from Aberdeen are full of workers who are leaving north-east Scotland for Norway, taking their skills and taxable income with them. Norway welcomes the opportunity for investment in its energy sources. Norway drilled more than 30 new exploration wells in its North sea this year. We drilled zero. That is not because the North sea is different on either side of the boundary line, but because of the United Kingdom’s fiscal and regulatory regime. We are banning ourselves from our own resources.
We are making it so financially unviable to get at our own resources that we are becoming more and more reliant on other countries for our energy security. That does not make sense. Even if we come at the issue from a green angle and pretend that we are helping the climate, imports are more carbon intensive. We are bringing more carbon-intensive energy, which we need, into the UK. The Government love telling us that we will need oil and gas for years to come. We will, but we will not be using UK oil and gas for years to come. We will be using oil and gas from Norway, Qatar, Mexico or America, and we will import it at a huge carbon cost, and at a huge cost to the Treasury through loss of tax, other revenue and investment.
Offshore Energies UK states that £50 billion of investment will be lost because of the EPL being kept in place. That £50 billion could go to a huge number of schools, roads or NHS projects, or it could fill any deficit that we have, but no, it is being left, because the ideology of this Government is to run down our domestic oil and gas sector.
When I am out having constituency meetings in north-east Scotland, I spend most of my time listening to people who are worried about their jobs. They are worried about when—not if—their job will be lost, and where they will get another one. There are no new jobs in the oil and gas sector. They are not being created. When a job is lost in north-east Scotland, or in any other constituency with oil and gas jobs, there are no replacement jobs. Our skilled workers are moving abroad. That expertise and those skills—the ones that will drive the transition and keep our communities together—are moving away.
One of the most cynical things that the Government did on Wednesday last week, when they chose to keep the EPL, was to release their consultation results for the future of the North sea. They thought that the people of north-east Scotland were so dim, so stupid, that they would not realise that keeping the EPL in place was going to have a destructive impact. They thought that they could wave a little flag with “North sea future plan consultation” written on it, and it would distract us, but guess what? We are not distracted. We know that it does not matter how many tie-backs are allowed, or whether we rename a licence as a certificate; that will not make any difference when it comes to how long the North sea lasts, because we do not have the fiscal regime to make it viable.
I met representatives of a large oil and gas producer on Friday—I am sure that no Government Members did, because they do not actually engage with the sector or listen to it.
Harriet Cross
Well, in that case, the Minister will have heard exactly the things that I hear from it, so why has he not acted on them? I asked the company I met on Friday what it thought about the North sea future plan paper. Its words to me were: “We didn’t need 170 pages, we just needed a fair fiscal regime.” That is all it wants. It wants the EPL to be taken away, and it needs the fiscal regime to make sense.
The EPL windfall tax was brought in when there were record prices. Last week, the Government defined “windfall” as $90 a barrel and 90p a therm, yet we have to wait until 2030 to get that. We therefore now have a windfall tax on $68-a-barrel oil and about 80p-a-therm gas. Why do we need to wait until 2030? Why are we doing that to our oil and gas sector? Why are we making sure that they are completely taxed into the ground? Why are we making investment unviable, ensuring companies move abroad and undermining our industry? We have defined what a windfall is, but we will still tax companies on windfall profits now. That does not make sense. There is no windfall. We are now taxing the oil and gas sector so much that the tax revenues are falling. The decrease in revenue from the oil and gas sector last year was 40%. Why was that? It is because investment is going abroad and production is falling. It is because it is not viable to invest in the UK any more.
A company I met last week said that it is more stable to invest in west Africa than the North sea. That is the situation that is being created by this Government. That is the issue that we see in north-east Scotland, and it is my constituents and the constituents of neighbouring MPs who are feeling the brunt. My constituents do not talk about career progression, but about career survival: “How much longer will my job last? How many more redundancy rounds will I survive?” Those are the conversations we have in north-east Scotland. That is the reality of the oil and gas sector in north-east Scotland, and that is the absolute madness of the policies that this Government are following.
Will the Government, please, for the future security of our energy, for £50 billion of investment that could come into our energy systems, and for the survival of tens of thousands of jobs, scrap the EPL? It must be scrapped. In no other sector in any other part of the country would this Government allow that many jobs to be lost, yet they are willing to do that to the energy sector in north-east Scotland, and to our oil and gas workers, and that is completely irresponsible.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
When Government choose to act, when they choose to listen and when they choose compassion, millions of lives are changed. The decision to scrap the two-child benefit cap will lift nearly half a million children out of poverty and ease the suffering of almost a million more. It is a humane, necessary intervention, and the Chancellor should rightly be proud of what she has done. All those who campaigned tirelessly for this over the past year should feel immensely proud. I am hopeful that this is just the beginning of a wider ambitious programme of reform to restore fairness, rebuild our economy, and restore the hope, which we thought was lost, that life will get better for every passing generation.
I know how hard the Chancellor has worked. She knows that we need money for our public services, after 14 years of crippling austerity, which have held our country back and destroyed our public sector, but restoring the public finances is the first building block of growth. That is not an easy task when we are working with a tax system that has needed fundamental reform for decades. I hope that the next step will be to design a tax system rooted in fairness and clarity, and a long-term strategy that lifts up those on modest incomes, supports young people striving to build their futures and ensures that national prosperity is shared, rather than hoarded. We should eliminate the structural unfairness whereby normal people’s salaries are taxed at higher rates than income derived from wealth, and the freezing of tax rates, which quietly drags millions more people into tax bands that were never designed for them.
It was good last week to see the Government introduce an online gambling tax, and a tax on homes worth more than £2 million, but I hope we will now explore the many more options available to us to restore fairness. We could tax capital gains and dividends at the same rate as wages. We could tax share buy-backs, and reintroduce the investment income surcharge that the Tories scrapped in 1984. We could charge VAT on financial services such as wealth management. We could look at a whole plethora of wealth taxes and so much more.
The same principles of fairness must extend to the broader financial sector. The banking industry benefits from extraordinary Government support, with deposit guarantees, central bank facilities and vast rounds of quantitative easing, while the public receive little in return. Governments of all stripes continue to grant what is now an annual £23 billion in interest payments on central reserves. That was meant to be a temporary fix to help following the financial crash, but many EU countries have stopped paying that interest. We could look at doing that, too.
The same forward-thinking approach is needed on energy policy. Removing green levies from bills will bring welcome relief, but families still face high costs, while energy giants have made more than £125 billion in profits since 2020. The Government have an opportunity to ensure that the energy system works for the public good, and to consider windfall taxes, fair pricing and even forms of public ownership. A resilient, affordable green energy system would strengthen the whole economy.
More broadly, the economy urgently needs strengthening. The OBR forecasts only 1.5% growth this year and sluggish productivity for the rest of the decade, and that is the result of 14 years of short-termism, of putting short-term dividend extraction before long-term industrial strategy, and of the UK investing barely 18% of GDP in productive assets. That is far behind countries such as France, Germany, China and India. We are not punching above our weight, but we should. Without proper investment in infrastructure, green industries, modern transport, digital systems and manufacturing, we simply cannot build the prosperous future we deserve.
We have made a fantastic start this week. The Chancellor’s strategies—such as Pride in Place, which will see parts of Salford receive £20 million over the next 10 years—are welcome, but we need further announcements on industrial strategy and strategic investments over the coming year. We have waited years for this. We have millions of people who are ready to work, build, care, invent and dream. Let the Budget be the spark that drives wider transformation, so that we have a fairer economy, a fairer society and a Government who match the courage and aspirations of their people.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Average households will be £850 worse off by 2029-30, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. That is a consequence of this Budget, with the highest taxes in history, growth down, borrowing up and inflation up. In fact, the Government have missed their inflation target every single month they have been in office, with no projections that they will hit it any time soon. That target is 2%. The last time we hit 2% was in July 2024, when this Government took office. That is the result of a nightmare sequel to a horrendous original. We have had two Budgets, back to back, making people poorer, with more tax for more welfare.
It did not have to be this way; the Chancellor had choices. Instead of raising tax again—this time by £26 billion, with 43 different taxes—she could have cut the size of the civil service back to where it was in 2016. She would have saved £8 billion. She could have taken welfare spending back to where it was just before the pandemic. She would have saved £23 billion. She would have had the money she needed to not raise taxes, with some left over to cut them instead.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
It would be interesting to talk through the implications of such a drastic cut to welfare in one single Budget, and what that would mean for people in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, particularly the young people with children who will be lifted out of poverty by this Budget.
Joe Robertson
It is one single Budget with a plan over five years, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. The best way to lift all families out of poverty and to stop them slipping into poverty is to grow jobs and grow the economy so that we have more money to spend on public services.
We know that the Government wanted to cut welfare. Indeed, they tried to cut welfare spending just a few months ago, but they were held to ransom by their Back Benchers and watered down their plans. Instead of coming back with a properly costed, reformed proposal, we have a £5 billion cash grab. They have given up on tackling the welfare bill altogether. We have more tax for more welfare.
Most people on welfare do not want to be there if they have a choice, but the key word is choice. The Government have to give them choice, by allowing businesses to employ people and by increasing job opportunities, not decreasing them. What happened to the party of a hand up, not a handout? Until Labour rediscovers the central role of businesses in employing hard-working families and in growing the economy, so that we can invest more in public services through growth, people will remain on welfare and our economy will remain sluggish.
I will finish by saying something on transport costs, particularly as the Secretary of State for Transport is in her place. Although I do not agree with her reforms to rail and buses, I share the sentiment behind them: that we should be putting passengers above profit. I continue to ask that she does that not just for rail and buses, but for communities all over the United Kingdom that rely on ferries. While she is freezing the cost of rail, my constituents are paying more and more in ferry fares, because we have providers that are controlled by private equity companies that are unregulated and unlicensed. I know that she would not accept that for any other community across the UK. Of course, I do not hold the Secretary of State responsible for that—it is not a situation that she created—but she is in the wonderful position of being able to do something about it, and I urge her to do so.
I thank the maritime Minister, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather), for the talks that he has had with me and my neighbour, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley). I look forward to continuing those conversations because, quite frankly, with private equity trading one of the ferry companies in the past few days, those companies are not going to make the changes that we deserve without the Government stepping in.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
It feels like a lifetime since 2022, when a Prime Minister and a Chancellor gambled with our economy. They put Britain in hock to the bond markets, sent mortgage rates soaring and plunged millions of families into hardship. That reckless approach left deep scars that our communities still bear today. Contrast that chaos with what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has delivered in her Budget. Instead of instability, we have security; instead of ideology, we have investment. She has put money into the NHS, backed innovation, supported start-ups, and stood shoulder to shoulder with the British public during a cost of living crisis created by the Conservative party. Under the last Government, the country spiralled downwards towards despair. Today, we are reversing that and creating hope for the future.
The cost of living remains the single biggest concern for my constituents. It was the first issue they raised with me ahead of the Budget, which is why I welcome the practical steps in the Budget that will make a tangible difference to everyday life: £150 off energy bills, a freeze on NHS prescription charges, a freeze on rail fares for the first time in three decades, alongside a cap on bus fares, the national living wage moving up to £12.71 an hour, the state pension increased by 4.8% from April 2026, the two-child benefit cap scrapped, and expanded free school meals and breakfast clubs. These changes will ease the pressure on families and commuters alike.
I very much welcome the rise in the national minimum wage and national living wage, giving full-time workers an annual boost of around £900. One of my biggest asks of this Budget was action on the two-child limit. I came into politics to eradicate child poverty, and the measures announced in the Budget to lift children out of hardship are hugely welcome. The decisions of the last Tory Government pushed more than 900,000 children into poverty. That was an absolute disgrace. I am proud that this Labour Government are reversing that damage.
I reject the notion that those who need state support are somehow irresponsible or on the take. The real scandal is the number of parents who are in work yet still in poverty. Let us be very clear: we cannot simply stand to one side and allow those children to suffer the ravages of poverty. That was the reality of the two-child cap and its abhorrent rape clause. Ending that injustice is the right thing to do. In my constituency of Colne Valley, ending the cap will benefit around 1,520 children. That, alongside the expansion of breakfast clubs, such as the one at Scapegoat Hill primary school, will transform life chances for young people in my area.
As I said earlier, this Budget is about not ideology but investment. It is about investment in all our people, in particular our young people, who all deserve the best start in life, fair access to good jobs and career opportunities. This is not the blinkered ideology that we have seen from the Tories and Reform, but Labour values embedded in fairness and equality of opportunity, so that it does not matter where people are born and who to. Everyone deserves a real and tangible share in the successes of this country, so I am proud to support this Budget, particularly the lifting of the two-child cap, which will make a huge difference to so many of my constituents and many more across the country. This is a Budget that is anti-poverty and pro-children, and that is surely something we can all get behind.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I will focus on particular measures in the Budget that will have a massive impact on my constituents in Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, and more widely across the north and north-east of Scotland.
First, one of the bigger contributors to the cost of living crisis is the cost of energy. To recap where we are at present, the Labour party promised a £300 reduction in energy bills in their manifesto, but since the 2024 election, consumer and business energy bills have risen substantially. It is estimated that by April, energy bills will be up to £560 higher than the Labour party promised. Taking into account the measures in the Budget, they will still be more than £400 higher than promised. The Resolution Foundation estimates that by 2029-30, energy bills will be £60 lower than current prices, making them about £430 higher than at the time when the Labour party made their manifesto commitment.
The Labour party’s latest swindle on energy bills is already falling apart. To compound matters, my constituents and businesses in the north of Scotland already pay the second highest level of electricity prices in the UK, second only to north Wales and Merseyside, despite vast amounts of energy being produced on their doorstep. That basically means that those consumers are paying for a regulatory system that was created when Battersea power station sold energy rather than Rolexes—a system that successive Governments have manifestly failed to deal with. It is shocking energy price discrimination, with price increase misery heaped on top.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman think that his constituents would have benefited if Nicola Sturgeon had delivered the promise that she made eight years ago to the people of Scotland to deliver a publicly owned energy company for our country? I think it would have made a difference, but unfortunately it never happened.
Graham Leadbitter
I agree that we need a publicly owned energy company, and I would fully support that. The problem is that we do not have the full powers of an independent country, which are just the normal powers that we would need to do that. I am glad that the hon. Lady recognises that problem. We are nearly 18 months into this Government and their energy price promises have fallen apart, alongside the collapse in trust in the Chancellor.
Secondly, let me come to the Chancellor’s treatment of the North sea. Today, Harbour Energy announced a further 100 job losses, on top of the 350 it announced earlier in the year. Mossmorran, Grangemouth, Aberdeen port and many other sites and companies associated with the North sea energy sector are closing, reducing the workforce or focusing elsewhere in the world, as the sector grapples with a fiscal regime that not only acts as a barrier to investment but is accelerating decline. The latest announcement of job losses is pinned squarely on the Government’s failure to reform the energy profits levy. The decision by the Government to do nothing is akin to Thatcher’s treatment of miners and their communities and the steelworkers at Ravenscraig.
Graham Leadbitter
I would be happy to debate that when it is brought before the House by the Chancellor, if that ever happens.
To accelerate the demise of an industry without ensuring that the right and appropriate time is available for the transition is frankly criminal. I have heard many times Labour Members railing against the impact of Thatcherism in the 1980s—and they are right to do so—yet now they are defending their record of doing the same thing to our oil and gas sector. It is utterly shameful.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Member accept that 75,000 jobs were lost from the oil and gas sector between 2016 and 2024, under the previous Conservative Government? Does he welcome the North sea jobs service, which this Government will bring in next year?
Graham Leadbitter
On both those points, I absolutely do. The previous Government introduced the climate change targets, and they have now withdrawn from those. That is the last thing that the energy sector needs; we need investment in renewables.
On the jobs and skills side of things, there is investment from both the UK Government and the Scottish Government. I welcome their partnership on that, but compared with the impact of the energy profits levy, it is frankly small beer. It will not have an impact unless there is an underpinning fiscal regime that actually supports those jobs until we have a renewables sector ready to take those jobs on. That is simply not there at the moment, and unless the fiscal regime changes substantially, those jobs will not be there and people will simply be on the scrapheap.
The worst cost of living crisis for any family is when a family member loses their job. Some 1,000 jobs are going every single month in the energy sector, and the transition plan—if the Government actually have one—is doing little to nothing to support those workers, their families, or the communities they live in. The Government must take urgent action on the EPL, or we will have another industrial jobs disaster, such as Ravenscraig, that will reverberate in communities for generations.
Let me turn to the plight of WASPI women, who continue tirelessly to campaign against the wrong done to them. A year ago, almost to the day, I asked the Prime Minister when they would be compensated—he flannelled his answer and refused to commit. In the space of that year, around 3,500 WASPI women have died without compensation. The Chancellor made no mention of WASPI women in the Budget statement, despite the Government having to rethink things following recent court proceedings. Action must be taken urgently to give compensation to WASPI women, who have been left without the pensions they deserve because successive Governments communicated with them so badly.
Dr Arthur
I think there is support for this issue across the House. I do not know any MP who does not think that the WASPI women should not be compensated, because their fight is a just fight, but there is uncertainty about how it would be funded. How would the hon. Gentleman fund it?
Graham Leadbitter
We have made the point repeatedly that there can be additional funding from banks, which I know hon. Members from the Liberal Democrats agree with, and funding could certainly be made available through a wealth tax, which we have supported for a long time.
The one thing I can welcome from the UK Government in this Budget is the removal of the two-child benefit cap, but I have questions for Labour Members. A principled few Members voted in support of the SNP’s amendment to the King’s Speech nearly 18 months ago, including the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon)—I agreed with pretty much everything he said earlier. That could have happened then, but Labour Members chose not to support it. I am glad and grateful that they do now.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
There will be an immediate four-minute time limit after the next speaker.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
For many people struggling with the rising cost of living, this Budget provides real relief. Above all, the Chancellor has committed to scrapping the two-child benefit cap. That is a testament to the campaigners, who have worked tirelessly for years, and to hon. Members across the House who have repeatedly called for the reversal of this cruel policy. It will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, including around 69,000 in Wales—a substantial achievement.
Other measures are also incredibly welcome. The increase in the minimum wage and the living wage—building on the April 2025 rise, which has already benefited around 160,000 workers in Wales—is a massive move in the right direction to a fairer economy. Reducing household energy bills by an average of £150 per home will bring practical relief to families. For those of us representing rural constituencies, the decision to keep fuel duty frozen is essential to daily life, to work, and to accessing basic and vital services.
I greatly welcome the additional £505 million allocated to the Welsh Government, on top of the largest uplift since devolution, which was delivered at the spending review. That funding will support essential services and investment across Wales.
The Budget takes some initial steps towards wealth redistribution. The council tax surcharge on homes worth more than £2 million, the 67% increased levies on online gambling, and the closure of the loophole that allowed rapidly growing ultra-low-cost platforms to ship goods into the UK tax-free are all sensible and highly welcome reforms and demonstrate success in shifting the national conversation on wealth taxation. However, inequality in the UK is stark, with 20% of people owning two thirds of the country’s wealth.
The very welcome mansion tax is expected by the OBR to raise around £400 million per year by 2029-30, yet approximately £38 billion could be raised through even more progressive wealth tax measures, which some of us on the Back Benches have been calling for, such as equalising capital gains tax with income tax or introducing a 2% wealth tax on assets over £10 million. The depth of inequality we face demands bolder action than what we have seen.
Let me turn to two areas that I believe the Budget does not address. The decision to keep local housing allowance frozen when it is already so far out of line with the true cost of rent will push thousands more people into homelessness and dramatically increase the pressure on the already overstretched temporary accommodation budgets of local councils. Only 1% of properties in Wales are currently affordable to those relying on LHA. With rents continuing to rise, I urge the Government to act before that figure falls to zero.
Let me turn to agricultural property relief. While the adjustment allowing married farmers or widowed spouses to transfer inheritance tax allowances is welcome, it will support only a small number of families. It does not address the serious pressure that APR places on elderly and terminally ill farmers or the serious effect that the APR proposals are having on the mental health of farmers. It does not sufficiently protect family-run farms, our food security, or the livelihoods that underpin rural communities. Much more thought is needed here.
The thresholds remain too low. I have visited family dairy farms, and I know that they have to add up a herd of Friesians, the amount of land needed to graze them, the tractor and other farm machinery, the farmhouse, barns and outbuildings, slurry tanks, and water pumping facilities—Friesians drink a lot of water during milking seasons, and many Welsh farmers are a long way up hills and mountains. We need to tax the Clarksons, the Dysons and other plutocrats more, but not family farms.
I became a Labour MP to reduce poverty, tackle inequality and stand up for my constituents. While the Budget contains very welcome adjustments, we need to go further to address the hardship facing millions across the UK.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I, too, welcome the Chancellor’s decision to remove the two-child benefit cap. I was proud to stand on that policy from the Lib Dem manifesto, because it will lift at least 350,000 children out of poverty. It will go a long way to helping families with the cost of living, but it is no good if the Chancellor gives with one hand and takes away with the other.
My local councillors are still waiting to hear how the new crisis and resilience fund will work and how much funding they will receive. It will replace the household support fund, from which they currently pay for the school holiday food vouchers. The new scheme should be in place from April 2026, so the councils are now finalising their budgets for that financial year without knowing if they have the funding needed to continue with the vouchers. I hope the Chancellor will soon confirm to councils that the funding will be provided and increased in line with demand.
Mr Hussain
Does the hon. Member agree that, in working-class towns such as Blackburn, where years of under-investment have taken a real toll, only targeted, needs-based funding will bring down the cost of living and lift real economic growth?
Charlotte Cane
I actually think we need both. Lifting the two-child benefit cap is really important.
I was also disappointed that there was no help for farmers in the Budget. The Chancellor is maintaining the inheritance tax, which will destroy many family farms in Ely and East Cambridgeshire and across the country. The Government have abolished the fruit and veg aid scheme from this month, removing much-needed support with the capital costs of increasing productivity and accelerating innovation. The Chancellor increases farmers’ costs, the Home Office restricts their seasonal workforce and the Department for Business and Trade signs trade deals that allow unfair competition, but the Chancellor did not give even a small gesture of help to farmers in this Budget.
I visited Christmas fairs this weekend in churches that need hundreds of thousands of pounds’ worth of repairs. People told me of their worries about the listed places of worship grant scheme, which is currently funded only to March 2026. That grant covers the VAT costs of repairs, meaning that fundraisers only have to raise the cost of those repairs, not the additional cost of VAT. I hope the Chancellor will confirm sufficient funding for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for that scheme to be continued and increased back to previous levels.
We know that we are struggling to provide good-quality social care. This impacts too many elderly, disabled and vulnerable people who are not getting the support they need. It also impacts kinship carers, many of whom are disgracefully hounded to repay so-called overpayments of carer’s allowance, yet this Budget does not invest in social care. I met publicans in Ely and East Cambridgeshire last week who were very disappointed that there was no cut in VAT for hospitality businesses in the Budget. As their costs go up, for staff, supplies, fuel, duty—you name it, their costs go up—they have to increase their prices, and then they have to add 20% VAT to those increases, so a meal costed at £25 will have another £5 of VAT added to it. Reducing the rate of VAT would reduce those businesses’ prices and encourage more customers.
These are all matters that people in Ely and East Cambridgeshire have asked me to raise in this debate in just the few days since the Budget. They are things that make businesses and individuals struggle with inflation and the cost of living, and the Budget has not addressed them. The Chancellor told us of the difficult choices she had to make in this Budget, but it did not tackle the main problem, which she herself has identified: our relationship with Europe. If she negotiated a new customs union with Europe, as well as a youth mobility scheme to create new opportunities for our young people, she could fill the £90 billion-a-year black hole left by the Conservatives’ catastrophic Brexit deal. People are going to have to pay higher taxes for less public services because the Chancellor and this Government will not cure that £90 billion Brexit black hole.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I associate myself with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) about the potential of the renewable energy sector. I want to give a shout-out to Power Roll in east Durham, and draw the House’s attention to how important it is that that business is supported to move into volume production, which could create many hundreds of jobs.
I will start my speech proper by thanking my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am going to confine my remarks to mineworkers’ pensions. For more than 30 years, successive Governments have profited from the miners’ pension funds, taking a staggering £8 billion in that time from funds built up by the hard work of miners, who powered this nation. Last year, at the first opportunity, the Chancellor honoured Labour’s manifesto commitment to transfer the £1.5 billion investment reserve fund of the mineworkers’ pension scheme. That decision delivered a 32% increase in the pensions of almost 4,000 former miners and widows in my constituency, money that has gone straight back into the local economy—into local businesses, shops and cafés. It was welcomed by all those who have campaigned for many years to secure pension justice for our retired miners.
Over the past year, the Labour group of coalfield MPs, alongside the British Coal staff superannuation scheme campaigners, have been relentless in our campaign of lobbying Ministers to secure a just settlement for the BCSSS pensioners. I am proud to say that my Government —this Labour Government—and our Chancellor have not only listened to our concerns, but have heard our plea, and have used the Budget to act. The transfer of the BCSSS investment reserve fund announced in the Budget means that a Labour Government have returned almost £4 billion to retired miners through the MPS and BCSSS schemes—a Labour Government standing up for the rights of working people and righting an historic injustice. These are real Labour values in action, showing the difference that a Labour Government can make after decades of neglect by the Tories.
James Naish
I want to acknowledge my hon. Friend’s own leadership on this issue within the House. There are almost 200 former British Coal staff living in my constituency who will see a 41% uplift in their pension, and my hon. Friend has played a large part in that, so I thank him on behalf of the House. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Grahame Morris
My hon. Friend is characteristically generous, and I appreciate his warm words. Many MPs representing coalfield constituencies will have cause for celebration. As chair of the coalfields group, I thank my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for taking the time not only to listen but to understand the nature of this campaign over the past year. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald)—he is a good friend—and his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), for meeting coalfield MPs, trustees and dedicated campaigners over the past year and for understanding the strength of feeling on this issue.
This Labour Government have gone above and beyond for coalfield communities, fulfilling their manifesto promise at their first Budget and, within a year, delivering justice for British Coal staff superannuation scheme pensioners. Our coalmining communities paid a heavy price—a legacy of shorter lives and industrial diseases. Ending this pensions injustice is a long overdue recognition of that service and sacrifice. It has been a long-fought battle to end one of the biggest occupational pension scandals in our country’s history, and let us be clear: it was only through this Labour Government that the change was delivered.
Just as this Labour Government have gone above and beyond for former mining communities, we must now build on that progress by addressing the entrenched inequalities that are breaking our nation. I welcome the lifting of the two-child cap. The Chancellor has listened on the issue of mineworkers’ pensions; I hope she will also reflect on the contributions that Labour Members have made this evening and throughout this Budget debate as we continue to work towards building a fairer and more prosperous country for all.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I will confine my remarks to the north-east of Scotland. Whether it is farmers, oil and gas workers, the fishing industry, local pubs and hotels, businesses, or families who are just about managing this festive season, no one—not one person—has approached me to say what a great Budget this was. People are angry and worried, and they are right to be. We are still in a cost of living crisis, and there was no change to the energy profits levy in the Budget, nor to the family farm tax. There was more punishment for Scotch whisky and no mention of the WASPI women. There was no review of the coastal growth fund to boost the local fishing industry and, worst of all, there was sleight of hand on the cost of living for so many families. When I recently led an Adjournment debate in this place on the Nolan principles, I voiced my fears that people are losing faith in politics. It now seems that that is not only because of Johnson or Truss, although they did not help; it is largely due to this Government.
Households in the north-east are facing harsher and colder winters than other parts of the country, and will continue to struggle as energy costs rise. That is even more unfair given the north-east’s contribution to energy production as the UK’s renewables powerhouse and, crucially, via our oil and gas sector, which is being hammered like a tent peg by this Labour Government. They are apparently hellbent on taxing our energy sector out of existence. Keeping the EPL in place until 2030 will mean haemorrhaging job losses in the tens of thousands. It will risk our energy security, incur eye-wateringly expensive carbon-heavy imports, scupper supply chain growth, and severely hamper our future renewables potential.
Just today, there have been a further 100 job losses at Harbour Energy in Aberdeen. People I know in my constituency are going abroad to get contracts because they lost their jobs in Scotland. Ninety thousand oil and gas workers in the north-east are bitterly disappointed. Why? This Budget was a chance to secure their jobs and to secure £50 billion of potential investment supported by the renewables sector, which needs the skills base of our workers. The hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) talked about banking. The four big banks made a £44 billion profit last year, and there is not a word about a windfall tax on them. This is the politics of madness. Forget investment in a just transition; this is industrial damage on a grand scale.
Talking of industrial damage, why have the Government got it in for Scotland’s world-class Scotch whisky sector? Once more it has been treated as a Treasury cash cow, with duty rising again in line with inflation, although I—as well as many others, including numerous industry sources—warned the Treasury that an increase in duty would reduce the income to the Treasury. Who does not understand the maths? Furthermore, with the family farm tax still in place, generational family farms across my constituency face ruin by Treasury spreadsheet, with the Chancellor balancing the books on the back of our domestic food security. Finally, where are the WASPIs in this Budget? There is no mention of the Government’s plan to review their decision on compensating those 1950s-born women.
The truth is that Scotland cannot afford to be dragged back into Labour’s black hole, or whatever fiscal fiction they care to conjure up to justify their economic choices. We are expected to believe that the same people who told us that removing the two-child cap was deeply unwise now say that it is the centrepiece of the Government’s achievements. This begs the question, “What does Labour stand for?” It certainly does not stand for working people, families or businesses. We have, instead, a chaotic “cost of Labour” Budget, caught in a perpetual doom loop, while the north-east of Scotland pays a high price for the Government’s economic mismanagement. Brexit Britain is broken, trust is broken, and the north-east is bearing the brunt. Scotland wants out.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
The actions of this Government will make life easier for thousands of my constituents and millions across the country, and let us be clear: action is needed. The Conservative party decimated our public services, entrenched austerity to push millions into poverty, and engaged in acts of fiscal vandalism that crashed the economy. Let us also be clear about what this Budget means. I am absolutely pleased that it will save the average family £150 by cutting levies on energy bills for all my constituents, and the extension of the warm home discount to a further 3 million of the poorest households in the country will save thousands of my constituents a further £150.
The Budget has also delivered an additional £820 million for Scotland, on top of the record £5.2 billion delivered to the Scottish Government last year. It is a sad reality that the Scottish National party Government have failed to make use of last year’s investment to fix Scotland’s public services, particularly the NHS, where one in six people—that is 1 million—are stuck on waiting lists; in fact, more people are waiting for two years or longer in my health board area of NHS Lanarkshire than in the whole of NHS England. It is imperative that the Scottish Government get off their hands and act in the short time that they have before, hopefully, being removed from office next May.
In the remaining time that I have, I want to focus on the important steps taken to eliminate the two-child benefit cap. In my constituency, one in four children are living in poverty, and in some areas the figure is as high as 50%. For far too long, parents have been forced to take decisions that no parent should have to take. They have been forced to choose between feeding their kids and turning on the heating, or forced to go without meals themselves. I recall, when I was a councillor, having a conversation with a lone parent who told me that she was often forced to decide which child would have a small lunch and which child would have a small dinner. It is unacceptable that children in my constituency leave school on a Friday having had lunch in the canteen, but do not eat a proper meal again until they return to school on the Monday. That is a shocking reality, which intensifies over holiday periods.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend speaks with passion about child poverty. The fact that we have so many children in poverty is clearly a legacy of Tory economic mismanagement. Does my hon. Friend agree that the removal of the two-child benefit cap is a victory for compassion, justice and evidence-based policymaking?
Frank McNally
I absolutely agree. Let me also say, in response to some of our colleagues across the House, that the SNP Government could have eradicated the two-child cap eight years ago, but refused to do so. They chose to play politics with the cap; this Government have acted after 18 months to remove it. The two-child cap is the savage reality of austerity. It is the embodiment of cruelty, and it pushed children into the depths of poverty.
Seamus Logan
If the hon. Member feels so strongly about the two-child cap, why did he vote to keep it last year?
Frank McNally
I am more than happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman. This Government made it clear that when we had the economic ability to remove the cap, we would do so. It is the prudence of the Chancellor that has allowed it to be removed in full, and that has been done within 18 months. The hon. Gentleman’s Government could have done it eight years ago, and refused to do so. This decision will lift 2,000 children in my community, 95,000 across Scotland and 450,000 across the UK out of poverty. As Gordon Brown observed last week, the Chancellor has done more in this Budget to transform the lives of children in poverty and their families than any of the seven previous Tory Chancellors. This action, combined with significant uplifts in the national minimum wage by 8.5% and the national living wage by more than 4%, will help to tackle the scourge of poverty—and that represents a pay rise for more than 200,000 Scots.
This is a fair Budget, which builds on the Government’s efforts to grow the economy, tackle the cost of living crisis and fight poverty. It puts more money in our constituents’ pockets, and I am proud to support it.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Your Party)
The cost of living crisis is not a natural disaster. My constituents are not struggling because of so-called global pressures; they are struggling because an economic system built by the powerful and for the powerful is bleeding them dry. Yet this Labour Budget refuses to confront that truth. Instead, it protects profiteers while punishing those who keep this country running. Water companies siphon off billions in dividends while pumping sewage into our rivers, energy giants rake in record profits while families in Coventry South are terrified to turn on the heating, and rail and bus companies charge extortionate fares for failing services. This is extraction. It is privatisation functioning as intended, with wealth flowing up and misery pushed down.
And extraction does not stop at corporations. The people who run this country want us to believe that every refugee is a rapist, while they grab £12 million of taxpayers’ money to protect a parasite called Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. He has never seen the inside of a cell or a courtroom, because what matters to the ruling class is not the safety of women and children; it is the peace and pleasure of the powerful.
What a sick society we live in when the political and media class bends over backwards to defend the royal family, including Andrew, who was close friends with the notorious paedophile Jeffrey Epstein. That is our money that provided him with housing, our money that defended him in court, and our money that put food on his table. We should not just abolish Andrew’s titles; we should abolish the monarchy itself.
It is an absolute scandal that the wealthy glide through this Budget untouched. Everyone except the richest 10% will feel the brunt. This is happening in a country where billionaire wealth has exploded beyond imagination. In 1990, Britain had 15 billionaires; today we have 156. The richest 350 families now hold more wealth than the entire economic output of Belgium. Make no mistake: this is not an accident; it is the direct result of political decisions by political parties that are too captured to challenge the super-rich.
Now this Labour Government expect applause for ending the two-child benefit cap, but let us be clear: it will take effect in April 2026, not immediately. They have knowingly left hundreds of thousands of children in preventable poverty for over a year and a half, and I am proud to have lost the Labour Whip for standing up and voting to scrap this cruel policy last July. Some of us do not need focus groups to know that punishing children is wrong.
Under this Labour Government, disabled people have seen their benefits slashed, and pensioners have been stripped of winter fuel payments. Food bank use has hit record levels, and this Government plan to funnel an extra £11 billion a year to arms companies. That is money flowing into the pockets of shareholders for the merchants of death, after two years in which our money has funded daily spy flights over the ruins of Gaza, aiding and abetting a genocide. This Labour Government are just as happy to oppress at home as they are abroad.
We cannot ignore the political damage of this extreme inequality. History teaches us a stark lesson: when inequality runs rampant and the super-rich hoard more wealth, the doors open to something dangerous. We have seen the poison of fascism return to our streets and screens, and what do we hear from this Government? Well, when the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) says, “Kick an immigrant,” the Prime Minister asks, “How hard?” and shamefully uses the same fascistic language as Enoch Powell by calling us an “island of strangers.” We are not an island of strangers; we are an island that is suffering from a Government who protect the privileged and punish the vulnerable.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
This Budget is designed to address the issues that people in Worcester really care about. The first is the cost of living. We will see a typical household energy bill reduction of £150, the first freeze on rail fares in 30 years, and an increase in the minimum wage. The Budget will boost the NHS through the roll-out of 250 new neighbourhood health centres; I will keep fighting for a new walk-in GP service in Worcester.
The Budget will begin the work of lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, including over 2,000 children in Worcester who will no longer suffer from the two-child cap on universal credit. The Budget also includes more funding for small companies to support apprenticeships; support for the midlands rail hub, which will improve our services to Birmingham; and, I am pleased to say, a fresh commitment to innovation and support for entrepreneurs. If we get that right, we can see a true industrial renewal in the UK.
I chair the all-party parliamentary group on hydrogen, and I welcome the climate change levy changes in this Budget that support hydrogen production, an area that is ripe for growth and well suited to the UK’s strengths, both industrially and geographically. In recent years, we have led the world technologically in this space. It offers real opportunities for us, if we have an ambitious plan. UK industry is not confined to city regions and clusters; it is in every town and every region. The UK energy system is being reconceived for resilience and sustainability, but we need new energy storage at large scale, and we will need much higher levels of dispatchable power than we have today. An ambitious vision for hydrogen, in which the Government directly invest in hydrogen, and actively lead a strategic roll-out of its storage and transmission, is a prerequisite for an industrial renaissance that the UK could have and deserves to have, so I look forward to the publication of the upcoming hydrogen strategy.
We cannot ignore the major disruptions sweeping the world. The climate crisis is a global emergency that demands urgent and assertive action, but there is also digitalisation. I cannot overstate the impact that the digital revolution is having. Debate on the Budget now takes place not only in echo chambers of opinion, but in echo chambers of reality, and people have completely different understandings of what is happening in our world and how it works. This new digital world means that our children are unsafe, and that all of us are unsafe from harmful or traumatic images and narratives, from addictive user interfaces in apps or websites, from personified artificial intelligence that encourages attachment —we cannot imagine the harms that could cause—and from algorithms that curate news, views and the voices that we hear, which reinforce bias and present misinformation as fact. These represent a fundamental societal threat that we can and must address in the same way that we address the risks of physical products. The Budget rightly increases taxes on online gambling, but we must do much more.
It is not just the cost of living that is causing a crisis in mental health; there are digital causes; there is poverty and our special educational needs and disabilities crisis, and there is trauma. I chair the APPG on family hubs, and I welcome the £500 million commitment the Secretary of State for Education has already made to them. Our APPG represents a diverse ecosystem of people delivering in real communities. We have seen the sector diversify, innovate and embed in communities over the last few years, and we want to maintain those strengths. As a mission-led Government, that is right up our street. We can break the cycles of trauma by wrapping integrated support around households and families. That approach is a stark challenge to everyone who, remarkably, is criticising our changes to welfare payments, which are on track to lift half a million children out of poverty. This is a Budget about fair choices. It recognises that people come first, and that we are here to build a more just, more prosperous and fairer society.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I spent the weeks before the Budget talking to constituents about what they wanted to see, and I spoke to them over the weekend. I have to say that when I met them, there was sadness and a degree of anger, because they know that last week’s Budget was a missed opportunity.
Yesterday was the first Sunday of Advent, and there is nothing like the start of the Christmas period to focus our minds on what really matters at home—as well as on what we need to buy. But this time is also about our communities. Every Christmas advert shows a buzzing high street, a glowing local pub and happy families safe together in their home. The Budget was the antithesis of that ideal. Our high streets have been caught in a perfect storm between increased national insurance contributions, increased energy costs and consumers with less money in their pockets to spend. Those main streets are vital because they give jobs, bring us together and create our communities. It is why so many of us across this House stand up in this place to bemoan the loss of banks and post offices. They are important for our local communities. They are the foundation of the high streets that bring people into our towns and make it easy for small businesses to operate, and I continue to be incredibly disappointed that this Government say that they are not minded to revisit the criteria for introducing more banking hubs.
I know that my English colleagues have concerns about business rates going up next April, and there has been the ending of the 40% pandemic relief, but things were already worse for businesses in Scotland, where the relief was never passed on by the Scottish Government. The 5% discount to the multiplier announced last week could indeed ease the burden for pubs, shops and cafés in Leven, Cupar and St Andrews, so I am a bit disappointed that we no longer have any SNP Members here, and cannot get answers from them about whether the Scottish Government will do something to help Scottish hospitality in their own Budget.
The energy company obligation is a short-term help to households, but if there is no replacement measure to tackle fuel poverty, energy costs will continue to soar over the long term. I have to tell the Government that scrapping ECO is not a solution to the complaints of poor workmanship—in some cases, homes were ruined—that we repeatedly heard about in relation to ECO4. All those homes still need resource—as yet unannounced—for remedial work, and the retrofitting and home improvement sector will improve only when there is long-term investment in its future.
Yesterday was St Andrews day, and I am sure that people had a dram yesterday to celebrate it. I am the MP for St Andrews, and whisky is a vital employer in my constituency; over 41,000 people are directly employed in the industry. In North East Fife, we are acutely aware of the fragility of the industry, as one of our distilleries, Eden Mill, went into administration just last month. I am hugely relieved that job losses have been avoided in that case, but this Budget has failed to offer any support to prevent similar closures in the months ahead.
To close, I do not know how the Government can justify reducing the digital services tax for people like Elon Musk while taking more tax from working people. Most importantly, we could have protected the personal allowance—that small but important amount that people can earn that is theirs to keep entirely—and we would not be asking young people dipping their first toe into the world of work, or those at the end of their careers who rely on the state pension, to pay tax.
My party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), spoke about the measure not mentioned in the Budget that would really create growth, and that is a renegotiated customs union with the EU. We have been left with what my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) quite rightly described last week as a hopeless Budget for too many.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
I came into this place driven to make life better for the struggling families I saw each and every day as a teacher, and as council lead for education. That purpose guides me every day. I have seen far too many families fighting to get by, so this Budget feels personal to me, because it makes fair, responsible choices, rooted in compassion, security and opportunity, for Wales and the whole of the UK.
For far too long, Britain has been held back. Now, it is starting to turn a corner. Our economy is performing better than expected, and wages are rising, but I know that too many families still feel the cost of living squeeze. This Budget takes real, practical steps to help families in Wales. It cuts bills, with £150 off energy costs and an expansion to the warm home discount; it freezes fuel duty; and it delivers the biggest wage boost in a generation.
But the change I am most proud of, the one that will transform lives in my constituency, is the removal of the two-child limit to universal credit. I am proud, too, that this is fully costed, as it always needed to be. Child poverty in Wales has hit record levels, with organisations such as Children in Wales and the Bevan Foundation sounding the alarm again and again. This action will help 69,000 children across Wales, including 3,100 children in my constituency. This is exactly the kind of change I came into politics to deliver—practical support that protects children, strengthens families and gives every young person the chance to reach their potential. These changes are not before time. Last week, the Welsh index of multiple deprivation showed yet again that areas in Rhyl in Clwyd North, my constituency, are among the most deprived in Wales. This cannot continue. Change is urgent, and the measures taken in this Budget could not be more crucial.
But make no mistake: economic growth and addressing the root causes of deprivation must also be at the heart of everything we do. Today, our Chancellor is at an international investment summit in Wales, and recent announcements show that north Wales is finally receiving the investment that our communities deserve. There is the Flintshire and Wrexham investment zone and the north Wales AI growth zone, and there are clean energy jobs at Wylfa. We are seeing meaningful action on regeneration. A £20 million neighbourhood fund in Rhyl will begin to deliver what our local community has called for: investment in our town centre, new skills for our workforce and real progress in tackling unemployment.
My priority as MP is to see that record investment in north Wales delivering a better future for the people of Clwyd North, and to ensure that every family and every community in Clwyd North can share in the region’s and the country’s future success. The Budget makes honest and hopeful choices, choices that build a stronger, fairer country where living standards rise, child poverty falls and communities like mine in Clwyd North can truly thrive.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
When I look to the Northern Ireland-specific page and a bit in the Red Book, and remove any paragraphs that refer to funding or programmes that have already been committed to by this Government, there are actually only a couple of paragraphs left. So far down is the Northern Ireland Office in the pecking order at the Cabinet table that there was not even anything in the Budget for Northern Ireland that was worthy of a leak.
The Chancellor’s statement on Wednesday said that Northern Ireland would receive £370 million, but let us be clear: despite the Northern Ireland Office’s puff piece on the impact of the Budget on business and public services, explaining how lucky we are in Northern Ireland to receive a Barnett consequential, the figure breaks down to just £18 million this year. We have even seen a Northern Ireland Office Minister on social media singing the praises of investment in Northern Ireland from the Government’s Innovate UK fund. That investment was welcome, but it was delivered in 2023. The Chancellor said in her statement last week that Scotland was getting £820 million because the leader of the Scottish Labour party asked for it—I think that was repeated by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine). My question to the Government is this: have Northern Ireland businesses not asked for recognition of the challenges that they face due to the impact of this Government?
Alan Lowry of the Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland said that the £16.6 million that has been given for the internal market package
“will not be a quick fix, but by acknowledging that there is a problem in the first place means that we can work together to address it.”
It is good that the Government have finally acknowledged that the Windsor framework is an issue, but on other issues, such as veterinary medicine, they continue to ignore the impact of divergence.
Dr Luke Evans
Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that the Budget contains pay-per-mile charges on electric vehicles? How will someone crossing from Northern Ireland into the Republic of Ireland be impacted by that taxation? The Transport Secretary is present; I think it is a question that many people may well be asking.
Robin Swann
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention—that is one of the issues I was going to raise. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was here earlier; when I asked that specific question, he could not answer it.
Our voluntary and community sector in Northern Ireland is facing a funding cliff edge with the end of the UK shared prosperity fund. The sector has a further ask that support be ringfenced, which now seems to be a common call from many sectors in Northern Ireland.
When I had the Young Farmers’ Clubs of Ulster here, the Prime Minister welcomed them to this place. Have those young farmers not made representations directly to Ministers on the impact of the family farm inheritance tax, which will have a disproportionate effect on them? The £1 million spousal transfer is a small token. What of the generational transfers so common in Northern Ireland farming—the transfer of a family farm from father to daughter, from mother to son, or from and to any other relative not mentioned in this case? Those asks have obviously fallen on deaf ears, tuned out by all but a select cohort of Back-Bench Labour MPs.
I have heard appeals from some noble Back-Bench Labour MPs, like the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), asking their own Front Benchers to review the family farm inheritance tax. Will we see a reversal, or has No. 10 or even No. 11 made the calculation that a U-turn like we have seen in other areas would not save their seats and written them off already, like the farming families of the United Kingdom? I hope not, because some of those Members are among the most passionate the Government have.
We hear of the headroom that the Chancellor has established. I hope that she can use it to reimburse the £500 million that the change to agricultural property relief was set to raise, because there should now be the quantum to do that now.
I welcome the fact that the Transport Secretary is present, because I welcome the investment in the midlands rail hub and the trans-Pennine route upgrade. I have raised with her and the Northern Ireland Office investment in rail in my constituency, specifically the rail link from Antrim to Lisburn, and the Department for Transport has kindly funded the £1 million feasibility study. She has had sight of that, but our own Minister for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland has yet to release it, even though she said she would do so this summer.
Those are the specific Northern Ireland concerns that we have with this Budget.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
I begin by expressing my gratitude to the Chancellor for her clear commitment to transforming the lives of my constituents. Over the past few days, she has set out a plan for investment in major infrastructure and to rebuild our public services. For the people outside the Chamber, the real significance of this Budget is far more personal; it represents a long-awaited acknowledgment of their struggles with the relentless cost of living. After 14 years of austerity and Tory-manufactured poverty, they finally see a Government who are willing to repair the damage that has been done.
The people I meet every day do not live in £5 million homes. Particularly in the Gillingham part of my constituency, their reality is starkly different: they have energy bills they cannot hope to meet, school uniforms they struggle to afford and the constant challenge of trying to provide a decent life for their families on a shoestring budget. One in three children in Gillingham lives in poverty and one in 10 households struggles with fuel poverty. According to the most recent indices of multiple deprivation, my constituents live in neighbourhoods ranked in the bottom 10% most deprived nationally.
When the Leader of the Opposition stands in the Chamber and dismisses vital cost of living support for hard-working families as a Budget for “Benefits Street”, the families I represent are not surprised. It is exactly that kind of disdain for the most vulnerable that shaped our fiscal landscape for 14 years, leaving ordinary people in desperate circumstances. It is this Labour Government who are finally taking them out of that cycle and restoring fairness and dignity.
I welcome that the Government are making essential transport more affordable and more reliable. The freeze on regulated rail fares is not simply a headline. For middle-income commuters travelling from Gillingham or Rainham, it means keeping hundreds of pounds a year in their pockets. Combined with targeted infrastructure upgrades, this Budget begins to reverse the chronic under-investment that left many towns disconnected and disadvantaged.
When I go knocking on doors over the coming weeks, I can tell my constituents that we are cutting their energy bills by hundreds of pounds, freezing rail fares and prescription charges, and keeping fuel duty low. I can tell them that we are raising the national living wage, increasing pensions and taking their children out of poverty.
The Conservatives may think that this is a Budget for “Benefits Street”, but I say that it is a Budget for many working families who have carried the burden of austerity for over a decade. It is a Budget for the 2,860 children in my constituency whose quality of life is about to drastically improve. It is clear to me that this Budget is about more than short-term relief; it is about laying the foundations for long-term stability and fairness. That that is why I will be backing it.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
When we cut through it all, the central choices in this Budget were to increase the fiscal headroom and spend more on welfare, and to pay for it via an income tax threshold freeze. I am not sure why Labour Members are reluctant to describe it in that way, because it does contain some legitimate political choices.
I welcome the increase in fiscal headroom. It was creating far too much uncertainty in our economy. I pointed that out to the Chancellor when she was before the Treasury Committee in the spring, and I am glad that the Treasury has now corrected that mistake. I welcome the abolition of the two-child benefit cap, which the Liberal Democrats voted for—I think it was one of our very first votes in this Parliament. The Chancellor explained over the weekend that she was able to afford it because of taxes on the gambling industry, but that industry existed last year, so she could have done it then.
My issue is not with those measures but with how they are to be paid for. There are others that could have paid their fair share, the first of which is the banks, which have been completely let off the hook. They have made unforecasted windfall profits over the last few years, particularly because of the quantitative tightening programme and the interest rates. Many, including the Liberal Democrats, have argued that we should tax those windfall profits and put them to good use, but it seems like the banking industry’s lobbying efforts have paid off.
When comparing the top 10% with the bottom 10%, the Budget appears to be progressive, but a deeper analysis shows that the top 0.1% have been let off the hook, particularly with measures such as the dividend rates, where the additional rate has been left completely untouched, and the cap that has been introduced for non-dom contributions in inheritance tax. While we are on the non-dom regime, I know that some Members have said that all the non-doms have fled the country, but I point them to page 82 of the OBR’s Blue Book, which says that the estimated revenue from that regime will remain broadly unchanged.
Really, all this discussion is a dead end. We are just talking about redistribution. What is really important is what is not in the Budget. As the Federation of Small Businesses puts it, we must get out of this doom loop of tax measures to balance the books. The Budget is far too short-term in its thinking, and we need more long-term vision. Last summer the Chancellor seemed to get this. She promised that her focus would be on growth, yet her first Budget hit businesses with the rise in national insurance contributions, which has hit employment and set a mood of doom and gloom in our economy.
We had a zero-based spending review from which no significant changes to spending emerged. I cannot list a single area of Government spending that changed fundamentally after that review. We have seen tax measures that are piecemeal, and no significant efforts at reform. Economists from left and right all agree that the UK tax system is in a mess. Property taxation and the way that we treat different types of income are in desperate need of reform, and we have not seen that from the Government.
Then, of course, there is the elephant in the room, which only the Liberal Democrats are willing to address: our relationship with Europe. The strategy with Europe is to have tiny negotiations over small measures. We need a proper customs union. That will deliver the growth that our economy needs.
Ultimately, this Government lack the ambition to rewire our economy. We need to stop capital pouring overseas by changing the incentives to invest in this country. We need to look at corporate governance and make sure that it serves the British economy well. We need to look at devolving real economic power, not a reorganisation of local government, and we need to stop triangulating between the people who think net zero is a good or bad thing and ensure that Britain can be a green superpower in the 21st century.
The Budget gets us through another year, but it does not excite me for the future. The country was promised change—where is it?
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
Poverty wastes potential and harms our country’s success and prosperity. The two-child limit has been the single biggest driver of increasing child poverty in this country, and by finally making the decision to remove that one policy, Labour will lift 4,560 children in Huddersfield out of poverty, which is something I am proud of.
I know that that matters to many of us in the Chamber and to many outside it. When I visited the Welcome Centre, which is the largest food bank in my constituency, Ellie the manager told me how she has seen more families coming through its doors, and this one policy has been one of the biggest drivers of that. When I visit schools, teachers tell me how child poverty impacts school readiness. When I attended a “Poverty Matters” event in my constituency, many of those working on the frontline spoke about why removing the two-child limit would be one of the most significant steps the Government could take.
That step, alongside other policies announced by the Government, means that this Parliament is set to see the largest fall in child poverty on record. This Labour Government will therefore ensure that every child—no matter where they are born, their background or their circumstances—is given the best possible start in life. There would be a cost in not doing so from the impact of children not meeting their potential, as well as in ill health, unequal economic growth across our regions and a reduction in productivity. We saw a significant slowdown in average annual productivity between 2010 and 2022 compared with the time of the last Labour Government.
Let us not forget that the Tory and coalition Governments saw the closure of over 1,000 Sure Start centres and 300 children’s centres in England. Between 2010 and 2018, overall Sure Start funding fell by two thirds in real terms; it was left to local people and local communities to pick up the mess.
The social contract in this country is important. Through our contribution, we all play a part in ensuring that this country—our country—thrives. It should not be about pitting one citizen against another or setting up a false dichotomy; it is about ensuring that we all do better through good, secure jobs. I know from my conversations with constituents that many continue to face financial struggles and that those who have not seen enough improvement in their living standards and pay since the financial crisis of 2008 continue to face an affordability crisis.
I therefore welcome the steps that the Government have taken on energy bills as well as freezing rail fares, boosting the national living wage and the minimum wage, delivering a rise in the state pension and freezing prescription charges. I also strongly welcome the fact that apprenticeships for the under-25s will now be free and that 18 to 21-year-olds will receive a guaranteed six-month work placement when they have been out of work or learning for 18 months. Those are significant steps in the right direction.
It is important that we support our local businesses, many of which are family-run in Huddersfield. Our manufacturing sector and textiles play a special part in our town, and it is good to see that UK manufacturing output across the sector rose last month and that business optimism has hit a nine-month high. We must continue to back those firms through our industrial strategy, investment in local infrastructure and Government procurement and by tackling high energy costs.
While the Transport Secretary is in the Chamber, I must mention that the Government are backing major transport projects, including Northern Powerhouse Rail and the trans-Pennine route upgrade. That is important for my constituency and provides much needed stability for supply chains and the sector.
There has been a bit of a hysterical response to the Budget from the Tories, but it has been well received by the markets, and we have seen UK borrowing costs come down—
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Although there is much that I welcome in the Budget, overall I cannot help but be disappointed by a botched Budget that raises taxes to a record high and increases costs for businesses, while avoiding using tax levers on the largest, highly profitable corporations and ignoring our biggest lever for growth: a better deal with the European Union.
The Chancellor insists that this Budget ensures that everyone pays their fair share, yet it seemingly allows the biggest tech giants, such as Elon Musk, off the hook through the absence of a digital services tax announcement. Freezing income tax thresholds continues the Conservative tax legacy of hitting people with years of stealth taxes, together costing 10 million taxpayers an extra £67 billion a year by 2030. Behind those numbers are families and individuals still struggling as costs go up and earnings do not catch up.
One constituent from Gaddesdon Row told me that this Budget is
“disconnected from the reality that families are under pressure today”.
Earning just too much to qualify for targeted support but not enough to absorb rising costs, this constituent is being both overlooked and penalised by frozen thresholds. Another constituent, Harriet, a single mother from Berkhamsted, feels “unheard, unrepresented and unsupported” by the Chancellor’s Budget. Despite the fact that she is working harder than ever before, this Government keep squeezing her financially from every direction. This does not sound like a fair plan for working families.
This Labour Government were elected on the promise of lowering the cost of living and stimulating growth, yet for the second consecutive year they are targeting businesses and employment, the very engines of growth. Richard, from Brash Solutions in Berkhamsted, shares the view of many by saying:
“Once again, the Autumn Budget risks disincentivising entrepreneurs and small business owners by increasing taxes and eroding rewards for those who take daily risks to employ staff and drive economic growth.”
For Hugh, a business owner in Potten End, this Budget is
“another kick in the teeth”.
Charlotte from Gatwards says:
“The government appears to have completely abandoned their growth ambitions”.
Angela from HJP Chartered Accountants says that their clients feel that the Government are treating them like a “cash cow” and warns that if this continues, investment in the people of the United Kingdom will reduce. Daniel, a general manager in Berkhamsted, warns of the tens of thousands in pre-profit costs yet again being placed on businesses such as his.
The Government have done nothing to improve the situation for family farms. Also, last year we warned about the negative impact that the rise in employer national insurance contributions would have on jobs. Since then, I have seen charities and businesses in Hertfordshire let go of staff and establish hiring freezes. The Office for National Statistics has confirmed that fewer jobs are in the economy over the last quarter. We are ringing those alarm bells again. The Federation of Small Businesses has warned that nearly one in three small firms expect to shrink, sell up or shut down in the next 12 months.
I recognise that this Government inherited a difficult economic landscape after a decade of Conservative mismanagement. However, I still cannot get over the missed opportunities for a fair and growing economy. If the Government were serious about growth, they would back Lib Dem calls to boost high streets with a 5% VAT cut for hospitality, accommodation and attractions, something that the Robin Hood pub in Tring would very much welcome. They would also follow Lib Dem policies on reducing energy bills, which would go beyond the three years and look to halve energy bills by 2035. They would tax the big banks and social media giants properly, with a new windfall tax and digital services tax. They would also back Lib Dem calls for a better trade deal with Europe to repair the £90 billion Brexit black hole in tax income. That is how we would tackle the cost of living crisis, bear down on inflation, revive our high streets, grow the economy and deliver for our communities, with the fair autumn Budget that this Government have failed to provide.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
This Budget shows that after years of decline, this Labour Government are building a stronger and more secure economy, one that works for working people in Stevenage and the villages across our constituency. We are beating the forecasts, with growth upgraded to 1.5% this year and wages rising faster in our first year than in the entire first decade under the Conservatives. But this is all for nothing if working people cannot see and feel positive changes in their day-to-day lives. That is why this Budget makes the fair and necessary choices to cut the cost of living, renew our public services and bring stability to the economy.
For families in Stevenage, the cost of living has been a real pressure, so I welcome the measures that will put money back into people’s pockets, with £150 off average energy bills, rising to £300 off for those who need it most, alongside freezing prescription charges and, for the first time in 30 years, freezing rail fares. That means that commuters travelling from Stevenage or Knebworth will not see the annual hike that they endured year after year under the previous Government. Take, for example, one of our fantastic young apprentices from Airbus who wrote to me before the Budget asking the Chancellor to consider a rail freeze to ensure that he could afford to do the job he loves.
When working people call, this Labour Government answer. We are cutting NHS waiting lists, with 250 new neighbourhood health centres and millions more appointments, and we are freezing prescription costs. For Stevenage, where the Lister hospital serves not just our town but the surrounding villages, this investment in our infrastructure and in our patients is vital. We are doing all that while reducing borrowing every year so that interest rates—already cut five times since the election—can keep falling, helping families with mortgages and businesses with investment.
Let’s deal with the nonsense we have heard from the Opposition Benches. We have been told that this is a Budget for “Benefits Street”, that Labour is hiking taxes to pay for welfare and that borrowing is spiralling out of control. Here are the actual facts: borrowing will fall every single year of this Parliament, moving to surplus by 2028. That is fiscal responsibility, not the chaos of unfunded tax cuts that crashed the economy under the last Conservative Government. Scrapping the two-child benefit limit is not a handout; it is an investment. A child growing up in poverty is less likely to work as an adult and earns 25% less by the age of 30. Lifting 450,000 children out of poverty is both morally right and economically smart.
On taxes, the biggest changes fall on those with the broadest shoulders: high-value property owners, landlords who pay less tax than their tenants and online giants who have dodged their fair share for too long. Compare that with the Conservatives, who now talk of £47 billion of spending cuts, hitting working people the hardest and still leaving public services crumbling—they have some cheek, after 14 years of doing just that. That figure would be the equivalent of firing every police officer twice over. Reform’s fantasy economics, with billions of cuts and no plan as to where they fall, would mean complete, unbridled chaos. That is why we need a sensible Labour Budget. That is what we have, and that is why I will support it tomorrow night.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
After the Budget last Wednesday, it is clear that the Chancellor does not listen to good advice. The Liberal Democrats have given her so many opportunities of where she could raise extra money for the Treasury. We have called for a windfall tax on the big banks, which could raise £30 billion between now and 2030. The Chancellor could raise an extra £4 billion a year from the likes of Elon Musk by raising the digital services tax on tech giants from 2% to 10%, but Donald Trump will not let the Government do that.
We know that we need to grow our economy, and the quickest way to do that is to repair the damage done by the Conservatives’ terrible Brexit deal. Brexit has lost us £90 billion in tax revenue just this year. That is a black hole that does need fixing. The Government should negotiate a new bespoke EU-UK customs union, cutting the endless red tape and freeing up businesses to concentrate on what they do best: selling their products to Europe. That could raise more than £25 billion a year for the Exchequer. That would benefit many businesses across the country, including in Wokingham. Business owners have told me of their once large and expanding relationship with the EU, but since Brexit they have seen their exports and profits reduced, so why has the Chancellor instead chosen to raise taxes across the board and offered no help to our businesses, having hammered them in the last Budget?
A new deal with the EU would benefit local businesses, help tackle the cost of living crisis, lower import costs, lower food prices and boost investment. The revenue raised for the Exchequer could prevent the Chancellor from placing further taxes on working people, perhaps meaning that income tax thresholds might be unfrozen earlier than 2031, as planned, and ahead of a 2028-29 general election. I urge the Government to listen to our calls and the calls of businesses in Wokingham and across the country and to begin negotiating a bespoke customs union with the EU, which would be a major contributor to the growth that we all agree the economy desperately needs.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I welcome this Budget and the difference that it will make to families who have endured the cost of living crisis for far too long. I welcome the £150 cut to energy bills from April—a lifeline for households that have stretched every pound as far as it will go. I welcome the freeze on rail fares, because for many families even a small rise means a choice between essentials. I welcome the uplift in the national living wage and the minimum wage—a long-overdue recognition of the people whose work keeps our economy alive but who rarely see that reflected in their pay packets. These measures help. They are real, they are practical and they will be felt immediately in constituencies such as mine.
However, every week in Mitcham and Morden I meet people who tell me the same thing: the only way they can manage the cost of living is by going back to cash—cash to budget, cash to separate the heating money from the food money, cash because a contactless tap can feel like losing control. Despite the fact that nearly one in five people now rely on cash to manage their household finances, access to cash and face-to-face banking facilities is becoming rarer for the people who need those things most.
We are seeing an unprecedented number of bank branch closures. Lloyds Banking Group recently announced 136 closures between 2025 and 2026. That would have meant Mitcham losing its last bank this coming January. The closure sparked an access to cash review by Link—an assessment of our suitability for a banking hub. We met every criterion for a banking hub except one: the nearest full-service bank must be more than 15 minutes away by public transport. Mitcham has 115 shops and 48,000 people living near the high street, but the Transport for London timetable determined that we could not have a banking hub because it took only 14 minutes by bus to the nearest bank.
What was there to do but galvanise the great people of my constituency into getting on the bus and recording it? Those recordings clearly showed that the bus took between 18 and 20 minutes to get to Tooting, so we have had those decisions reversed. Mitcham will get the first banking hub in south-west London and only the fifth in London. In the coming days, I will work with Cash Access UK to discuss the next steps for our new banking hub, and with the local community to ensure that the hub fits our needs.
I raise all this to say to Members that the criteria for banking hubs, which I hear discussed all the time by Members of all parties, do not meet the needs of the suburban and urban areas that are losing their banks. The Government should reconsider the target of creating 350 new banking hubs in the next year. On behalf of all my colleagues, I ask for that number to grow, because people do not just need Budget measures; they need a way to manage their budgets through the use of cash.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Budget is built on fantasy. The Chancellor claimed that there was a fiscal black hole so deep that she had no choice but to hammer working families with the highest tax burden since the war, but we now know the truth: the OBR told her in October that the so-called black hole did not exist. She actually had a surplus, but she deliberately told the public the opposite.
This is now a political crisis of the Chancellor’s own making. Even a Cabinet Minister has said:
“At no point were the Cabinet told about the reality of the OBR forecasts”,
and called this Budget
“a disaster from start to finish”.
The Chancellor promised the country that she had “wiped the slate clean” and would not “come back for more”, but we now know how wrong she was.
Labour Members can dress it up however they like, but this is the “Benefits Street” Budget—tax hikes to fund a welfare splurge, paid for by ordinary, hard-working people who get up, go to work and do the right thing. Labour promised not to raise taxes on working people. That was printed in its manifesto, but within weeks of coming to power it did exactly that. A Chancellor who breaks her word cannot expect to command the public’s trust. She must come to this House and explain herself, and I hope she does the winding-up speech tomorrow evening at the close of the debate.
While this Government play politics with the public finances, it is working families in my constituency, and others up and down the country, who are paying the price. In Aldridge-Brownhills, families who have never been higher rate taxpayers in their lives will now find themselves pushed into a higher band, with no increase in real pay. That is not fairness; it is failure. Businesses reached their verdict within hours. The Institute of Directors found that 80% of business leaders felt negative about the Budget. They know that Labour Members do not understand what business is.
Labour’s job tax has hit employers hard. On Friday, businesses in my constituency told me that they have frozen recruitment and investment, that they have no choice but to pass costs on to customers, and that in some cases they are beginning to think about redundancies. Small businesses—the backbone of our economy—were forgotten entirely in this Budget, and the Federation of Small Businesses has said that dividend tax hikes punish people for investing in their own companies. New employer charges are a bad idea, and the business rate measures fall far short. Small Business Saturday is on this coming weekend, and I am sure that many Conservative Members will be going out and supporting small businesses in their constituencies. Why? Because we understand what business is.
Wendy Morton
I am sorry—I do not have time. Connectivity drives growth too, yet we see reheated announcements. The midlands rail hub is crucial for our region, but we do not know whether this is new money or recycled rhetoric. There was no reinstatement in the Budget of the £27 million for Aldridge train station—money that was siphoned away by the Labour mayor—and my constituents deserve better.
Let us be clear: households are being squeezed, food price inflation is running high at nearly 5%, and our farmers are still being hit by the Government’s decisions. This Budget raises taxes, weakens growth, ignores business, hits farmers, sidelines communities and breaks promises. Above all, it is built on fantasy—a black hole that did not exist. My constituents, and this country, deserve better.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Prior to last Wednesday I wanted to see a Budget that tackled the cost of living crisis while delivering the investment that would allow people and businesses to prosper—not an easy task, but this Budget has delivered. With the removal of the two-child limit, in one policy change this Labour Government will directly benefit 1,700 children in my constituency. Scrapping the cap will be transformational to the life chances and outcomes of children across the country. People in my constituency welcome the £150 reduction in energy bills, with a £300 saving for those on the lowest incomes. That will ease pressure on household budgets.
One of the biggest scandals of the 14 years of Tory government is the fact that so many people in work rely on welfare. By bringing fairness back to pay, we rebuild financial resilience and protect more families from hardship. Thanks to the Budget, over 200,000 Scots will receive an above-inflation pay rise, including over 9,000 people across West Lothian and Falkirk. This puts more money in their pockets.
The Government are also backing much needed investment in Scottish public services, with an extra £820 million taking the additional funding for the Scottish Government to over £10 billion since July 2024. That is the choice that this Government have made, yet Scots are not seeing the improvements that the funding should deliver, and councils are forced to find ever greater and more damaging cuts. West Lothian council has just closed a public consultation on an additional £23 million in cuts over the next two years, on top of the £184 million cut since the SNP took power in 2007. That is £184 million cut from services in our towns and villages—services that our residents, including our most vulnerable citizens, rely on. There are no good choices. It is austerity on stilts, and it is wholly driven by the SNP Government. It is their political choice, and there are no excuses.
This is a fair and balanced Budget, but I would like reassurance from Front Bench colleagues on a few points. Some constituents have flagged the Motability situation, especially in relation to the availability and affordability of automatic cars. Many disabled drivers can only drive automatics, and many require larger cars to accommodate wheelchairs and mobility aids. I would therefore be grateful to the Minister for reassurance that any definition of “luxury car” will not just consider price, because doing so would limit the availability of larger vehicles, permanent adaptations and automatics. Some constituents are also concerned about the freezing of the tax thresholds beyond 2028, so I ask the Government to reconsider the extension if economic projections are consistently outperformed.
Changing the country is not going to be easy, but this Labour Government are putting in the hard yards, through meaningful choices and a rejection of austerity and debt—building a country and an economy that works for everyone and leaves no one behind.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
With sky-high bills, unaffordable, cold and mouldy homes, and one in three children growing up in poverty, our country is in crisis. Life has become unaffordable for millions of people, and years of devastating cuts to our public services, from hospitals and schools to social care, mean that those who most need support are too often unable to access it. Every day I hear from my constituents in North Herefordshire, who are living through this crisis and crying out for change.
Instead of delivering change, this Government have repeatedly claimed that there is not enough money to go around. That simply is not true. Last year, billionaires saw their collective wealth increase by £35 million a day. Britain’s 50 richest families now hold more wealth than half the population combined. A wealth tax of 1% on assets over £10 million and 2% on assets over £1 billion could raise nearly £15 billion. If we also aligned rates of capital gains tax with income tax and introduced national insurance on investment income, so that wealth is taxed at the same rate as work, we could raise over £30 billion a year.
This Budget needed to mark a turning point and an end to the politics of the past 18 months—a politics that has, sadly, scapegoated refugees and migrants while failing to tackle the inequality and the real issues that drive people into hardship. Of course, I welcome the long overdue scrapping of the cruel and counterproductive two-child benefit cap. That should have been done on day one after the general election. Instead of delivering a transformational Budget that confronts the cost of living crisis and taxes extreme wealth fairly, this Labour Government have, sadly, chosen to paper over the cracks —to tinker, not transform.
For example, take the Chancellor’s decision to remove policy costs from energy bills. Nearly 3 million households in England were fuel poor in 2024—that figure could be more, depending on how it is calculated. This is a huge problem, especially in the west midlands and especially in my North Herefordshire constituency, where fuel poverty is particularly high because of the nature of our housing and low wages. It is therefore essential that we do everything in our power to cut bills. But the decision to lower bills by cutting vital funding for home insulation by a quarter is not a real solution; it is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Home insulation is one of the most effective ways to bring down bills: upgrading the average UK home to a decent standard saves households £210 a year.
Analysis from the New Economics Foundation shows that, because of the Government’s decisions regarding the energy company obligation and the warm homes plan, the poorest households living in the coldest homes have now lost two thirds of the support they were due to receive for energy efficiency upgrades. When the UK has some of the worst-insulated homes in western Europe, we should be scaling home insulation up, not down, and using progressive taxation to pay for it. I am delighted that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero is back in his place to hear me make these arguments.
Dr Chowns
I will not, because many Members want to get in.
Frankly, given that a typical energy bill in October 2025 was £478 a year higher than four years before, it is indefensible that this Budget does nothing to address the structural factors that keep costs high. In 2024, almost a quarter of the average energy bill went straight to the pre-tax profits of the major electricity generators, networks and household suppliers. If we are serious about tackling the cost of living crisis, we must stop private companies profiteering while ordinary people cannot afford life’s basics. Those basics should not be a luxury. We can have lower bills and more investment in affordable, warm homes, all while protecting our planet at the same time.
In ordinary times, a Budget that tinkers at the edges might be acceptable, but after the financial crash, a decade of Conservative and Lib Dem austerity, the pandemic and the fuel price crisis, the country is at breaking point. This Budget needed to go further and be bolder. That is what a Green Budget would do.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome this Budget as it cracks on and delivers for our kids, for our NHS and for hard-working families up and down the country. Importantly, it also delivers for Derby. It is no wonder the Tories do not like it.
I have said it before and I will say it again: in Derby, we are proud to be a city of makers. What we build in Derby keeps our country and beyond powered, but for far too long, people in our city from Alvaston to Arboretum have put in a shift but still are left struggling and find it hard to make ends meet. For years, they have been left to face the grinding reality of Tory austerity, and it is hurting. They are left to pay sky-high energy bills, left waiting for their kids’ education, health and care plans in a buckling special educational needs system, and left out of our city’s success as a manufacturing powerhouse.
It is not right that families are turning to food banks because their pay packet does not cover the essentials any more. It has left Derby telling a tale of two cities. Whether it is raising the minimum wage, freezing train ticket prices, freezing prescription fees or knocking £150 off energy bills, this Budget is cracking on with tackling the cost of living crisis for families in Derby and across the country—not sometime in the future, but now.
Instead of accepting that in some parts of our city the majority of kids will live in poverty, the Labour Government have said enough is enough: enough of families paying the painful price of Tory austerity, and enough of kids going to school on empty stomachs. By scrapping the two-child benefit cap, we will give 5,500 kids in Derby South a better start in life. Nationally, we will lift 450,000 kids out of poverty. That is the difference a Labour Government make.
That is not all. The Budget also delivers for young people as they take their next steps in life, because university is not for everyone. It was not for me, and I want every young person in Derby to know about the opportunities that apprenticeships can offer them in getting on. To take up the opportunity and run with it, apprenticeships need to be available for them in local businesses and in the local area. This Budget delivers exactly that. It commits £725 million for the growth and skills levy to help support apprenticeships for young people. They are this country’s future. That funding includes fully-funded SME apprenticeships for eligible under-25s. We know that when we back our fantastic young people, the whole community benefits.
This Budget delivers for the whole of our city by backing the Team Derby initiative. The Tories underestimated and undervalued Derby for years locally and nationally, and that left our community feeling locked out of our city’s success as a manufacturing powerhouse, but I have always been on Team Derby, and this Government are, too. We are committed to making sure that record investments in our city’s industry also work hard for our community, delivering the change that residents want and that they can see. I thank my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister for backing families, backing business, backing our young people and, importantly for me, backing Derby.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Last year, the Chancellor increased public spending by £72 billion, financed by £40 billion of extra taxes and £32 billion of extra borrowing. That was all justified, we were told, by a mysterious black hole that only the Labour Front-Bench team could see. The OBR certainly could not find it. These tax rises were so large that the Chancellor felt it necessary to reassure the country that
“I’m not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes.”
One year later, the Chancellor is back for more, raising Britain’s tax bill by a further £26 billion. These extra taxes will be paid by working people, like my constituent Rowena, who wrote to me after the Budget. She said:
“I have worked in education for over 10 years and have only recently reached the top of the pay scale after years of dedication and hard work. I manage long hours, increasing responsibilities, and rising needs within schools, all while striving to maintain high standards for my students. I do this as I care deeply about educating future generations and also to pay my mortgage and support my three children. I do not claim any benefits, other than child benefit, and I have always taken pride in being financially independent. However, the changes announced today leave me questioning the value of this commitment.
Under the new thresholds, I will be dragged into the 40% tax bracket, making additional work—such as examining during the summer—financially unviable. If I stop examining, students and schools will feel the impact. But what’s the point when 40% of that exam fee will disappear. Teachers are not high earners, yet these changes treat us as if we are. Calculators suggest I will be approximately £1,500 worse off annually. In fact, under the new rules, I would be financially better off and under less stress if I had two more children and claimed Universal Credit now that the two-child cap has been lifted. That is a deeply troubling message for hardworking professionals.
I also want to share a personal perspective: my 15-year-old daughter is in Year 11 and about to take her GCSEs. I encourage her every day to work hard and aim for a successful career. But what is the purpose when she sees her parents struggling and effectively penalised for being hardworking? What message does this send to the next generation?”
I hope that the Secretary of State will answer Rowena when she winds up.
Twelve months ago, the Chancellor was opposed to removing the two-child benefit cap. It was too expensive and not the best way to tackle child poverty, and seven Labour MPs had the Whip removed when they voted against that. So what has changed? Well, nothing, except the collapse in the Prime Minister’s authority. He is buffeted by events because he has no principles and no vision for where he wants to lead our country. He is raising taxes on Rowena, and others like her, to increase benefits, because that is what Labour Back Benchers want. Devoid of any real purpose, his Government’s only guiding philosophy is to survive, so Labour is now doing what it has always done: taxing and spending, without thought for the consequences. Taxes on working people are rising to their highest level ever, all to pay for higher benefits for those who do not work. A Budget is about choices, and Labour has made its choices, because this is a Budget for “Benefits Street”.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I will start by welcoming some of measures in the Budget relating to transport, and if I have time, I will pick up on a couple of others.
I welcome the freeze on rail fares, and I welcome the growth-enhancing capital investment projects like the lower Thames crossing. I note that that capital investment will be the final tranche of Government support for that project before the private sector takes over construction and long-term operation. It cannot always be assumed that the Treasury will write cheques to cover the cost of building infrastructure, particularly where a solid income stream—in the case of the lower Thames crossing—or high land values can be used to leverage private funding. I welcome the announcement about funding for the docklands light railway extension. I see that the Secretary of State for Transport is in her place; I hope that we can soon have similar good news about kick-start funding for the west London orbital rail link.
Drivers and fleet managers of petrol and diesel vehicles will welcome the further extension of the temporary 5p cut in the rate of fuel duty to September 2026. While I congratulate the Chancellor on the support given to the automotive sector and our carbon commitments, including £1.5 billion for electric car grant funding and investment in EV charging infrastructure, the Government have also introduced a mileage charge for EVs that risks sending mixed signals to manufacturers and sellers of EVs, as well as fleet managers and individual buyers. That may be the right move, but I fear that it comes at the wrong time. For too many owners, the cost of running an EV is no lower than the cost of running a petrol or diesel vehicle, particularly because of the unit cost of non-domestic charging. I note that when New Zealand passed a similar piece of legislation, EV uptake fell off a cliff.
I have some questions for the Secretary of State. What measures has the Department taken to assess the overall effectiveness of its EV policies? What impact assessment has been carried out in respect of EV taxation and subsequent displacement? How is the measure consistent with the Government’s agenda to decarbonise private transport? Is the Secretary of State planning to introduce a simple odometer check, which will carry with it all the risk and problems associated with fuel duty, or will she look at satellite-based tracking, which is more accurate and is based on equity, and which better manages the demands on our roads? It could be introduced for all vehicles on a non-mandatory basis, just as water metres were originally not mandatory.
As for other measures to address the cost of living that my constituents welcome, we have the ending of the two-child benefit limit. I called for that, and I am glad that the Government have listened. It will make a measurable difference to almost 3,500 children in my constituency. The vast majority of their parents work full time but on low pay. They are forced to pay extremely high rents, and have little left over at the end of the month. We have £150 off home energy bills, freezes to prescription charges and fuel duty, and another big increase in the national minimum wage, on top of public sector pay increases and more children getting free school meals.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
At a time when families in the four corners of our nation are struggling just to get through the week, the test for any Budget is simple: does it make life easier for ordinary working people? Does it put money in the pockets of low-income and middle-income earners? Does it strengthen our public services? Does it support those who are working hard, yet falling behind because of rising prices, high inflation and chronically stagnant wages?
The first thing I welcome is the lifting of the two-child benefit cap. I welcome the Chancellor finally bowing to pressure from campaigners, my independent alliance colleagues, and the seven Labour Back Benchers who defied the whip last year to vote for its abolition, but telling families that they must wait until 2026—nearly two years after Labour came into government—is not the Labour way. While children go hungry now, today and this winter, that is unconscionable.
For many winters, families have been choosing between heating and eating. Food banks remain at record high levels of usage, and warm banks are now a thing that we accept in our society. Every month, millions are one broken boiler or late pay check away from crisis. A modern economy cannot function when its people are too poor meaningfully to participate in it. That is why we need radical tax reform that prioritises a fairer tax system that funds our future.
One of the great myths of our political age is that there is not enough money to fix these problems. That is simply not true. Our tax system is full of holes wide enough for billionaires to sail yachts through; we must get a grip in this place.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
In my constituency, child poverty is at some 50%, so I certainly welcome the scrapping of the two-child benefit cap. Does the hon. Member agree that a wealth tax is the only way that we can resolve the underlying issue, which is the cost of living?
Iqbal Mohamed
I will come to that in the short time I have remaining.
It is not true that we do not have enough money to fix these problems. If the Chancellor was serious about rebuilding Britain, she would adopt straightforward, fairer tax reforms. As many Members across have said, we could raise tens of billions of pounds by closing loopholes that allow foreign multinationals to shift profits offshore and avoid paying UK corporation tax while onshoring expenses and taking advantage of subsidies and tax relief. We could implement the digital services tax that was originally promised, ensuring that big tech finally pays its fair share of its record profits. We could end the preferential treatment of income from wealth over income from work by taxing capital gains at closer parity with earnings. We could introduce a genuine windfall tax on excessive profits, particularly in energy, finance and banking, and reform tax reliefs that disproportionately benefit the wealthy, and instead redirect revenue to public services.
These are not radical ideas; they are basic principles of fiscal fairness. The Budget is a moral statement, and today’s Budget shows us a Government who still choose war over welfare, profits over people, and short-term headlines over long-term stability. To borrow a phrase, they are choosing the few over the many.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The real issue here is hiding in plain sight. It is on the annunciator. This is all about bearing down on inflation, because this Government have already catastrophically failed to keep it at 2%, where the Conservative party left it at the time of the general election. That is having an impact on the cost of living up and down the country. From every single business I visit, and every single person I meet on the street in Basildon and Billericay, I hear, “Since Labour got in, things have got worse.”
Unemployment is up, as is inflation—it is now double what it was at the general election. It is the highest inflation in the G7, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) said. Rents are up, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) said. Part-time jobs are being hammered, and as my right hon. Friends the Members for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), have mentioned, taxes on employment are really hurting people. Growth is down, particularly in the North sea, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) said in her fantastic speech.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) said, energy prices are through the roof. That is hitting our ability to deliver growth for businesses, particularly our manufacturing sector. Right across the piece, this Government are hammering businesses; as my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) said, business rates for high-street firms are up by at least 40% since the general election, despite what we are constantly told by Ministers. Despite the election pledges, tax rises are hitting working people up and down the country. Under this Government, taxes are up by £66 billion a year, and alongside that, debt has risen by tens of billions of pounds.
The real issue for the cost of living is Labour’s doom loop—higher taxes, higher prices, lower growth and more unemployment, followed by higher taxes, higher prices, lower growth and more unemployment—but this Government simply do not get it. They have apparently tried educating their Back Benchers, but their Back Benchers have made their position clear. Regarding welfare, one was quoted as saying,
“I don’t understand why this means tax rises when it’s only a few billion pounds”.
Imagine how that is going down with those who have to lend us billions of pounds every year.
The Government want us to believe that they are at least trying to help, but it is clear that this is a Janus-faced Government. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey said, the costs have not come off people’s bills, because the Government are just moving those costs to their tax bills. That is true, is it not? We are told to be grateful that energy bills—which are already up—are being shifted to our tax bills. The electric car grant that is coming in is not actually helping anyone. It is not a result of energy prices having gone down; it is being paid for with pay per mile, despite the fact that the Secretary of State for Transport said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) at Transport questions that that would not happen. There have been more questions today from Members right across the House about how on earth one could implement such a scheme.
Let us have a look at the freeze on train fares. That is not being paid for through more efficient trains or more productivity; it is being paid for by tax rises. Fuel duty will rise by 5p next year, and bus fares are already up by 50%. That measure is fully funded—by taxpayers. It is funded by bus users and motorists up and down the country. That is the cost of this Government. When I saw the numbers in the Budget, I was quite astonished, because they totally contradict the figures that the Department for Transport has put out. The Department has said that the cost of this policy is £600 million, but the Budget says £150 million. When the Transport Secretary speaks, can we have some honesty and transparency about the cost?
The issue does not stop there—it goes even further. Taxes on flights are up to £400 for a family holiday, and those taxes are going up next year, and the year after. The taxi tax is coming in, hammering our night-time economy and leaving women with a choice between paying 20% more for a private hire vehicle, and being vulnerable late at night when trying to get home. The Government are raising business rates again on the high street, but also snuck out on the same day as the Budget were multiple-times increases resulting from the revaluation of airports and a 10-times rise for the channel tunnel rail link, from £10 million to £100 million.
Sir John Hayes
I endorse the point about automatic cars and Motability, and the very important point about banking hubs and the extension. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that when we add costs to businesses such as the retailer in my constituency that I visited recently, we pay the price in terms of the jobs that they might create, or otherwise? These are lost opportunities for constituents to get jobs in meaningful businesses, because business costs are rising as a result of this Government.
Mr Holden
My right hon. Friend has made an extremely important point. These taxes are hitting across the board, and they are hitting the employment of his constituents. That is on top of the tax rises that we saw last year: the changes in business property relief, business rates and agricultural property relief, and the national insurance tax rises. It is hammering working families up and down the country, while the Government pretend that it is not.
How on earth can the Secretary of State claim that this Budget will keep inflation down? Every policy choice that the Government make fires costs straight back into the system. It is happening with policy after policy, as if some giant socialist Gatling gun were spraying costs on to businesses, passengers, taxpayers and, indeed, the entire country.
Mr Holden
I am afraid that I have no time to give way further.
Do the Government not understand that every time they hike up taxes, the cost of food goes up? Do they not understand that an indiscriminate tax hike means that the cost to the producer rises, the cost of getting the food to the shops rises, and the cost to the supermarket selling the food rises? It is a conveyor belt of wholly avoidable costs.
That brings me to the core of my argument. What are this Government actually for? Disposable incomes have been revised down, along with growth, while taxes, inflation and business rates are all up. What else is up? The number of entrepreneurs leaving the country. We thought it would be capital flight—in fact, that is what the Treasury was briefing out: real worries about capital flight—but it is not just capital flight; it is entrepreneurial flight. It is labour fleeing the country as well. People are leaving. The only thing left is land, and the Government are taxing that as well.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury made a very good point in his speech. He said that he had never seen such speculation ahead of a Budget that had worried family businesses—family businesses in his constituency and in mine. I have never known a Budget to be talked about as much as this Budget was in advance of its production. It is quite incredible. The economy is being harmed just by the briefing put out by the Government. They were doing it on the Prime Minister’s own plane. It is unbelievable.
However, it is not just small businesses that are being affected. We hear today that Zipcar, which is important to a great many people in London, will be closing its operations from the end of the year. That will have a huge impact, and it is happening because of the taxes on the company and the congestion charge imposed by the Mayor of London.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) made a good point earlier when he said that, once upon a time, Labour talked of being the party of a hand up, not a handout. Well, Labour is now, quite clearly, the party with its hand in the pocket of working Britain. The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) all made the same point; they are not normally on the same page, but they were today. They pointed out that it would be working people paying the price for those extra tax rises, because of thresholds that are frozen year after year owing to decisions made by this Labour Government.
The Government are not on the side of motor manufacturing either. Real concerns have been expressed by that sector, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), and my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans). How on earth, as the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) asked earlier, will a pay-per-mile scheme work when people are crossing the border? Is the Labour party really going to tax people for driving on foreign roads? We shall have to see.
The hon. Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) made a very sensible point when he said that fiscal prudence was a means to an end. It is a means to the end of getting debt interest down, and keeping borrowing rates for businesses and families down. That is exactly right, but we did not see it from this Government. They think that people will not notice, but the Chancellor determinedly obfuscated about the figures. She talked of a black hole imposed on her, but in truth, taxes on working people are rising to pay for more welfare.
The Government think that people will not notice that they are being bribed with their own money, taken from them via the tax on electric vehicles and energy. They think that small businesses will not notice business rates going up, or national insurance taxes going up. But people have noticed. They have noticed the broken promises on tax, on working people and on bills. They have noticed the smoke and mirrors. The Government are robbing Peter, but not to pay Paul; they are robbing Paul too. People were worried ahead of the Budget this year, and now they are worried about what the third Labour Budget next year will deliver, because they know that this failing Government will be coming back for more.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
It is a privilege to respond to today’s debate on the Budget. We have heard some excellent contributions from many colleagues, particularly those on this side of the House, and I hope my hon. Friends will forgive me if I do not mention them all by name. I will respond in writing to the specific questions put to me by my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury).
We have also had some thoughtful and measured contributions from Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) and the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). It is a shame that some of the other contributions from those on the Opposition Benches can best be described as heavy on indignation and light on contrition. You would have thought that the right hon. Members for Salisbury (John Glen) and for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), as well as the shadow Transport Secretary, had no responsibility whatsoever for the economic inheritance that the last Government passed on to this one. We all know that the last Parliament saw living standards fall, and it is not a record to be proud of.
This Government were elected on a promise of change, which was the demand of a weary public. People were fed up with rising bills and falling real wages, fed up with schools and hospitals that had been cut to the bone, and fed up with trains and buses that they could not rely on. The economy—indeed, the country—felt broken in the very places that mattered most. In this Budget, I am proud that we are answering the public’s call for change, and making the fair and necessary choices to repair our public finances and deliver on the nation’s priorities.
We are cutting the cost of living through cheaper energy bills, frozen prescription charges and frozen rail fares. We are putting record investment into our NHS, bringing waiting lists down and creating 250 new neighbourhood health centres. We are righting a moral wrong by lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, not just through school breakfast clubs and by lifting the minimum wage, but by scrapping the two-child universal credit cap. And we are doing all this while meeting our fiscal rules. After years of decline, this is what rebuilding our country looks like.
Gavin Robinson
I understand that the Government want to accelerate their plans to remove the two-child limit as soon as possible, and it may be too soon to get a legislative consent motion passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly. May I ask the Secretary of State to undertake to engage with the Social Security Minister? If there is political willingness at Stormont for this to proceed quickly, perhaps she could do it on our behalf.
Heidi Alexander
I will certainly undertake to have those conversations with colleagues.
Heidi Alexander
In the interests of time, I will not give way.
It is because we understand what life is like for ordinary people that we have taken decisions in this Budget to provide real help with the cost of living. We know that an average household spends more than 10% of its income on getting around, getting to work and school, and making essential daily trips. That is why this Budget has not only extended the fuel duty freeze beyond the spring of next year, but restated our commitment to protect the bus fare cap.
For the first time in 30 years, we are freezing rail fares. If someone has a season ticket, is a commuter on a peak return or is travelling off-peak between major cities, they will get to keep more of their hard-earned cash. It is good news for millions of passengers, some of whom will save hundreds of pounds a year. That means extra money in people’s pockets, and it means that we will continue to keep a lid on everyday costs that drive inflation.
Heidi Alexander
I am not going to give way.
Budgets are about choices, and I know that not everyone agrees with our decision to freeze rail fares. Indeed, just days before the Budget, I received a letter from the shadow Transport Secretary effectively proposing a 4.8% hike in fares. I considered his request, but an increase in line with the retail prices index, as the right hon. Member pretty much suggested, would have put passengers’ fares up by hundreds of pounds next year. We should not be surprised that the shadow Transport Secretary wanted passengers to pay more—after all, his party increased fares by 60% when it was in office—but Labour Members believe in cutting the cost of living and putting money back into passengers’ pockets. As we set up Great British Railways, bringing together 17 different organisations into one public organisation, we will build a railway where passengers, not profits, come first.
While rail may often dominate newspaper headlines, this Government will never ignore the roads that carry most of our daily journeys. That is why, earlier this year, I gave the green light to the lower Thames crossing. After years of being stuck in planning limbo under the Conservative Government, it is now set to become the largest road building project in a generation. Thanks to this Budget, we are confirming a further £891 million of public funding, after which the private sector will take forward construction and long-term operation. Along with our commitment to extend the docklands light railway to Thamesmead, this is further proof that this Government are firmly on the side of the builders, not the blockers.
Before we came into power, our roads were a symbol of national decline. Poorly maintained and riddled with potholes, they were a nuisance at best and downright dangerous at worst. That is why, by the end of this Parliament, we will commit over £2 billion annually for local road maintenance, doubling funding since coming into office. We will fill millions of potholes every year, protecting drivers from having to shell out hundreds of pounds on costly repairs.
Investment and reform are my watchwords as we work to improve everyday journeys, but throughout all this we cannot be blind to the impact of transport on our climate. The truth is that most transport emissions come from our roads, which is why reducing costs for drivers while cutting emissions will be at the heart of the EV transition. The trends are already clear. EVs are often cheaper to run and maintain than more polluting cars, and consumers have noticed that, with EV sales accounting for a quarter of new car purchases in October.
However, this Budget enables us to go further. By committing an extra £1.3 billion to the electric car grant, we will keep saving buyers thousands of pounds on dozens of EV models. We will increase the expensive car supplement threshold for EVs to £50,000, and invest a further £200 million in the roll-out of EV charging infrastructure. My ambition is to make it as easy to charge up as it is to fill up, so I am pleased that the Budget confirmed a decade of 100% business rates relief for eligible EV charge points, and a review of the cost of public charging, including the impact of energy prices. Fairness remains at the heart of this Budget, and as the Chancellor rightly said, “everyone must contribute”, so electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles will start paying a new electric vehicle excise duty from April 2028. Above all, that ensures that all those who use our roads and all those who depend on our roads help to maintain our roads.
For years, the British people were resigned to poorer living standards, stagnant wages and public services that were not fit for purpose. This Government promised change, and despite the state of the economy when we entered office, we are delivering that change and doing so fairly. We promised no return to the long winters of austerity, and we meant it. An extra £120 billion in public capital investment over this Parliament will build new infrastructure and homes across the country. It will strengthen our energy security, and it will give the NHS its biggest ever capital settlement. For transport, it is a downpayment for better, more reliable journeys—trains people can rely on, buses that turn up on Sundays, roads that make driving easier and infrastructure that connects not just people with places, but the aspirations of the next generation to the opportunities of tomorrow. That is what this Budget is about: fair choices for a fairer Britain, where the cost of living falls, real wages rise, and our towns and cities get the connectivity they deserve. This is a Budget that delivers on the public’s priorities, and I am proud to support it.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Deirdre Costigan.)
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
Business without Debate
M6: Junction 38
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a great privilege to secure a debate on a matter that is causing immense anxiety across Westmorland and beyond. National Highways is planning to close and replace seven bridges that carry the M6 motorway over the Lune gorge in Cumbria. Those S-joint bridges are reaching the end of their lifespan and we recognise that this work has to be done.
The wider Lune gorge project proposes bridge replacements, overnight closures, weekend shutdowns and contraflow systems operating at sometimes as little as 30 mph. Crucially, the plan also entails the closure of the southbound junction at Tebay for 18 months, followed by the closure of the northbound junction for a subsequent 18 months. We argue that the junction 38 closures are not necessary, that there are clear alternatives such as temporary slip roads, and that insufficient attention has been paid to those alternatives. All the while, National Highways intends to keep heavy traffic moving through rural diversion routes and has, astonishingly, not produced a full impact assessment for the project—no assessment of the impact on the road network and no assessment of the impact on the wider community.
I do not think it is just parochial hyperbole when I say that the Lune gorge is without doubt the most spectacular and beautiful stretch of the UK’s motorway network, so I suspect that when the Department for Transport and National Highways looked at that stretch of the M6 while weighing up the project in its early days, they were struck more by the scenery and far less by the very significant population that depends on junction 38 and therefore did not give them very much serious consideration at all. Local communities rely on junction 38 for access to work, school, health services, business and the operation of the local economy.
The current plan will devastate local businesses—whose model is often completely reliant on proximity to the M6 and the junctions north and south—effectively isolating the community from the motorway for three years within a wider programme of four to six years of ongoing disruption. It also puts the safety of my constituents at risk, given that emergency services’ access to our communities will be severely curtailed for years on end. I recently spent time with our wonderful ambulance crews, who were keen that I should emphasise this point especially.
The impact on our communities will be enormous. The key effects are first and foremost on the village of Tebay itself, but there will also be an impact on a much wider area. Seven bridges carry the M6 itself, and they need replacing—I get that. The eighth bridge, across the M6, which also requires replacement, carries the A685 connecting Tebay with Kendal, 12 miles away, and is the only remaining link between the two when the M6 junction is closed. As a community, we campaigned hard to persuade National Highways not to close this bridge at the same time as the other seven, and we are grateful that National Highways has changed its mind on this point. I thank everyone who campaigned hard with us to achieve this success, which means that Tebay, Orton, Ravenstonedale, Kirkby Stephen and other villages will now at least have one connecting road to Kendal; otherwise, residents taking their children to school, and commuters, would have faced an additional 250 miles a week for an 18-month period.
Having said that, the A685 is a winding, narrow, single carriageway running for 12 miles from Tebay to Kendal, and for 18 months, all local traffic will be dependent on it, meaning a huge increase in traffic going through Tebay, Grayrigg and Kendal in particular. My first ask of the Minister is to ensure that this traffic is managed along the whole of this route and that the A685 Lawtland House bridge is strengthened and kept safe through this time, when this already weakened bridge will be facing massively increased usage, carrying an enormous volume of traffic displaced from the M6. The towns of Kirkby Stephen and Kendal are already at capacity and breaking point when it comes to traffic management and cannot withstand a motorway’s worth of displaced traffic; they cannot withstand it at all, but they certainly cannot withstand it regularly and for years on end.
Westmorland and Furness council is set to lose £39 million a year due to the new, ironically-titled fairer funding 2.0 settlement—a staggering 13% cut to its budget. It will therefore not have the funds to expand traffic management in consideration of the volume of traffic to keep those roads safe and flowing securely. Incidentally, this is a financial settlement that puts at risk the council’s crucial investment in the town of Barrow, which is critical to the UK’s defence capability, including our nuclear deterrent. I would be grateful if the Minister took this matter up separately with his colleagues the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Housing, Communities and Local Government. This cut would be a colossal strategic own goal for the Government—one they would rightly get the blame for—but there is still time to reverse it.
For this debate, though, the key point I want the Minister to focus on is that the closure of junction 38 southbound and then northbound, for three years in total, will be catastrophic for our communities. It can and must be avoided.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Mr Shannon, this is a very narrow debate, specifically on junction 38 of the M6. I seek an assurance that your intervention relates only to that.
Jim Shannon
It is more than that, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is about the main thoroughfare for lorries and traffic going to Stranraer and then to Larne. It is about that road and that junction. [Laughter.] No, it is a fact. I have talked to those who transport agrifood goods from Northern Ireland to the north of England and Scotland and back again. This debate is wide; its subject will impact not just the local area, but all the businesses in Northern Ireland that need lorries to bring their food in and take their food out. The agrifood sector will be impacted greatly.
Tim Farron
The hon. Gentleman is a world-standard crowbar applier in this place, but that was not a crowbar—that was very relevant. England’s connectivity with Ireland via Stranraer is utterly affected by what is happening at junction 38. He is absolutely on the money, and I am very grateful for his point.
We must avoid the closures of these junctions. Let us start with one group who are mentioned regularly and helped rarely: at a time when they are already facing so many threats and pressures, the closures will be a logistical nightmare for our farmers, who will face rising fuel costs, some land being made inaccessible to them, and threats to animal welfare as they have to make more arduous journeys throughout this three-year period.
Secondly, given the Government’s priority of seeking economic growth, the junction closures are also a huge risk to our multibillion-pound tourism economy. Tailbacks north and south and the junction closures will mean that some of the 20 million visitors we have each year will vote with their feet, putting many of the 60,000 hospitality and tourism jobs in our county at risk, and further damaging the UK’s fiscal position.
Local businesses will be hit by the closures, including—I do not think this is parochial hyperbole either—Britain’s finest service station, Westmorland services at Tebay—
Tim Farron
Thank you. There will be an estimated cost to the service station alone of £1 million in damage if the junction is closed. Dozens of other businesses will also be affected, with millions of pounds of lost revenue, increased costs and the potential loss of hundreds of jobs.
As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, there will be a huge national impact on the haulage industry. Most lorry companies use junction 38 as their halfway point on the route to Scotland and the ferry ports serving Ireland. With the closure this coming January of the M6 at Clifton—at the top end of my constituency near junction 40—heavy goods vehicle drivers coming from Scotland and the ports connecting us to Ireland will be diverted from Penrith, across the A66 to Scotch Corner, down the A1(M), and across the M62 to rejoin the M6 near Warrington. That is a colossal detour, with horrendous costs in fuel and journey times—and that is only for a few weekends at the beginning of next year. The Lune gorge plan is to run for four to six years, not a few weekends. The work will have an enormous negative economic impact for the whole country. The consequences have clearly not been fully thought through.
Given that we know some of the impacts of the closures, we have asked National Highways for sight of its impact assessment. To my utter astonishment, it has not conducted one. The Minister can blame previous Conservative Ministers for that failure if he wishes, but he only gets to do that if he puts it right immediately this evening. Where is the economic impact assessment? Where is a credible traffic management plan?
With help from local residents, businesses and farmer groups, we did our own survey of the impact and calculated that the damage just to that relatively small section of the local community who live in the villages closest to junction 38 would be upwards of £10 million over three years. The real impact would be much wider, of course, and therefore the cost would be much, much higher.
The closure of junction 38 would also mean greater pressures on junction 37 to the south and junction 39 to the north, both of which are dangerous hammerhead junctions. Junction 37 has seen three tragic fatalities and many other accidents in the last 18 months alone, yet National Highways’ current plan—such as it is—is to send tens of thousands of vehicles down to junction 37, or up to the similarly designed junction 39. Those junctions are to be used as crude roundabouts by extremely heavy vehicles in utterly unreasonable volumes. Again, this underlines the failure to conduct a meaningful impact assessment or present any kind of credible traffic management plan.
The crucial problem that I want the Minister to focus on is the closure of junction 38 southbound for 18 months and then northbound for 18 months. It is completely unacceptable. Let’s face it—National Highways would have never even considered it in a more urban part of the network. I reiterate that we are not against the works taking place. We know that the bridges need to be replaced, but there are clearly alternatives to lengthy closures of junction 38, yet those alternatives have not been seriously considered or properly investigated.
I have a high regard for so many of the people I work with from National Highways, but from the beginning of this project there has been a failure to consider the community and the Cumbrian economy. Now that National Highways is being called to account and asked serious questions, it seems as though excuses are being made rather than solutions being explored.
Local businesses commissioned the well-respected motorway highways consultants BWB, which produced a detailed feasibility study confirming that temporary slip roads are absolutely possible—indeed, they are straightforward if the order of bridge removals is slightly rearranged. National Highways rejected this proposal with, at best, a cursory assessment, and it has provided no credible reasons for doing so.
On behalf of my communities in Westmorland, my first ask is that the Minister looks at the proposals himself, takes independent expert advice from his officials, and at the same time instructs National Highways to properly, formally consider the temporary slip roads—to make certain that these very credible plans are properly evaluated. Meanwhile, as the works proceed, many full motorway closures are planned, and the apparent plan is to route the entire M6 load through the narrow streets of Kendal and Kirkby Stephen. This is ludicrous and unsustainable, and it will take ministerial intervention to put right.
The second ask therefore relates to the Kendal relief road, otherwise known as the northern access route. In 2023 the previous Government pledged £460 million for 21 “smaller road schemes” across the north, including potentially a short new road linking the A591 Windermere Road to the A6 Shap Road just north of our thriving but often congested main town of Kendal, but in July the Department for Transport announced that the scheme’s future had been placed under review, with a final decision set to be announced by the end of the year. Given the disruption from the M6 closures already this year, the case for that road is stronger than ever. Can that project be brought forward so that it can be done before the M6 Lune gorge project happens?
The third ask is for help to be provided to solve the congestion that M6 and A66 closures have on the beautiful town of Kirkby Stephen. The provision of new, additional off-road parking for residents on South Road in Kirkby Stephen, along with sensible highways modifications, would mostly solve the problems there too. Will the Minister please instruct his officials to take action on that point before the work on the Lune gorge bridges causes repeated chaos to the town?
Fourthly, earlier this year the Government gave the green light for the A66 dualling after our lengthy campaign, and I am grateful to them for that. The plan includes an underpass close to the M6 junction 40 underneath the notoriously busy Kemplay Bank roundabout at Penrith. It is vital that the work is sequenced before the M6 closures so as to avoid crippling congestion around Penrith and to alleviate the devastating impact of running those projects at the same time. The solutions are here—experts have done the work and local businesses have provided the evidence—yet National Highways has not meaningfully considered the very options that would prevent economic and social disaster for our communities.
My final ask of the Minister tonight is this: will he meet me, along with representatives of the local community, local businesses and their skilled highways consultants, to discuss the temporary slip road proposals and the wider sequencing of these works? If he can visit the Westmorland site in person, we would welcome that hugely, and that would help him to see at first hand the issues that our local communities are facing. But time is of the essence, so we will gladly meet him in London if that can happen more speedily. It is essential that he understands for himself the profound and unnecessary impact that the project will have on Kendal, Burneside, Grayrigg, Tebay, Orton, Ravenstonedale and Kirkby Stephen, and on the wider economy of the Lake district, the dales, Cumbria as a whole and the UK’s haulage industry. The M6 bridge work must be done to keep us safe for generations to come, but it is wrong for it to be done in ways that ignore the catastrophic impact on our residents, communities and businesses in Westmorland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) on securing this debate on the M6 Lune gorge project and his passionate advocacy on behalf of his constituents. Our strategic road network is one of the nation’s most vital pieces of infrastructure, with our motorways and major A roads forming the backbone of connectivity across England. The network links our towns and cities, ports and airports, and it is relied upon by millions of people and businesses every single day. The Government remain firmly committed to its resilience, renewal and replacement, with nearly £1.3 billion allocated for capital renewals in 2025-26.
I note the hon. Gentleman’s commitment not only in securing the debate but through his wider engagement with National Highways and the Government on this matter. He is a strong advocate for his constituents, businesses and local road users. While recognising the need for the M6 Lune gorge scheme, he has campaigned extensively to minimise the impact on his constituency. I am therefore grateful for the opportunity to address the M6 Lune gorge project and the concerns raised regarding traffic management, and in particular the option of providing temporary slip roads.
Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that this Government, working closely with National Highways, fully recognise the scale and significance of the project. We understand the profound impact that transport infrastructure has on local communities, and not just in terms of connectivity but in safeguarding economic growth and quality of life. That is why we are committed to delivering a solution that is both robust and responsive to the needs of those it serves.
The M6 is a key corridor on our strategic road network and the main north-south transport axis. Early intervention is therefore essential to ensure those structures remain safe, resilient and in service. The M6 Lune gorge project is a significant and complex renewal scheme on the strategic road network. It is located within the gorge of the River Lune in Cumbria, between the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales national parks. Its purpose is to enable the vital replacement of bridge decks along a 10 km stretch of the M6 from Castle Howe bridge, adjacent to junction 38, to High Gill bridge, north of junction 37. The scheme involves eight similarly constructed structures, each now at, or approaching, the end of its operational life. Over time, these bridges have suffered significant deterioration, driven by increased traffic volumes, heavier vehicles and the growing impacts of climate change.
Construction on this project is scheduled to commence in the spring of 2027. During this period, road closures will be necessary, including the consecutive closure of both the southbound and northbound carriageways at junction 38, with diversion routes in place for road users throughout to maintain connectivity.
Safety remains National Highways’ foremost priority. To protect both the workforce and road users, there will be occasions when the full closure of the junction is unavoidable. These closures will be scheduled during weekends and overnight periods, when traffic is lighter, in order to minimise disruption. As construction approaches in spring 2027, National Highways will finalise these plans and provide clear, timely communication to ensure that road users and local communities are fully informed, to enable them to plan their journeys. The Government and National Highways remain firmly committed to engaging with local communities, to listen to the concerns and to mitigate disruption wherever possible. Following feedback from the local community, National Highways announced in September 2025 the deferral of works on Lawtland House bridge to provide an additional route of access for residents of Tebay while essential works are undertaken at junction 38.
During the initial design stages of the project prior to May 2024, National Highways considered and assessed the opportunity of using temporary slip roads. At that time, this approach was not considered feasible due to spatial constraints, value for money considerations, the need for significant lane and speed restrictions and the likelihood of a costly extension to the overall construction period.
Tim Farron
If possible, I would be grateful to have sight of the workings showing National Highways’ consideration of the slip roads, and what drawings and designs it did and then discarded. I have not heard of this to this date, and I am not convinced that it did that at all.
Simon Lightwood
I am quite certain that the hon. Gentleman will continue his engagement with National Highways, and I am sure that they can have that conversation together.
As I said, during the initial design stages of the project, prior to May 2024, National Highways considered and assessed the opportunity of those slip roads. However, following further engagement by National Highways with local communities, additional proposals for temporary slip roads were submitted by stakeholders in September and October 2025. While these broadly reflected options previously deemed unfeasible, further information was provided by an independently commissioned engineering consultancy company. National Highways has committed to a detailed feasibility review of the information produced by that consultancy company. The review is under way and will consider the impact on road users and the costs of the scheme, and with consideration of local communities. The review is expected to conclude by January 2026 and National Highways has committed to provide the outcome of this work by the end of January. I look forward to receiving the report, alongside the hon. Member and other stakeholders.
The hon. Member mentioned traffic impact assessments. National Highways understands the impact this work will have on the region and has undertaken an assessment of the impact on traffic flows of the proposed traffic management arrangements. In line with standard practice, National Highways has prepared and shared a traffic management strategy with stakeholders, which will be refined into detailed plans as we approach construction in spring 2027.
I fully understand the hon. Member’s concerns regarding the impact of road closures during the construction of this project. These are legitimate and important considerations for local communities and road users alike. National Highways has no intention of inconveniencing road users, but it accepts that, due to the nature and scale of this type of work, especially where there is a need for road closures, some level of disruption is unavoidable. However, let me assure him that National Highways is committed to carefully reviewing the proposals submitted for temporary slip roads.
The M6 Lune gorge project represents an essential renewal of the strategic road network—a critical transport corridor in our country. The scheme is not simply about replacing infrastructure; it is about safeguarding connectivity, supporting economic growth and ensuring the safety and resilience of a route that serves thousands of road users every day. Without sustained and strategic investment, the strategic road network risks deterioration, which would constrain economic growth, erode productivity and lead to significantly higher long-term costs. I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that investing in the maintenance and renewal of our road network ultimately benefits the whole community.
This Government, working in close partnership with National Highways, are fully committed to delivering this project in a way that minimises disruption to road users and local communities. That is why every effort is being made to plan carefully, communicate clearly and implement measures that reduce inconvenience wherever possible.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter for debate and for his continued advocacy on behalf of his constituency. I welcome ongoing engagement with him following National Highways’ review of the additional slip road proposals, and as this important project progresses to see what we can achieve to provide a positive outcome for road users and all stakeholders, including his constituents.
Tim Farron
I feel that the Minister is about to conclude, so I just want to press him on the meeting with myself and the local community. Is he willing to do that? He is welcome to come to Westmorland, but we would happily come down to see him here.
Simon Lightwood
As I mentioned, I think it would be a good idea to wait until January to understand the outcome of the assessment that National Highways is undertaking on the slip road proposals.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Peru) Order 2025
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Romania) Order 2025
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Andorra) Order 2025
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Portuguese Republic)) Order 2025
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Peru) Order 2025.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Romania) Order 2025, the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Andorra) Order 2025 and the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Portuguese Republic) Order 2025.
Dan Tomlinson
It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee with you as Chair, Mr Swayne.
The orders before the Committee give effect to the double taxation conventions, or DTCs, with Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania. Like all DTCs, these agreements will provide tax certainty to businesses and investors by removing double taxation and, importantly, without creating opportunities for the avoidance of tax. In doing so, they will remove barriers to cross-border trade and investment, support growth, and provide a clear and fair framework for taxing businesses that invest and trade across borders. That will benefit businesses and the economies of both the UK and our respective treaty partners.
The DTCs are based mainly on the OECD model tax convention, which contains a set of internationally agreed principles and standards that make them easier for businesses to understand and tax administrations to apply. Those standards ensure that DTCs are not used to avoid or evade tax. They include a statement to that effect in the preamble, and are clear that it is not a purpose of a DTC to create opportunities for tax evasion and avoidance.
The DTCs include a principal purpose test that denies treaty benefits in case of abuse. They also allow for the exchange of information between the UK and its treaty partners to facilitate tax transparency. Other anti-avoidance rules in the new treaties include a tie-breaker provision for determining corporate residence based on agreement between the competent authorities of the treaty partners. The orders include dispute resolution provisions, which provide that where a taxpayer considers that the DTC has not been applied correctly, they can present their case to either tax authority, allowing both countries to work together to resolve the issue.
Together, those features strengthen our collective defences against tax avoidance and evasion while supporting cross-border trade, investment and mutual growth. I commend all the orders to the Committee.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, as always, Sir Desmond. It is also a pleasure to serve on this Committee on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition and to see the Minister in his place for the first time in a Delegated Legislation Committee. I wish him luck for this one and the many more to come—Ministers spend a lot of time in DLCs, as he will come to realise.
As the Minister pointed out, the orders before the Committee give effect to the double taxation conventions negotiated and updated with Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania. DTCs prevent the double taxation—as the Minister was saying—of income or gains from cross-border activity, combat tax avoidance through the concealing of assets offshore, and promote trade and investment between the signatories.
I understand that these agreements are based on OECD and G20 recommended standards on base erosion and profit shifting to create international rules to protect against tax avoidance. Negotiating and updating such agreements are fairly routine; the previous Government negotiated literally dozens of new DTCs between 2010 and 2024. It is one of the regular ongoing duties of the Government and Treasury Ministers, and I am therefore pleased to see these agreements come into force today.
These orders give effect to new agreements with Andorra and Peru, as well as updating and replacing existing agreements with Romania and Portugal from 1977 and 1969, respectively. These agreements cover double taxation with regard to capital gains tax, corporation tax and income tax, as well as those taxes of a similar nature in Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania.
Historically, these agreements have passed through the House with little disagreement. The Minister will be pleased to know that I will not be breaking precedent today. However, I have two little questions for him, which I am sure he will find incredibly straightforward—and if not, the answer will be in his pack. First, can the Minister provide an estimate of the net impact to the Exchequer in terms of tax revenue as a result of these measures directly?
As they say in Peru, it takes two to tango. Therefore can he update the House on the ratification process of these orders in the Parliaments of Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania? It is a pretty straightforward question because obviously we need both Parliaments to enact these measures. Can the Minister clarify what the process is, and whether the ratification process in those countries is running in conjunction with the passage of the draft orders in this House?
Lincoln Jopp
I have just been checking my notes, and I think that the Minister may have inadvertently referred to you, Sir Desmond, as “Mr Swayne”. I thought it might be good to offer him the opportunity to correct the record, and show that he did not mean any disrespect to the Chair.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for giving me the chance to correct the record that we have a Sir in the Chair today—Sir Desmond Swayne. I am very grateful for your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.
On the impact of these different DTCs, trade with Andorra is only £93 million a year, so the impact will be relatively small for some of these measures. The impact will be larger with both Portugal and Romania as they are already very significant trading partners and we trade a similar amount with both.
On the hon. Gentleman’s second question, Romania has ratified this already and Peru, Andorra and Portugal are expected to do so by the end of the year.
Is this the moment where I conclude, or do I sit down now?
Dan Tomlinson
In closing, Sir Chair, the orders before the Committee implement DTCs between the United Kingdom, Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania. The conventions will ensure that we have a modern DTC in place with all four of these countries, which will provide a stable foundation for trade and investment to grow, while at the same time making it harder to avoid taxes here in the United Kingdom. I am grateful to all hon. Members—Sirs and non-Sirs—for their contributions to the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Romania) Order 2025
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Romania) Order 2025.—(Dan Tomlinson.)
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Andorra) Order 2025
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Andorra) Order 2025.—(Dan Tomlinson.)
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Portuguese Republic) Order 2025
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Portuguese Republic) Order 2025.—(Dan Tomlinson.)
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Peru) Order 2025
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Romania) Order 2025
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Andorra) Order 2025
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Portuguese Republic) Order 2025
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Peru) Order 2025.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Romania) Order 2025, the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Andorra) Order 2025 and the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Portuguese Republic) Order 2025.
Dan Tomlinson
It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee with you as Chair, Mr Swayne.
The orders before the Committee give effect to the double taxation conventions, or DTCs, with Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania. Like all DTCs, these agreements will provide tax certainty to businesses and investors by removing double taxation and, importantly, without creating opportunities for the avoidance of tax. In doing so, they will remove barriers to cross-border trade and investment, support growth, and provide a clear and fair framework for taxing businesses that invest and trade across borders. That will benefit businesses and the economies of both the UK and our respective treaty partners.
The DTCs are based mainly on the OECD model tax convention, which contains a set of internationally agreed principles and standards that make them easier for businesses to understand and tax administrations to apply. Those standards ensure that DTCs are not used to avoid or evade tax. They include a statement to that effect in the preamble, and are clear that it is not a purpose of a DTC to create opportunities for tax evasion and avoidance.
The DTCs include a principal purpose test that denies treaty benefits in case of abuse. They also allow for the exchange of information between the UK and its treaty partners to facilitate tax transparency. Other anti-avoidance rules in the new treaties include a tie-breaker provision for determining corporate residence based on agreement between the competent authorities of the treaty partners. The orders include dispute resolution provisions, which provide that where a taxpayer considers that the DTC has not been applied correctly, they can present their case to either tax authority, allowing both countries to work together to resolve the issue.
Together, those features strengthen our collective defences against tax avoidance and evasion while supporting cross-border trade, investment and mutual growth. I commend all the orders to the Committee.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, as always, Sir Desmond. It is also a pleasure to serve on this Committee on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition and to see the Minister in his place for the first time in a Delegated Legislation Committee. I wish him luck for this one and the many more to come—Ministers spend a lot of time in DLCs, as he will come to realise.
As the Minister pointed out, the orders before the Committee give effect to the double taxation conventions negotiated and updated with Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania. DTCs prevent the double taxation—as the Minister was saying—of income or gains from cross-border activity, combat tax avoidance through the concealing of assets offshore, and promote trade and investment between the signatories.
I understand that these agreements are based on OECD and G20 recommended standards on base erosion and profit shifting to create international rules to protect against tax avoidance. Negotiating and updating such agreements are fairly routine; the previous Government negotiated literally dozens of new DTCs between 2010 and 2024. It is one of the regular ongoing duties of the Government and Treasury Ministers, and I am therefore pleased to see these agreements come into force today.
These orders give effect to new agreements with Andorra and Peru, as well as updating and replacing existing agreements with Romania and Portugal from 1977 and 1969, respectively. These agreements cover double taxation with regard to capital gains tax, corporation tax and income tax, as well as those taxes of a similar nature in Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania.
Historically, these agreements have passed through the House with little disagreement. The Minister will be pleased to know that I will not be breaking precedent today. However, I have two little questions for him, which I am sure he will find incredibly straightforward—and if not, the answer will be in his pack. First, can the Minister provide an estimate of the net impact to the Exchequer in terms of tax revenue as a result of these measures directly?
As they say in Peru, it takes two to tango. Therefore can he update the House on the ratification process of these orders in the Parliaments of Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania? It is a pretty straightforward question because obviously we need both Parliaments to enact these measures. Can the Minister clarify what the process is, and whether the ratification process in those countries is running in conjunction with the passage of the draft orders in this House?
Lincoln Jopp
I have just been checking my notes, and I think that the Minister may have inadvertently referred to you, Sir Desmond, as “Mr Swayne”. I thought it might be good to offer him the opportunity to correct the record, and show that he did not mean any disrespect to the Chair.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for giving me the chance to correct the record that we have a Sir in the Chair today—Sir Desmond Swayne. I am very grateful for your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.
On the impact of these different DTCs, trade with Andorra is only £93 million a year, so the impact will be relatively small for some of these measures. The impact will be larger with both Portugal and Romania as they are already very significant trading partners and we trade a similar amount with both.
On the hon. Gentleman’s second question, Romania has ratified this already and Peru, Andorra and Portugal are expected to do so by the end of the year.
Is this the moment where I conclude, or do I sit down now?
Dan Tomlinson
In closing, Sir Chair, the orders before the Committee implement DTCs between the United Kingdom, Andorra, Peru, Portugal and Romania. The conventions will ensure that we have a modern DTC in place with all four of these countries, which will provide a stable foundation for trade and investment to grow, while at the same time making it harder to avoid taxes here in the United Kingdom. I am grateful to all hon. Members—Sirs and non-Sirs—for their contributions to the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Romania) Order 2025
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Romania) Order 2025.—(Dan Tomlinson.)
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Andorra) Order 2025
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Andorra) Order 2025.—(Dan Tomlinson.)
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Portuguese Republic) Order 2025
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Portuguese Republic) Order 2025.—(Dan Tomlinson.)
Draft Judicial Appointments Commission (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Judicial Appointments Commission (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John.
The draft statutory instrument amends the Judicial Appointments Commission Regulations 2013, which outline the composition of the Judicial Appointments Commission’s board of commissioners and the eligibility criteria for the commissioners. I will refer to the Judicial Appointments Commission as the JAC.
The 2013 regulations are being updated to strengthen the JAC’s capacity and to ensure its continued effectiveness in judicial recruitment. The amendments in this draft statutory instrument will change the total number of JAC commissioners from 15 to 16 by increasing the number of persons practising or employed as lawyers, referred to as professional commissioners, from two to three. It also expands the eligibility criteria for the senior tribunal commissioner by including a wider range of senior salaried tribunal officers.
As the draft statutory instrument relates to the composition of the JAC board, it may be helpful to outline briefly the role of the JAC and its board. The JAC is the independent body established under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 to select candidates for judicial office in England and Wales, and for some tribunals with UK-wide powers.
The JAC is governed by an independent board of commissioners appointed by His Majesty the King on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor. There are currently 15 commissioners, including the lay chairman; the other 14 are drawn from the judiciary, the legal professions, non-legally qualified judicial office holders and the public. Twelve are recruited and appointed through open competition, while three senior judicial members, including the senior tribunal commissioner, are selected by the Judges’ Council or the Tribunals Judges’ Council.
A key objective of the board is to ensure that the JAC is upholding its statutory functions and duties, which include ensuring that judicial appointments are made solely on merit, through fair and open competition, and with regard to diversity and good character. Commissioners oversee the selection processes, review recruitment strategies, and make final recommendations for judicial appointments to the appointing authority.
The proposed amendments relate to the number of commissioners and the eligibility criteria for the senior tribunal commissioner. I will address each in turn. On the number of commissioners, as noted, under the existing statutory provisions there are 15 commissioners, including the lay chair. That includes two professional commissioners, who must hold different qualifications, being a barrister, a solicitor or a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives or CILEX. Currently, as only two of the legal professions can be represented at any one time, there is a barrister commissioner and a solicitor commissioner. The draft instrument increases the number of commissioners to 16 by adding a third professional commissioner and retaining the requirement that they be from different professions.
The purpose of that is twofold. First, it will strengthen the JAC’s capacity to efficiently manage high levels of judicial recruitment. Secondly, it will ensure all three main legal professions—barrister, solicitor and CILEX fellow—are represented simultaneously on the board. Creating a more certain route for the appointment of a CILEX fellow will support the JAC in its duty to promote diversity in judicial appointments. The approach will bring an additional sector perspective to the board and a commissioner to lead on outreach in the field. That is important because CILEX membership is generally more diverse on two characteristics than the other legal professions: 78% of CILEX fellows are women; and, as CILEX provides a non-graduate route to become a lawyer, its members are from more diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.
Under the statutory provisions for eligibility to be the senior tribunal commissioner, this role is open to upper tribunal judges, chamber presidents of the first-tier tribunal, chamber presidents of the upper tribunal, and presidents of employment tribunals for England and Wales, and Scotland. That means that not all senior salaried members within the unified tribunal structure are eligible. To address the inconsistency, an amendment expands eligibility to include all salaried members of the upper tribunal, certain judges of the employment appeal tribunal and deputy chamber presidents of the first-tier tribunal and deputy chamber presidents of the upper tribunal. The extent of this statutory instrument is UK-wide, as is its territorial application.
I will turn now to the consultation that we have undertaken on these amendments. The 2013 regulations were the result of public consultation completed in 2012. A further public consultation for these amendments was not considered necessary, given that the changes increase the number of commissioners, strengthening the JAC’s capacity for judicial recruitment, and address anomalies in the senior tribunal commissioner eligibility criteria. We formally consulted the Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales, the JAC chair, the Bar Council, the Law Society, CILEX, the Legal Services Board, the Senior President of Tribunals, the Lady Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and the Lord President of Scotland. All were supportive of the changes.
I assure the Committee that the amendments set out in this statutory instrument are necessary to strengthen the JAC’s capacity, provider greater equality of opportunity for those applying to be commissioners, and support the JAC’s commitment to encouraging judicial diversity.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. As the Minister outlined, these regulations make modest and technical changes to the Judicial Appointments Commission—an additional professional commissioner and some tidying up of the eligibility for the senior tribunal commissioner.
Even technical changes, however, sit within a wider landscape. We now have a judicial system in which unelected bodies have accumulated significant power, but without the accountability to Parliament or to the public that should accompany it. We saw that clearly with the recent controversy of the Sentencing Council’s two-tier sentencing guidelines, which would have meant different punishments for the same crime depending on ethnicity, faith background or immigration status. That represents a profound departure from the basic Conservative principle of equality before the law, and is every bit as much a departure from what the public instinctively and rightly expect: that sentencing should be based on the offence committed, not the personal characteristics of the offender.
Although the Government now claim to oppose two tier-justice, they continue to defend and even expand the structures created under the last Labour Government —the very architecture that allowed these distortions to emerge in the first place. The JAC is one such body. It was created in the Blair era as a part of a constitutional re-engineering that removed power from elected Ministers and transferred it into arm’s length structures. What was marketed as modernising the constitution has instead weakened accountability, fractured responsibility and left Ministers able to duck the consequences of poor appointments or failing standards.
That is why we set out our intention to replace the JAC with a judicial vetting committee within the Lord Chancellor’s office, bringing real transparency and accountability back into judicial appointments, while maintaining judicial independence in the courtroom. We do not believe that layering more commissioners on top of an outdated structure will restore public trust, nor do we believe that expanding the body responsible for judicial appointments without addressing the structural weaknesses that I have outlined will deliver the fairness and impartiality that people expect. We want a system where the Lord Chancellor, answerable to Parliament and the public, has proper responsibility for judicial appointments, supported by a transparent judicial vetting committee to ensure that appointments are made on merit but with clear accountability. That is how we restore trust—not by expanding arm’s length bodies, but by ensuring clear democratic lines of accountability. The public want a justice system that is more accountable, and we will continue in the months and years ahead to make the case for that.
Sarah Sackman
I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution. He will know that the JAC was created under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 to be an independent body to ensure that judicial appointments are made solely on merit, thereby preserving the judiciary’s quality, impartiality and, crucially, independence from political influence. It is disappointing to hear the shadow Minister talk about two-tier justice and the sort of model that would lead to the politicisation of our judiciary, which I do not think anyone on the Committee would want to see. We can see where that would lead.
It is ironic, perhaps, to talk about how we restore public trust in what is actually one of the prides of this country—an independent judiciary that makes its judgments without fear or favour. It is one of the reasons why our legal services industry is so successful, because people can count on the independence of our judiciary and courts, whether in commercial, family, crime or civil law. Indeed, to try to inject political influence into that process would be inimical to the rule of law. Unfortunately, the Conservative party cares little about that, and is quite prepared not just to lambast judges but to undermine their reputation and the confidence that the public can have in them. That is regrettable. We stand by the independence of the JAC. We stand by an independent body that ensures that appointments are made solely on merit and free from political influence. It is unsurprising, therefore, that these modest but important changes have the support of our independent judiciary. I think that tells us everything we need to know about them. With that, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Armed Forces Chaplains (Licensing) Measure 2025 (HC 1454)
Abuse Redress Measure 2025 (HC 1455)
The Chair
I call the Second Church Estates Commissioner to move the first motion and to speak to both Measures. At the end of the debate, I will put the question on the first motion, and then ask the Commissioner to move the second motion formally.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Marsha De Cordova)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Armed Forces Chaplains (Licensing) Measure (HC 1454).
Marsha De Cordova
In one sense, the Armed Forces Chaplains (Licensing) Measure is just tidying up a small area of ecclesiastical law—which we are all, obviously, very well versed in. But in a wider and more important way, it is enabling and supportive of the essential work carried out by chaplains to His Majesty’s armed forces.
For more than a century, armed forces chaplains have been issued with licences by the Archbishop of Canterbury, giving them the ecclesiastical authority to exercise ministry in that role. However, recent work by the provincial registrars has identified a gap in the relevant statutory provision in this area: without this Measure, each armed forces chaplain would also need to obtain a licence or permission to officiate from the bishop of each diocese in which the chaplain was to exercise ministry. Not only would that give rise to a significant burden on bishops and their offices; it would also cause problems for the armed forces themselves—not least because chaplains need to be able to move with, and minister to, military personnel wherever they are currently serving. It is impractical for them to obtain a further authority to exercise ministry each time the servicemen and women they minister to move to a different part of the country.
This Measure, in a straightforward way, addresses the issue by inserting a new section, headed “Armed Forces chaplains”, into the Extra-Parochial Ministry Measure 1967, which already covers ministry exercised outside the parish context, such as in hospitals, prisons, universities and schools. This Measure will provide a new statutory power enabling the Archbishop of Canterbury to license armed forces chaplains to exercise ministry in that capacity.
When exercising ministry under the Archbishop’s licence, an armed forces chaplain does not need any further authority, either from the bishop of the diocese or from the minister of the parish in which the chaplain’s ministry is exercised. That applies only where he or she is acting in the capacity of an armed forces chaplain. Any other ministry that an individual chaplain might exercise, such as preaching at a parish church, remains subject to the usual rules about authority and permissions to exercise ministry in the diocese and parish.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
It is a real privilege to respond, Mr Mundell. As shadow Defence Secretary, this is my chance to pay tribute to our armed forces chaplains. I will not detain colleagues for long, but the chaplains are very important. I understand that there are 332 in total, of whom 195 are Anglican.
This year, lots of tributes have been paid in the House during the debates on the 80th anniversaries of VE Day and VJ Day. Some 275 chaplains lost their lives in the two world wars: 96 in world war two and 179 in the first world war. I could find no figures for other conflicts, but there will no doubt have been some losses in those, too. I am sure that we all pay tribute to forces chaplains and the work that they do; the extra pastoral care that they provide is very important.
When I was Minister for Defence Procurement, I did not have any particular interaction with armed forces chaplains. However, the thing one learns about the defence estate is the importance of being able to move personnel around all the time, and the hon. Lady has just described the inflexibility that is being addressed. In fact, the Right Reverend Hugh Nelson, the Bishop to the armed forces, explained it very well in front of the Ecclesiastical Committee. The Measure would be described on our side as a deregulatory move to remove onerous paperwork—something we are always in favour of. It makes total sense, especially when we consider the nature of deployment and the continuous movement of personnel—and therefore their chaplains. It is eminently sensible; it had 100% support in the Synod and the Opposition are supportive too.
Marsha De Cordova
Thank you, Mr Mundell. We now move on to the Abuse Redress Measure and the associated draft rules, which lay the groundwork for the Church of England to deliver a redress scheme and confer the necessary legislative powers on the Archbishops’ Council to delegate decision-making to a third party.
I add my thanks and pay tribute to those victims and survivors who have continued to give their time and energy to the process of developing the Measure, despite the harm that the Church has caused them. The Church recognises its lamentable failings, which have made it possible for some people to abuse others, while some in the Church of England have been reluctant to face up to unpalatable truths and have avoided confronting difficult and painful situations openly and candidly. I believe that the Measure and draft rules before us contain important elements that try to right those wrongs.
In saying that, however, the Church must recognise that for many survivors the wait for redress has been too long in coming. Since the start of the scheme’s development in 2021, the Church has sought to work through some complex questions, wishing to give careful consideration to the views of victims and survivors. The Church has intentionally adopted a person-centred approach that enshrines dignity, respect and compassion at its heart. Crucially, the approach has been designed to look and feel different from mitigation. The scheme is not designed to mirror a court of law or to require a decision maker to resolve triable issues for which the scheme’s arrangements do not incorporate all of the features.
The Church has reflected carefully on eligibility and conditions, and has sought to find the right balance: one that provides that the scheme responds when a failure within the Church has been the effective cause of abuse, but not otherwise. The Church has sought to be clear about the nature of abuse that is in scope, while allowing for flexibility to respond appropriately in particular cases, taking into account the experiences of victim and survivor. The scheme provides that applications should have available independent legal and financial advice, if they wish to receive it, but not at a level that allows legal fees to consume disproportionately the amount of redress funds to the detriment of those victims and survivors. The Church has provided for a review of the operation of the Measure, giving the Church’s General Synod the ability to hold the Archbishops’ Council accountable for the scheme’s operation. That allows the Synod to extend the lifetime of the scheme if it appears necessary to do so.
I recognise that the Measure does not meet every person’s hopes, but I ask the Committee to recognise that there are many victims and survivors who want the Church to earnestly and finally meet its commitment to get on with providing this redress Measure.
James Cartlidge
I will not detain the Committee long, but I echo the Commissioner’s tribute to the victims and survivors of abuse who have participated in the process of drawing up the new Measure. I will not delve into the history but I note that, while not at 100%, the support in the Synod for this Measure was overwhelming.
I have a question relating to Kennedys, which is clearly an important point in the Ecclesiastical Committee’s discussion about the Measure. Unfortunately, we live in an age of leaks and data leaks—the Ministry of Defence is no exception to that, it has to be said. Data is becoming ever more important to our lives as we become ever more digitally plugged in, and it was concerning to hear that some victims were worried about the fact that the firm had its contract renewed. I understand that there will be a contract variation to ensure that there is no repeat of what happened and that, were Kennedys not to be rehired, there would be an estimated 18-month delay.
My question is simple: Kennedys runs a customer service-facing business, so what assurances are there that the process has changed and that what happened will not be repeated? Those participating will want to have their faith in the process underlined by the knowledge that those problems will be dealt with. That is our main concern. Otherwise, we support the Measure.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
May I ask the Second Church Estates Commissioner whether there is something in place to allow for the Archbishops’ Council to report, perhaps on an annual basis, to her on progress with the scheme?
Marsha De Cordova
The Church is fully aware of its responsibilities in relation to this redress Measure. The hon. Member for South Suffolk is right to raise the point about Kennedys. The data breach that took place was serious. Kennedys has fully owned that breach and put in place the necessary measures to ensure that something like that does not happen again. Kennedys also remains accountable to the Archbishops’ Council in that respect. There will be an oversight body to oversee how the Measure is being implemented and how the arm’s length body is operating the redress scheme.
Tessa Munt
On a point of order, Mr Mundell. I asked a question—I wonder if I might have the courtesy of a reply.
Marsha De Cordova
I think I mentioned that there is oversight. There will be an oversight body. I believe I mentioned that in my final remarks just now.
Tessa Munt
My question was whether the hon. Lady, as the Second Church Estates Commissioner, will receive a progress report herself from the Archbishops’ Council, perhaps on an annual basis. Can I have clarity on that, please?
Marsha De Cordova
I will certainly ask for that, but it is not part of the Measure.
Tessa Munt
It would be incredibly relevant, bearing in mind that I and any number of others have constituents who have waited decades and decades for this. It is not beyond the Church to defer and to delay. It is important that the hon. Lady is fully aware of the impact of this Measure and that the Church reports to her.
Marsha De Cordova
I am fully aware. If the hon. Member has followed the work that I have done in this space, she will understand how seriously I take the issue of safeguarding and the redress Measure. Now that we have the Measure in place, the key is to ensure that we get it implemented so that the victims and survivors can begin to receive their redress. I have also said that the Measure does not set out that I will receive a report, but I will certainly ask for an update on how it is being implemented.
The hon. Lady should make use of Church Commissioner questions, where I am responsible for answering on behalf of the national Church institutions. I suggest that she uses that mechanism to continue to hold the Church to account.
The Chair
Thank you, Commissioner, for responding to that point of order. [Interruption.] Sir Bernard, are you raising another point of order?
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Does it have to be a point of order?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
On a point of order, Mr Mundell. I would just point out that systems are set up in good faith to redress problems that have arisen, but unless those systems are overseen and scrutinised, they very often fall into disrepute themselves and fail to deliver what the legislators intended. I am appealing to you, Mr Mundell, to make sure that we have the opportunity to make these points in order.
The Chair
Indeed you have, because that will now be on the record, as will Ms Munt’s points of order and the Commissioner’s generous response.
Question put and agreed to.
ABUSE REDRESS MEASURE
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Abuse Redress Measure (HC 1455).—(Marsha De Cordova.)
Council tax reform
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
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 722377 relating to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.
It is always a pleasure to serve under your authority, Ms Barker. As Chair of the Petitions Committee, it is a privilege to open these petitions debates. I do find it extraordinarily encouraging that so many members of the public are actively engaging with the Government and, in this case, engaging with legislation that is passing through Parliament.
The e-petition was created by Michelle Zaher, who is in the Public Gallery. Prior to the debate, I had the pleasure of speaking to Michelle to understand the motivations behind the creation of this petition. She explained to me that she believes that the implementation of the Bill falls far short of addressing the real problems in the education system, and that instead it tightens controls on parents and educators without consultation.
There are a plethora of reasons why signatories of the petition believe the Bill needs to be withdrawn, but the primary concern that came out of my conversations in preparation for this debate was the lack of consultation with key stakeholders in the Bill’s development. The Bill has the opportunity to embed children’s wellbeing at the heart of our education system and to create lasting safeguards and opportunities that no amount of voluntary guidance could match. However, those who signed the petition believe that the Bill does not do that, and that it should be withdrawn before it goes any further. We are here to debate their concerns.
Before we start the debate, I note that we still await the White Paper for the schools section of the Bill, so we approach the debate on the legislation without the full picture before us. I shall begin by outlining what the Bill aims to do. To put it simply, the Bill is set to prioritise children’s needs and raise standards for every child across the whole of England. It introduces mandatory participation in education, safeguarding, clear information sharing and multi-agency child protection teams. In an ambition to tackle inequality, the Government have included measures to support kinship carers and care leavers, and to provide free breakfast clubs in primary schools.
Crucially, the Bill seeks to remove unnecessary barriers in our schools by limiting branded uniform items, standardising teacher pay and conditions across academies, and establishing registers to safeguard children not in school.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for outlining the Government’s supposed intention for the Bill, but is he aware that Amanda Spielman, the former Ofsted chief inspector, said that this Bill was “very likely” to have a detrimental effect on children’s education?
Jamie Stone
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. That point was made in the consultation I had before this debate.
To continue, the Bill proposes wellbeing co-ordinators, structured mental health assessments and greater collaboration with community health services to embed wellbeing alongside literacy and numeracy as part of what every school must nurture. These are noble aims. Heaven knows, if a child is struggling mentally, they are not going to learn very much about trigonometry, are they?
We must approach the issues that campaigners have with the Bill. Previous Governments have spent decades giving academies and trusts more and more control, only for this Government to take it away again. Sometimes the best way to support wellbeing is to give schools freedom, not more top-down rules. In some instances, an attempt to standardise pay would mean giving our teachers in academies pay cuts. School groups have emphasised to me that the importance of local decision making cannot be underestimated.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Perhaps I have misunderstood, but I am sure that the Minister has clarified that the standardised pay across the sector should be a floor, not a ceiling. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that that is his understanding too?
Jamie Stone
It will be interesting to see what the Minister says on that. Perhaps there is a little bit of misunderstanding on that issue. Let us leave it at that.
Teachers, parents and local authorities often know best what their children need—far more than we in Westminster ever could. They understand their communities and deserve to be trusted and, I believe, properly consulted.
The Bill also reaches into the world of home education, with measures such as a national register of children not in school, requirements for local authority consent to home school in certain cases and powers for councils to intervene if a home environment is deemed unsuitable.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for the way he is introducing this petition. I am sure he is aware of the case of my murdered constituent, Sara Sharif from Woking, who was abused, tortured and murdered. The safeguarding report that came out last month highlighted the failings in the home schooling system and the fact that a register is needed. Does he agree that parents should lose the right to home school in the event of child safeguarding concerns?
Jamie Stone
In proceeding with a Bill of this nature, that precise point has to be taken into account and weighed in the balance, because it is a matter of getting it right. That is precisely the reason behind the petition. I stress that many people think that we are not getting it right at this stage, but improvements can be made.
It is a fact that more families than ever are turning to home schooling. Some do it because the nearest school is miles away or parents deem it to be teaching to an inadequate standard; others because their child thrives better with one-on-one attention and teaching, perhaps for special needs that a standard classroom cannot accommodate. Campaigners for home education—some of whom I heard from in preparation for the debate—fear that the Bill amounts to an attack on their parental rights.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I apologise in advance, Ms Barker, for the fact that I cannot stay for the full debate because I have been assigned to a Delegated Legislation Committee. I want to echo the concerns of my constituents, many of whom are home educators, about the legislation. Will the hon. Member join me in calling on the Government to put firmer safeguards on data security in the Bill, provide clear protections in the legislation for parental responsibility to decide what education is in their child’s best interests and ensure that the Bill does not try to force home educators to fit into school-style timetables?
Jamie Stone
I am sure that is a wise intervention. I should imagine that we can all take heed of it, including the Minister.
The parents I mentioned previously argue that legislation for the regular registration of what learning has taken place in the home limits a diverse community where learning might be child-led one day and structured the next—all tailored to individual family needs. Those parents also spoke to me about their unease concerning the reach of new information-sharing duties and the requirement for child registers and unique identifiers. They fear overreach, diminished family autonomy and the erosion of parental rights, particularly where home education is concerned.
I should also add that I have been approached by religious groups that have serious concerns about the Bill as currently drafted. They believe that it fails to recognise the vital structure of education in stricter religious communities. In the case of Jewish children who attend yeshiva alongside homeschooling, for instance, the Bill seeks to pigeonhole the method of schooling that a yeshiva provides within two categories that do not apply to it. It has been argued that the lack of proper consultation with affected groups means that under the current proposals, yeshiva schools would be forced to close their doors.
The sheer scope of the Bill means that there are numerous factors about both wellbeing and schools that require thorough discussion. There is a substantial array of groups with specific grievances about particular clauses in the Bill. I hope that there will be sufficient space in the debate this evening and in the days, weeks and months ahead for those cases to be heard and considered properly. I see that a good number of colleagues have joined us for the debate, for which I am grateful as Chair of the Petitions Committee. I will conclude my remarks to allow everyone to participate.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Barker. I begin by thanking the petition organiser and all who engaged with it. Like many colleagues from across the House, I entered politics because I wanted to make sure that all children, regardless of their background or circumstances, had the opportunity to have the best start in life. I am sure that that is also the motivation for the majority of those who signed the petition, even if we might disagree that the Bill represents positive progress. Although the petition primarily addresses the school reform aspects of the Bill, it is important to underscore the significant child protection measures it contains that would be lost if the Bill were withdrawn as the petition proposes.
The measures broadly enjoy cross-party support and have been developed following what we have learned when things have gone tragically wrong. One of the most significant protections is the introduction of a single unique identifier for every child, an innovation that will transform how we monitor and safeguard children throughout their educational journey. With a unique identifier, schools, social services, the NHS and other agencies can securely share essential information, ensuring that no child slips through the cracks. Instead of scattering attendance records, safeguarding concerns and progress across disconnected systems, this approach brings everything together. For a child at risk, perhaps moving between schools or facing hardship at home, this identifier becomes a vital thread linking their past experiences to the support they need today.
Time after time, when a serious case review occurs and the resultant review looks at how it could have been prevented, featuring in there somewhere will be poor communication and a failure to connect the dots between agencies. The unique identifier is a key step towards preventing that from happening. Safeguarding cannot happen in silos. That is why the Bill creates multi-agency child protection teams, bringing together professionals from education, health, social services, mental health, housing and law enforcement. When the teams work collaboratively, risks are identified earlier and responses are more effective. For children living in unstable homes, struggling with mental health challenges or at risk of neglect, the joined-up approach can become life changing.
Safeguarding is only part of the ambition, however. True wellbeing depends not just on safety, but on opportunity. That is why the Bill also focuses on raising standards and strengthening support across schools. When education and wellbeing work hand in hand, every child has the chance to thrive academically and personally. The mission that lies at the heart of the Bill is to break the link between a child’s background and their future success. I believe that part 2 is fundamental to that mission. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) is welcome to intervene.
School reform is about creating the conditions for success. The introduction of regional improvement for standards and excellence teams will lead efforts to improve attendance and behaviour. The teams will provide the expertise and focus needed to tackle persistent challenges and support schools in creating environments where every child can flourish. The clear expectation is that schools employ qualified teachers and teach the national curriculum. Those are the foundations of a high quality education system, ensuring that every child, wherever they live, has access to excellent teaching and a broad, balanced curriculum.
Academy reform is about clarity and accountability. We have seen trusts that deliver exceptional support, helping schools raise standards and share expertise effectively. But we have also seen cases where that support has been absent, where performance has declined and communities have had little influence over improvement. The current system has grown fragmented and inconsistent. Structures alone do not guarantee success. What matters is the quality of teaching, the leadership and the support a child receives at home. The reforms will restore coherence and ensure that every school is part of a system focused on outcomes, not organisational labels. It is time to move beyond debates about governance and put standards at the heart of the conversation.
Other measures tackle barriers to learning head-on. Free breakfast clubs in every state-funded primary school will ensure no child starts the day hungry. Limiting branded items in school uniforms will ease cost of living pressures and promote inclusion.
Gregory Stafford
On the point about branded school uniforms, headteachers in my constituency have often bulk bought school uniforms through a supplier, so it can be more cost-effective to buy the uniform through the branded supplier than to buy it on the high street. Surely what the hon. Gentleman suggests could have a perverse outcome. Does he not think that if branded items can be bought at a cheaper cost, they would be better than buying off the peg?
Andrew Cooper
That is an interesting approach; it is a shame that has not been rolled out more widely. That is not the experience in the schools in my constituency. Across the population, the measures in the Bill will reduce costs for all. That is my view; the hon. Gentleman is welcome to his.
In short, the Bill is about ensuring that every child is safe, supported and given the chance to succeed. To withdraw it would be to turn away from that vision. Instead, we must commit to a future in which protection and education go hand in hand and no child is left behind.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for introducing this important debate.
Home education is often misunderstood. Some dismiss it as children avoiding education. Others portray it as an isolating environment, and even a potential safeguarding risk. Although that may be the case in the smallest handful of instances, the reality is that the large proportion of home educating families are those who have been let down by the state education system and act in the best interest of their child. For them, home education is not the easy choice but, often, a lifeline—a vital alternative for children who do not “fit” within the confines of mainstream schooling.
Families turn to home education for many reasons. We might be talking about children who have medical needs or anxiety and have been pressured out of school, those excluded because of unmet special educational needs, or those enduring unresolved bullying. Some parents make a philosophical choice to educate outside the mainstream system. This discretionary right, exercised by parents and guardians, allows learning to be flexible, personalised and responsive.
Taking away the option to home school through a poorly designed policy that fails to recognise the context and individuality of each home education journey is yet another example of the Government refusing to listen to communities they do not understand. We saw that with the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief for farmers, and we saw it with the unjustified housing targets imposed on rural communities. We now see it again—this time with thousands of home educators’ pleas being ignored.
Despite the Government’s unwillingness to listen, I have had the pleasure of meeting numerous constituents and campaigners to discuss the potential impact of the flawed Bill and to listen to their individual stories. One has a child with Down syndrome and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and another who is autistic, with global developmental delays and dyslexia. They were overwhelmed and dysregulated by the one-size-fits-all design of the school system, but now they are home educated and can truly thrive in a personalised learning environment.
Another person I met has a child with ADHD, autism and dyslexia who was severely bullied in two separate schools, leading to serious mental health struggles. For the wellbeing of both the child and the wider family, the child had to be removed from school and is now home educated and safe from ever enduring that traumatic experience again. Those are just two families among the thousands who have exercised their discretionary right to home educate their children in their and their family’s best interest.
Gregory Stafford
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for outlining the situations in which his constituents find themselves, as mine do in many cases. Is he as concerned as I am that mandatory registration for home education essentially risks treating every parent as a potential safeguarding concern, rather than recognising the fact that they are doing their absolute best for their children? They absolutely want to comply with the law and should not be treated as criminals in the first instance.
Bradley Thomas
I agree wholeheartedly. My hon. Friend demonstrates the perverse reality of what is proposed, in that these parents and children are often seeking to break away from being a one-size-fits-all family, but they are being pushed into a one-size-fits-all approach that risks stigmatising home education and the very children who benefit from it.
Importantly, in the instances that I have cited, both families will be adversely affected should the Bill progress to further stages in its current state. As many home educators have argued, the Government, schools and local authorities are not the ones witnessing the emotional breakdowns before and after school. They are not the ones being forced to watch their children’s health deteriorate because of unsuitable environments. They are not the ones supporting them at medical appointments or sitting up with them late at night.
A decision to home educate is not often taken lightly. Parents and guardians weigh up the benefits and consequences of all education options. If, after that careful deliberation, a parent or guardian, who knows their children best, chooses to take the leap into home education and provides a safe, stable and nurturing environment, they should be free to continue with that choice.
Mr Forster
The hon. Member heard me talk earlier about safeguarding concerns. Although home education can have huge benefits to families, does he agree with the Children’s Commissioner, who has said that the proper oversight of children being educated at home is important, and that councils should be required to sign off on home education requests for the most vulnerable children?
Bradley Thomas
The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly valuable point that none of us can disagree with in principle. Safeguarding has to be a foundation of the education system. The point is that the Bill attempts to provide a one-size-fits-all approach, but it does not quite strike the right balance. In the process, many families feel they are being stigmatised.
It is not disputed that stronger safeguards for vulnerable children are essential. It is a tragic reality that many children in abusive or neglectful homes are safer at school than they are at home, but to push all home educating families into that category is not only an insult to the vast majority of responsible, caring families who turned to home education because of failures in state schooling, but a potentially greater safeguarding risk, as it stretches already limited resources even further. Requiring local authorities continually to assess and investigate perfectly safe environments diverts time and resources from children in genuine danger and urgent need of protection. BBC reports reveal that local authorities are set to face a funding shortfall of more than £5.7 billion by 2026-27. The Children’s Commissioner has warned that this crisis poses a direct threat to the wellbeing of children and young adults.
Meanwhile, the number of school pupils with education, health and care plans surged by 71% between 2018 and 2024. Consequently, local authorities have amassed severe deficits in their high needs budgets, with the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimating a total shortfall of at least £3.3 billion at the end of last year. The Bill risks compounding the problem by stretching already overstretched resources, deepening financial pressures and weakening the fight against safeguarding risks. Thousands more children could be forced into placements within overcrowded schools, further exacerbating the crisis.
A Public Accounts Committee report published at the start of this year concluded that the special educational needs system is inconsistent, inequitable and not delivering in line with expectations, which inevitably undermines parents’ confidence in it. The Office for National Statistics predicts that 1.5 million children aged 10 to 15 experience in-person bullying. Which of the figures I have outlined offers any reassurance that children and young adults with complex needs or traumatic pasts would be properly cared for if removed from safe, personalised learning environments?
Andrew Cooper
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to identify many of the reasons why parents choose to home educate. It quite often is as a result of bullying or an unmet special educational need. But under our current system, local authorities are not aware of the reason why somebody chooses to home educate. Under the Bill, parents will be required to provide that reason to local authorities. That might flag up to the local authority that there is a bullying problem at a school, or that there is a problem with the way special educational needs are dealt with. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that making that information available to the local authority is a plus that the Bill will deliver?
Bradley Thomas
The hon. Gentleman is right that it potentially could flag up those things; equally, it could be another burden on local authorities that are under-resourced to fulfil the requirements. It also could place a burden on parents and families that feels like stigmatisation.
The right balance must be struck between strengthening the safeguards for children and young adults and ensuring that the new legislation does not unintentionally harm thousands due to a one-size-fits-all approach. Rather than demonising all home educators and introducing measures that, in practice, will fail to improve many children’s wellbeing, the Government should redirect their focus towards improving support for SEND provision and children’s social services, ensuring better working relationships between home educators and local authorities, and fostering school environments that actively tackle bullying and rising classroom violence.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Barker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for introducing this really important debate. My feelings are very much aligned with the around 300 people in my constituency who signed the petition. At the heart of this debate is a fallacy: that children are more at risk in home educating families than they are at school. In fact, the figures show the exact opposite. I will come back to that point in detail.
My concerns are about not only home educating families but rural schools and rural environments, where the limited resources mean that the Bill’s more onerous requirements on schools could drive some smaller rural schools out of the system and lead to them being closed. Rural areas have fewer and smaller schools, and rural schools have fewer administrative resources to deal with the new administrative burdens such as supporting staff to meet the new qualified teacher status requirements, dealing with increased monitoring, handling fluctuating pupil numbers and budgets, and so on.
There are significant risks to small rural schools that may well lead to even more pupils ending up in home education settings as a result of the lack of choice and lack of diversity of supply in rural environments. If pupils do end up in home educating families, they will find the environment is even harsher and the support from the Government is even more non-existent than it was before, and that the general environment is less and less helpful.
We have to take concerns about safeguarding seriously, as every hon. Member across this Chamber would agree. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) has done serious work on that issue. I am happy to accept some of the Bill’s provisions, but there are real concerns about its more onerous requirements. I have significant concerns about the single unique identifier in particular. Let us remember that it gives any public body the ability to share any information, whether or not it is right, correct and accurate, without the knowledge or consent of parents. Anyone who thinks the public sector is good at looking after our data, and getting it accurate, has probably been living on the moon.
Gregory Stafford
Some weeks ago we had a debate in this Chamber about a petition signed by over 3 million people who oppose a national identity card scheme. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if those people knew the details in the Bill, they would be equally shocked and concerned?
Gideon Amos
I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. All the concerns that lead me to oppose digital ID cards also lead me to oppose a digital ID for all our children. As the campaigners behind the petition have stated:
“Once children’s data is out there it cannot be controlled nor put back in the box.”
I could not agree more.
According to the Government’s own reports, 58 critical Government IT systems have significant gaps in cyber-security. Is that the kind of system into which we wish to put all our children’s details? Is that the kind of system that anyone wishes the data of their children and grandchildren to be put into? I do not think so. The Metropolitan police lost the details of 47,000 of its own officers. Let us take that as an example of how the public sector handles data, and consider whether we really want to provide the power to share data about our children across all public bodies: councils, social services departments, health authorities, schools, academies and all the rest of them.
As I said earlier, it is often held to be the case that home educating families are unsafe environments, but the evidence shows the opposite. Only 11% of section 47 child protection inquiries into home educating families result in a child protection order being put in place, and such families are proportionally subject to far more child protection inquiries than non-home educating families, so they are massively over-represented within that cohort. The figures for children who are at school show that not 11% but 26% of inquiries result in child protection orders. Bearing in mind that a greater proportion of home educating families are investigated than families with children at school, a far greater proportion—more than double—of investigations of families with children at school result in a child protection order. The facts are evident: it is not appropriate to stigmatise home educating families.
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for proposing an amendment to the Bill so that home educating families would not have to pay examination fees to take exams. There is zero support for home educating families. The Bill brings in even more stigma against those families. The amendment was defeated.
There is nothing in the Bill that will support home educating families, many of whom, as we have heard, are families with disabled children. A much higher proportion of disabled children are represented in the home educating community than in the school community, for the reasons we have heard—because special provision is not there and SEND provision cannot be obtained where it is needed, so many families give up on the school system. Some families need to keep their children safe so provide education at home. The vast majority of those families do so safely, putting incredible hard work into the education of their children.
Instead of the stigma put forward in the Bill, there should be support for home educating families, more work locally, more positive relationships between home educating families and local authorities, more positive work towards improving the education offer for those children and more support for those families at a difficult stage in the education of their children, many of whom will go back to school or college later on in life.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Barker. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is an important piece of legislation for this Government. Among other things, it will drive higher standards in our schools, put more qualified teachers at the front of classrooms, bring down the cost of uniforms for families and create a new duty to establish multi-agency child protection teams. It is right that the Government are looking to implement the Bill, including all the measures around home educating.
I will talk about two things in particular: first, the provisions for children who find themselves between hospital, home and school; and secondly, home educating. I speak not only as an MP on behalf of constituents, but as someone with vast personal experience of educational interruption and learning in non-traditional settings. When I was 13, the day after we broke up for the summer holidays in year 8, I had a freak accident in which I shattered my right hip and did irreversible damage to my back. From that point on, I did not walk for four of my teenage years, and I did not have a full year at school from years 9 to 12. Instead I received a mixture of home education, teaching at the Royal London hospital in Whitechapel in east London and school. When I eventually did return to school, I went back a year, which was not a great experience and was a reminder of why people do not want to wind up in the year below.
I know that learning in non-traditional settings does not need to hold children back. There are challenges in delivery, despite the hard work that staff and parents put in, but these can be overcome. Having returned recently to the Royal London, I have seen the progress made in the provision of home education and education on the wards, overcoming many of these challenges. Children are now taught by a dedicated hospital school, with three onsite classrooms at the Royal London, strong provision of information and communication technology and partnerships with organisations such as the London Symphony Orchestra and the National Portrait Gallery.
This morning, before I came to Parliament, I had the pleasure of visiting the Bethlem Royal hospital in my constituency, which is the world’s oldest psychiatric institution, founded in 1247. It has a thriving hospital school that I have had the pleasure of visiting many times. I have also visited hospital schools at King’s and the Princess Royal University hospital, which serve my constituents.
I have raised this with the Minister before, and I know she is dedicated and committed to it: we must make sure we reflect the experiences of children who find themselves between multiple settings—hospital, school and home. Often, that can be done in parallel. I can remember being in hospital one week, at home the following week and in school the next. There are challenges in delivering that. However, I hope this Bill will reflect on that, and I know that Minister is very committed to that.
I also want to touch on the importance of home educated learning. Given my experience of home education at times, I have been pleased to engage with home educating families in my constituency. That has included individual surgeries with parents and a roundtable with parents and students during UK Parliament Week, which included dozens of families and children—I told Corin, Adelaide, Peter, Harper, Paige and Addison that I would mention them today. Addison is here in the Gallery today with his mother, Penny. During these interactions, parents, as well as children such as Addison, have carefully laid out their concerns with the Bill, including issues around the right to remove a child from school, what constitutes a “suitable education” under the Bill and the administrative burden that the Bill could place on parents. Today, I wish to bring those to the attention of the Minister.
First, under the Bill, removing a child from school would create a requirement for local authority consent before placing children in a special school or for those on a child protection plan to be removed from school. The local authority must consider the child’s best interests in that decision. Some children in special schools require complex, specialised care, and so it is right that local authorities ensure they would be best served by being home educated. However, parents are concerned about how local authorities, many of which are stretched thin and have let down parents before, will interpret this requirement. In Bromley, we have a Conservative-run council with some of the highest waiting lists for EHCPs in the country, and I can understand why parents who have tried to interact with that council before would have concerns about it having authority over whether they can remove their child from school.
My second point is on the definition of what constitutes a “suitable education”. The Bill requires local authorities to issue school attendance orders in cases where it appears that a child may not be receiving a suitable education. We know that children learn differently. Take Addison, my constituent here today. He is certainly learning through attending this debate, but his family may worry that activities such as this will not be classified as contributing towards a suitable education. That is a particular concern for some children with SEND, who may struggle to learn in a traditional setting but thrive in other contexts. Our approach to education and what we define as being suitable must account for this.
My final point on this Bill is its potential administrative burden, something I have raised previously in education oral questions—I thanked the schools Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), for his reassurance then. Many parents worry that they will have to submit large volumes of data as a result of the Bill. The way the Bill requires data to be collected does not square with the realities of home education. Will the Minister reconfirm that it will not be a requirement of the Bill for families like Penny and Addison to report on things such as accounting for Scouts groups in the evening or football activities—things that we would not ask other families to do? I know that has been said in the House previously, but that reconfirmation would be great.
I would like to touch on solutions and conclusions, and I hope that the concerns I have raised will be taken into consideration. In particular, on all sides of the House we need to do a lot more work and thinking about how we support the tens of thousands of children who find themselves between hospital and school every single year, and the inequalities and disparities between some hospitals that have lots of resources—such as Great Ormond Street hospital, the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital and the Royal London, where I was—and other hospitals across the country.
It is also my belief that none of the issues with the Bill that I have raised today represent innate, fundamental flaws in its logic. Instead, they represent risks in the implementation. There are risks that I, as well as organisations representing SEND and home ed parents, believe can be mitigated through minor changes and strong statutory guidance that considers the concerns of parents. Importantly, the statutory guidance must account for the plethora of different situations that local authorities find themselves in when it comes to SEND, and the different approaches that they may attempt to take. If we are successful in doing this, we can ensure that all children are protected while properly preserving the rights of those who wish to home educate their children, such as those dedicated parents I have in my constituency.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to see you presiding, Ms Barker. This has been a good debate, and very good points have been made by hon. Members on all sides, including the hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon), who has just spoken. This is a rare and important opportunity to talk about the vital role of hospital schools.
I do not intend to go through every measure in this Bill in detail; we did that at Committee stage, and I took that opportunity to go through many of its measures then. However, I will make a few broad observations about it. First, there are things in this Bill that we like. There are things in this Bill that were in the Conservatives’ earlier Bill, and we should all welcome some of the moves on, for example, multi-agency safeguarding, the expansion of the role of virtual school heads, and so on. Let us be clear—and Ministers, I am sure, will not try to say this today—that if the Government say that they want to withdraw the Bill, it does not mean that they do not like any aspect in it. Ministers are in charge of the Parliamentary timetable and are perfectly capable of withdrawing a Bill, noting that it is nicely set out in discrete units, and coming back the next day or the next week with a better Bill that does not include the bad bits and but does include the good bits.
To be clear, there are many things in the Bill that it would be better to be rid of. It is, I am afraid, a mix of trying to fix problems that do not exist; some retail offers, at least one of which is set to backfire with significant long-term consequences; an over-invasive approach to parents exercising their right, and thereby often giving up a great deal personally, to home educate; and worst, an attack on the school freedoms that have underpinned the great performance improvements that we have seen in schools in England over the last decade.
Let us remind ourselves what that record is. Our primary school readers are now the best in the western world. At secondary, our performance has improved from 27th to 11th in maths and from 25th to 13th in reading. The attainment gap has narrowed, and children eligible for free school meals are now 50% more likely to go to university than they were in 2010. What drove that improvement? It was standards and quality; brilliant teachers with autonomy and accountability; a knowledge-rich curriculum and proven methods, such as synthetic phonics and maths mastery; and a system in which schools learned from schools, with a hub-and-spoke network for different subjects and disciplines. But most of all, it was about academy trusts, where schools could learn from one another.
We knew that that system would drive up standards only if it also ensured diversity and parental choice. People need clear information, which is why Ofsted reports are so important, and why Progress 8 replaced the previous, contextual value-added measure, as a much better way of measuring children’s progress at school. That choice is necessary, which is why academies and free schools were at the heart of our approach.
I am sad to say that, all the while, there was what statisticians call a natural experiment going on. While those reforms were being pursued in England, in other nations of the United Kingdom—in Scotland and particularly in Wales—they were not. If anybody doubts the benefit of these reforms, they have only to look at the comparative results of the different nations of the United Kingdom.
The Government have already stopped new free schools, and this Bill stops more schools getting academy freedoms and erodes the freedoms of existing academies. I have said that the Bill seeks to fix problems that do not exist, and there is no evidence that academies pay teachers less than other types of schools, yet we have these new rules on the statutory pay and conditions framework. There is no evidence that there are armies of unqualified teachers marching through our schools. The proportion of teachers in our schools who are not qualified today is 3.1%. Can you guess what it was in 2010, when the Government changed, Ms Barker? It was 3.2%. There are good reasons to have unqualified staff in school sometimes. Then there is the national curriculum. Schools are already obliged to follow a broad and balanced curriculum, and they get measured on that by Ofsted, yet we now have a requirement in primary legislation to slavishly follow the detail of the national curriculum in its entirety, thereby removing the opportunity for any innovation and differentiation.
Alongside that, the Government have abandoned the EBacc, they are unpicking Progress 8 and, in parallel, they have moved the standard-setting function in technical and vocational education from an independent institute to a body that was first inside the Department for Education and then, inexplicably, moved into the Department for Work and Pensions.
Will the Government meet their targets? Of course they will, because they are in charge of deciding what counts as meeting the target. We saw that the last time Labour were in government, with the famous “five or more GCSEs at grade C or above”. I counted 11 ways in which that statistic was massaged so that every year it looked like the results were getting better and better, when all the while we were tumbling down the international tables comparing attainment at school, and not only in the PISA results. The OECD survey of young adults’ skills looks at countries across the OECD, and we were the only country in that survey where the literacy and numeracy of young adults who had newly left school were worse than those of the generation about to retire.
At least at that time, the then new Labour Government talked about academic excellence. Now, such talk is out of fashion, because it is believed that striving for excellence is somehow elitist. It is not—striving for academic excellence in state schools is the very opposite of elitism. It is what allows children and people from ordinary families to get on a level playing field with those who are in the elite. I say to Ministers, “Please, please don’t undo the progress of the last decade and a half”—some of which, by the way, built on what their predecessors did in the new Labour Government.
Damian Hinds
I am coming very close to the end of my speech, and I think Ms Barker would want me to continue to allow for more speakers.
Liam Conlon
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that what has not been conducive to education and preparing children for the best start in life, as I have heard from primary school teachers across my constituency, is the decimation of Sure Start, which provided children with the best start in life?
Damian Hinds
I am so pleased that the hon. Gentleman asked me about that, because it is one of the great slogans of his party. One of my favourite statistics, however—people can look it up; it is available in an official publication—is that there were more children’s centres open in this country when I was Secretary of State for Education than in any year that Tony Blair was Prime Minister. The fact is that from 2008 to 2010, under Gordon Brown, there was a massive explosion in the number of things called a “Sure Start centre”. Basically, people could go to any old building, stick a sign on it that said “Sure Start” with a rainbow, and that became a Sure Start centre.
The Education Committee, which is a non-partisan Committee of this House, conducted an inquiry in about 2011 or 2012 looking at Sure Start. We tried in chapter one to define what a Sure Start centre was, but we could not, because there was no actual design. One Sure Start centre that we visited had no children at all in it; some centres were fully fledged nurseries, family centres—you name it. There is very important work to be done with family hubs and other programmes. When we were in government, we made a huge increase in entitlements to early years education and childcare, which was a good thing to do.
Ms Barker, I said that I would finish shortly, and I will. I say to Ministers that they should please come back with a Bill that can achieve widespread support, but that does not include these damaging measures that will undermine and harm education and opportunity.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms Barker.
Years of austerity have stripped out much of the vital support that young families once received through—dare I say it?—Sure Start. The number of children in care has risen by 28%, the number of children in residential care homes has more than doubled, and 4 million children are living in poverty. I have been to many schools where teachers and staff bring in their own food; we know they are spending their own money to feed children in the school. It is against that backdrop that the Government are looking to pass the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.
Having been a foster carer for 25 years, a member of an adoption panel for a decade and the lead member of a tier 1 local authority, I recognise many of the problems that the Bill is trying to address and I fully support the Government’s determination to protect children. I will concentrate on just a few aspects of the Bill today.
Rather than school staff having to put their hands in their pockets to feed children, we are rolling out free breakfast clubs. Of course, they will help with the cost of living by saving parents up to £450 a year and by ensuring that children get a good start to the day. Having visited a couple of our pilot schemes, I can also say that they seem to reduce the traffic chaos outside schools, as there is a steadier arrival of children at school throughout the morning.
Over the coming years, local authorities will have to create more specialist places to address SEND pressures. At the moment, far too many children are being sent to high-cost private provision. The Bill enables local authorities to respond to this issue by being able—once again—to build new schools and run them themselves.
As I have said already, the number of children in care has increased by nearly a third and the number of children living in residential care has more than doubled. The cost pressure of dealing with that has almost broken many local authorities, because there are nowhere near enough local authority places to accommodate such increases, so the majority of those children end up in high-cost residential placements. We know that excess profits have been made: in 2022, the largest 20 providers of children’s residential placements made over £300 million in profit, all off the back of the taxpayer. The Bill introduces financial oversight of the costs of residential care and independent fostering agencies. We must be assured that the state is not being ripped off.
When those children—an increased number—have left residential care, they are going to need support. The Bill provides for the nationwide roll-out of the Staying Close programme, which increases the support for care leavers to find and stay in accommodation and get on a work-related path.
I appreciate that some parents worry that creating a register of home educated children will interfere with their ability to choose how they educate their child. It is therefore important to stress that the overwhelming majority of parents who home school do so with the best interests of the child at heart: there are children who currently cannot cope in a school environment; there are children who want to be in school, but there is currently no school that can meet their needs; and there are parents who simply feel that educating at home is in the child’s best interests.
Gideon Amos
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in return for those extra controls, the Government or the Bill should offer some kind of support to home educating families?
John Whitby
I welcome support for all children, but I am trying to make the point that there is no negative judgment here. I say to those parents, “If you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.” I have also heard the Secretary of State say that privately and publicly.
Unfortunately, though, there are people—although very few in number—who, when they start to be asked difficult questions by the authorities, move school, move house or take their child out of school to avoid scrutiny. It is only right that local authorities should be allowed to refuse home education for a child who is subject to a child protection plan or going through section 47 action. We need to know where children are and we need to keep them safe. There is no bigger reason to be in politics than to protect, safeguard and support our most vulnerable children. That is why I, for one, am here.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Barker. I thank the Petitions Committee for granting this important debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for so ably opening the debate. I pay tribute to the approximately 166,500 people who have signed this petition, including the 184 in my constituency.
There is much in this Bill that many of us can agree on, especially in part 1. During its passage there was cross-party support for the measures in part 1 to ensure that the Government go further in safeguarding and promoting the wellbeing of our children. Part 1 also includes the proposals for a single unique identifier, and I say to hon. Members concerned about it that I do not think it is the precursor to digital ID for our children. If hon. Members look at Professor Jay’s report of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, one of the biggest issues in the system—as I heard when I met her earlier this year—is the lack of data sharing between different service providers, such as health, the police and social services.
Some of the young women and girls who were victims of grooming gangs across the country were regularly turning up in hospitals with sexually transmitted diseases, but that data was not being married up with what the police and social services were seeing. If data had been better shared, those issues might have been picked up. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health strongly supports a single unique identifier for the same reason.
I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) that there are concerns about data sharing, data security and privacy that need to be tackled, and they were explored in detail in the Bill Committee, particularly by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). Whether it is the NHS number or a different single unique identifier, however, it is an important provision for safeguarding our children and ensuring that we can better research their needs and commission services to meet them.
As a number of Members have mentioned, part 2 of the Bill feels a bit muddled, particularly the clauses that deal with academies, and in a number of cases it puts the cart before the horse. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire looks back at the last decade of Conservative Governments with rose-tinted glasses, but I gently remind him—
Munira Wilson
David Laws was not in government for the last decade of Conservative Governments; he was there for the first five years and he did some excellent things, not least introducing the pupil premium. I would say, however, that Conservative Governments left us with crumbling schools that are unable to hire specialist teachers, a crisis in special educational needs provision, and a huge problem with persistent absence.
Given those major issues in our education system, I am not quite sure why the Government have chosen to tinker with academies and governance arrangements as their priority for education policy, when there is limited evidence to suggest that a mixed economy of governance arrangements in our school system is posing a major problem. With the promised schools White Paper hopefully being revealed in the new year, although I think it has been delayed twice already, there is a question as to whether part 2 of the Bill was somewhat premature. I am increasingly wondering whether the Government feel the same way, given that the Bill keeps being delayed in the other place. By the time the Bill returns to the House of Commons, it will have been well over a year since it was first introduced.
When the Bill Committee consulted education leaders in January, the one strong message that came through was about how the Government went about drafting part 2 of the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross set out, it was done with limited consultation and showed a lack of coherent vision for the school system; there was no White Paper and no consultation of those on the frontline or in leadership positions across the sector.
That lack of coherent vision and joined-up thinking seems to be a recurring theme for this Labour Government. They introduced free breakfast clubs, but they are not funding them properly. They have capped the number of school uniform items to three, but that will actually risk further inflating prices for hard-pressed families. They have proposed broadening the curriculum, which is something we welcome, and the Bill will make that statutory for all academies, but they have failed to set out the funds or a plan to recruit the necessary teachers to deliver it. During the Bill’s passage, they voted against Liberal Democrat proposals to widen eligibility for free school meals, but they subsequently decided to copy the policy and announced that they will introduce it next year.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Liberal Democrats have sought to engage constructively with the Government by tabling amendments and new clauses that aim to improve the Bill and to address some of the concerns raised by the petition that we are discussing today. Given that the Government have already copied at least one of our policies, I hope that the new Minister, who is here today, might listen to some other good ideas in my speech and in the other place.
There is a real fear that this legislation, which is seeking to safeguard children who go missing from education, will over-police home educators, most of whom are doing a great job. I have been very clear at every stage of the Bill—I think there was cross-party support for this—that the Liberal Democrats strongly support having a register of children not in school to ensure that vulnerable children do not simply disappear from the system. We also strongly support the right of parents to choose to home educate, where that is the best option for their child.
In oral evidence to the Bill Committee, however, even the Association of Directors of Children’s Services was circumspect about the vast amount of detailed information that the Bill will expect home educating parents to supply. That level of detail risks becoming intrusive and unnecessary. Many home educators choose to home educate their children not because they want to but because they feel forced to. There is a crisis in our special needs system, and so much special needs provision just does not meet the needs of those children, forcing many parents to give up work so that they can home educate their child. By virtue of their child’s need, parents tend to be much more flexible in how they home educate, but the very onerous reporting mechanisms will interfere with the flexibility that parents need to provide for their children.
I tabled various amendments to try to pare back the burdensome nature of the register, as set out in the Bill. One amendment called for, at the very least, a review of the register’s impact on home educators to be carried out within six months, to ensure that only reporting requirements that are strictly necessary for safeguarding purposes are retained. We also tabled an amendment that would have removed the requirement for parents and carers of children in special schools to secure local authority consent to home educate. Furthermore, we proposed that home educated children should not be excluded from national examinations because of financial or capacity constraints.
Sadly, the Government voted down all our amendments, but I encourage the new Minister to give serious consideration to relevant amendments tabled in the other place, because we must do more if we genuinely want to extend opportunity to every child. Our SEND system is letting down many children, and it is allowing a number of organisations with bad intentions to exploit the market failure in the system. I am talking about private-equity-run special school providers, which are making exorbitant profits, as they have with children’s homes. They are exploiting the lack of provision to hold local authorities and parents to ransom.
The latest revelation in the Budget is that the Government will absorb the costs of SEND provision from local authorities, and the projected £6 billion black hole only strengthens the need to start capping the profits of private special schools. The Bill already makes provision to cap the profits of the same companies that are running children’s care homes and fostering agencies, so I again ask the Minister to consider introducing the measure so that no child is left waiting because of a lack of resource, given that local authorities are being bled dry.
While I am talking about children being left waiting, I encourage the Minister to look at another Liberal Democrat proposal to automatically enrol every eligible child for free school meals, so that no one misses out on a hot, healthy meal. Durham county council, under its previous Liberal Democrat-led administration, auto-enrolled 2,500 children, whose schools benefited from an additional £3 million in pupil premium funding.
It is not too late for the Minister to improve the Bill, which I do not believe needs to be withdrawn wholesale. Instead, with the help of the other place, it can be amended so that there is a strong foundation to improve safeguarding for our children and strengthen provision for them in our schools.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Barker, and to speak in this very important debate. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for his opening remarks, and Michelle Zaher and all 166,498 signatories of this important petition, including 250 of my constituents. The petition calls on the Education Secretary to withdraw the disastrous Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, and states:
“We believe the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is poorly drafted and does not stem from robust evidence. We feel the accompanying impact assessments are inadequate and may damage all children’s educational opportunities. We believe the Bill is silent on children’s voice and children’s right to education. We also feel part 2 undermines parental responsibility for education and school leaders from ensuring their educational settings can optimise children’s education and wellbeing.”
I cannot fault that damning verdict, which summarises many of the huge inadequacies that are part of this woeful piece of legislation. I am clear that His Majesty’s official Opposition share no enthusiasm for the parts of this Bill relating to schools in particular. To put our views simply, this legislation will trample over two decades of cross-party consensus that has seen the quality of an English child’s schooling improve at a rate of knots.
It is beyond question that the previous Government drove up school standards across the country, and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made that point very eloquently. By the time the Conservatives left office in 2024, English schoolchildren were some of the best in the western world at English and maths. Moreover, 90% of our schools were rated good or outstanding, up from 68% when Labour were last in office. It is a record we are fiercely proud of, because those changes have benefited children across the country, have driven up social mobility and have given more young people the chance to succeed. This legacy is of enormous significance, but it is under great threat because of this woeful legislation.
The overwhelming consensus over the past 20 years—started by Tony Blair and improved by Lord Gove and Sir Nick Gibb—has demonstrated the profound benefits of giving schools and local trusts greater autonomy. The political consensus that created free schools, a knowledge-rich curriculum and academisation has brought enormous benefits. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill ends that consensus. It is an act of pure educational vandalism that, tragically, is not backed up by any evidence that suggests it will improve school standards.
In 2024, academies represented 80% of secondary schools and nearly 43% of primary schools. They have been at the heart of the cross-party effort over the past two decades to improve schooling. We know that headteachers are better equipped to design curricula that benefit their students and communities, and they should be empowered to do so. The fact the Government disagree with that, despite an abundance of evidence suggesting otherwise, speaks volumes. The petition challenges this educational vandalism. It makes it clear that the impact assessments are totally inadequate and fail to show how effectively removing academy status will improve school standards.
Of course, the official Opposition are not alone in our objection to the Bill’s provisions to effectively end the academies project. The Confederation of School Trusts is very concerned about the provisions that seek to remove the academy freedoms that have so greatly improved our education system. Even Lord Harris of Haringey, a Labour peer, has raised his concerns. He is on the record as saying that he cannot express his disappointment at what the Government propose in the Bill, and that it will
“undermine everything that so many people have fought so hard to achieve.”
The Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, who is a former headteacher and the co-founder of the Inspiration multi-academy trust, has criticised the Bill, saying that Ministers are
“legislating against the things we know work in schools”.
As has been alluded to, even Amanda Spielman, a former head of Ofsted, has called on the Education Secretary to abandon her plans
“before the damage is done”.
Does the Minister take seriously those concerns, and the concerns of the 166,498 signatories? What will she do about them?
Before the Education Secretary imposes her union-backed policies on English schoolchildren, I remind Members present about Labour’s record in Wales. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire made an excellent speech in which he highlighted Labour’s track record, which reinforces the importance of the petition we are debating. Children over the border are being let down by Labour-run Wales. Welsh children have been unable to experience the same revolution in school standards that we have seen in England.
The Welsh education system is far behind the rest of the UK in the international league tables. As Onward’s “Devolved to Fail” report makes clear, Wales is a huge outlier. The UK is ranked 14th among OECD countries in the PISA tables, but were Wales to be ranked as an individual country, it would come just above Vietnam, in 34th place. England moved to a rich, knowledge-based curriculum, while Wales continued to use a skills-based one. England introduced academies; Wales resisted and paid the price. Attainment in Welsh schools has stagnated so much that the average Welsh pupil performs only as well as the most disadvantaged pupils in England.
I also want to address the issue of homeschooling, which was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) and for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas). As a parent, I believe in the liberty of parents to choose the best options for their children, but I also recognise that there is a balance to be struck, especially when it comes to safeguarding. The sad case of Sara Sharif has been raised; I draw the Minister’s attention to the amendment tabled by Baroness Barran in the other place, which states that if there is or has ever been a child protection plan, or if a child is in need, there must be local authority consent for them to be withdrawn from school. Will the Minister share her reflections on that amendment? I trust she is willing to work on a cross-party basis.
I want to put on record my concerns about the proposed three-item cap on children’s school uniform, which is being advanced without due consideration of the harm it could cause to families, schools and businesses. As has been mentioned, it could actually inflate prices. The Government claim that the cap will make schools fairer, but the limit could also put pressure on pupils to wear the latest fashions, which often end up being much more expensive than a uniform. The practicalities are also significant, as has been raised in some of the meetings I have had on the issue, because the cap will cause nightmares for PE teachers and children playing sports. Will the Minister clarify the issues in respect of PE? In addition, the relevant part of the Bill will do significant damage to the specialist schoolwear sector, which has significant concerns.
Let me present some of the constructive steps that the official Opposition have taken to improve the flawed Bill. We have tabled several amendments that are aimed at preventing harm and improving educational outcomes, including in respect of proposals to ban smartphones during the school day; to ensure automatic exclusions for the possession of a knife, for sexual assault or for the assault of a teacher; and to move pupils who are permanently excluded twice out of mainstream settings. Banning smartphones would help to address the behaviour issues we see in schools, including social media-driven knife crime and the impact on attainment.
The Bill needs to be looked at again. There are some areas that the official Opposition can support, but overall, it is a wrecking ball that destroys 20 years of educational consensus and achievement. Today’s petition is therefore extremely important, and I thank all the people who signed it. I hope the Minister can do them justice and reflect on some of the arguments I have made today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for introducing this excellent debate on a landmark Bill. I thank all colleagues for their contributions, and all those in the Public Gallery who have signed the petition, particularly Michelle and Addison, who have been mentioned by my colleagues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) reminded us at the start of this debate—quite nicely, I thought—that we all share the same ambition to try to ensure that our children are safe and get the very best start in life. I thought that was an excellent way to start this debate.
The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) told us that home educators are often misunderstood. I wanted to start by referencing that directly, because he is right that the vast majority of home educators are doing it in the best interests of their children—the Government and I absolutely recognise that home educators are doing it with the best interests of their children in mind—but he explicitly stated that we are taking away that option, and he was wrong to do so. That is categorically not what this Government are doing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) shared his personal experience. As the Minister responsible for bullying and behaviour, I would say he is also right to say that he should not wind up the year below! He rightly spoke about the importance of supporting children before those settings, using his own experience powerfully. I thank all the staff of the hospital schools he mentioned today—Royal London hospital, Bethlem Royal hospital, King’s College hospital and the PRUH. I would also like to give him the reassurance he seeks on the risk of bureaucratic, burdensome reporting requirements on home educating families. The Government are determined to ensure that there are no unduly burdensome requirements on home educating families.
Later in my speech, I will address some of the more substantive points that have been made in the debate. As we have heard, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is a wide-ranging piece of legislation, but at its heart, it is about protecting children and ensuring that they have the best possible education. It is also rightly described as the biggest single piece of safeguarding legislation for a generation. As we have heard today, the measures in the Bill cover four broad areas: easing the cost of living for parents, supporting children in care, keeping all children safe, and driving the best possible standards in our schools. I will expand on each of those points in turn.
First, the Bill puts more money back into parents’ pockets at a time when all of us are feeling the impact of the cost of living. Introducing free breakfast clubs in all state-funded primary schools will save families up to £450 a year and drive improvements in behaviour and attendance. The claim made by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) that we are not properly funding breakfast clubs is inaccurate. We have deliberately adopted a test-and-learn approach with breakfast clubs. In the first phase, we learned from schools, and in the second phase we have increased funding for breakfast clubs for the average school by 28%.
Damian Hinds
As a simple, comparative piece of maths, if the Minister is saying that breakfast clubs will save families £450 a year, how much money is the Department for Education providing to the school to provide that breakfast?
Olivia Bailey
As the right hon. Gentleman will be well aware, the breakfast club represents 30 minutes of free childcare, as well as a healthy breakfast. That is how we calculated the estimated cost savings for families. We have also increased the funding for schools, as I have just said, having learned from headteachers and schools, which has been widely welcomed.
We are also limiting the number of branded uniform items a school can require, a measure that could save some parents up to £50 per child during the back-to-school shop. Together, these measures could save up to £500 per child per year. The hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) asked about school uniform costs. I would like to take the opportunity to clarify this point: we are introducing the policy deliberately because we need to reduce costly expectations on parents in this challenging time for the cost of living. There will be three branded items that schools may use as they see fit. The hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East mentioned sports clubs, and the Government are taking a common-sense approach here. If, for example, a school wants to loan some pupils its uniform or whatever it may be, it will be able to do that, as long as it is not a requirement for the child to wear it. We are taking a common-sense approach here, but it is important that we set out clearly that there are three branded items.
Munira Wilson
I strongly support the Government’s objective of driving down the cost of branded uniform for families. Will the Minister look at the proposals that the Liberal Democrat tabled in Committee and on Report? We suggested that, instead of capping the number of items, we cap the cost, which would then be reviewed in line with inflation every year. That way, we would help to bring down the cost, because if we reduce the number of items, suppliers will just push up their prices, as they are selling fewer items. They might charge £100 for a blazer instead of £50. Our proposal would free schools to set their own uniform policy and let the market do its job by driving down prices for families.
Olivia Bailey
I thank the hon. Lady for her positive and constructive engagement on this question. Of course, the Government carefully considered the amendments that were tabled. My concern with her proposal would be the bureaucratic burden on schools. The simplicity of requiring three branded items can help us in that regard.
Saqib Bhatti
I am not trying to catch the Minister out here; perhaps she could write to me afterwards for clarity. She talks about a common-sense approach, but we are making it concrete in legislation. On the requirement for three branded items, would the school be in breach? Would the parents be in breach? What happens in that situation?
Olivia Bailey
I am very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman and set that out in detail, but let me try again. There will be a requirement for three branded items. That is the maximum that schools can require. They can choose where they would like to allocate those branded items, whether that be in the main school uniform or for PE. If a child joined a football team, for which the kit is not part of the three required items, then as long as the school does not require the pupil to wear that kit, they may, for example, provide a loan or say that they could buy it. I hope that clarifies the point.
Damian Hinds
The Minister says that the limit is three items, but actually, the limit is three in primary school, while I believe it is four in secondary school—she will correct me if I am wrong—so long as the fourth is a tie. Can she tell me for what reason a fourth is not allowed in primary school, if the fourth is a tie?
Olivia Bailey
I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman in extreme clarity on that point.
Secondly, the Bill’s children’s social care reforms will shift the system away from increasing reliance on residential provision, towards stronger early intervention and prevention. We want to keep families together as much as possible and, where children cannot remain at home, we want to support them to live with kinship carers or in foster families. Children’s social care has the power to transform the lives of some of our most vulnerable children, and children in care deserve a childhood filled with love, support and access to the opportunities that will set them up for a successful life, but the system is not delivering that ambition. Through the measures introduced by this legislation, we will champion family group decision making, fix the broken care market, create powers to introduce a profit cap for providers, and provide a staying close support package to address the cliff edge that young people face when they leave care.
Thirdly, it bears repeating that this is the biggest piece of safeguarding legislation in a generation, delivering robust action to keep children safe from harm. The Government have challenged themselves, and will continue to do so, to stop children falling through the gaps by ensuring legislation introducing an information sharing duty and provision for a single unique identifier, and ensuring that implementation is as watertight as possible.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I have come along to genuinely learn more about this and to ask a question about the single identifier raised by my constituent Catherine. She points out that the General Medical Council, in particular, has advised against using the NHS number to supply an effective identifier and that it should not be used outside the Department of Health and Social Care. Does the Minister recognise people’s concerns about a possible loss of data? Does she accept that we do not want to be introducing a form of digital ID that might persist after the children become adults?
Olivia Bailey
I take everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said on board. I will come to the topics he raises in more detail in my speech.
The Government will also introduce new multi-agency child protection teams in every local area to make sure that agencies work together to protect children from harm as quickly as possible. We will also require local authorities to maintain registers of children not in school in their areas, such as home educated children and children missing education. Parents of home educated children will have a duty to provide information about them. That will help to ensure that local authorities can identify all children not in school living in their areas so that they can fulfil their existing duties to ensure that those children are receiving a safe, suitable education.
The Bill also introduces provisions requiring local authority consent for the most vulnerable children, or those with the highest needs, to be home educated. That includes those subject to child protection inquiries or plans and those enrolled in special schools. Home education can mean that children sometimes slip under the radar of services that are there to support them, so it is essential for those children that an additional check is undertaken before they are removed from school. That will help to ensure that home education is in their best interests and that they receive a suitable education.
Mr Forster
As the Minister will have heard, I am a bit more supportive of the Bill due to safeguarding concerns based on what happened with Sara Sharif in my constituency of Woking. However, I would also highlight the concerns about the way that Surrey county council failed to protect Sara. Although I am mindful of safeguarding concerns, does the Minister agree that the Government need to properly hold local authorities accountable and resource them to ensure that they can properly protect children? They are not doing that at the moment.
Olivia Bailey
I thank the hon. Member for his advocacy on this issue after the terrible events that led to Sara Sharif’s death. He has been doing an excellent job of that. I very much agree that the findings in the report on that case are appalling. The Government are taking them extremely seriously and will continue to work with local authorities to make sure that children are kept safe.
Lastly, the Bill helps to ensure consistently high standards in our schools. If I may quote the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) , we are indeed “striving for academic excellence”. Through our reforms to the academy system, we will give every family the certainty that they will be able to access a good local school for their child, delivered through excellent teaching and leadership, a rich, broad and high-quality curriculum and a pay floor for all teachers. We are designing a school system that supports and challenges all schools, allowing them to collaborate, innovate and drive excellence.
The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross talked about the issues raised by Michelle Zaher and the hon. Member for Twickenham talked about evidence. The Bill is built on a robust evidence base that the Government have taken time and care to produce. The children’s social care measures in the Bill build on extensive consultation over the last few years in response to three reviews calling for a transformation of children’s social care.
Despite the many strengths and practices that have driven improvements across our school system, including transformational changes in phonics, professional development and strong multi-academy trusts empowering schools to collaborate and innovate, the fact is that the school system is not working well enough for all children. Standards vary widely and there is a stark contrast between the experiences of children in the best and worst schools.
The hon. Member for Bromsgrove talked about the children not in school register. Every child has the right to a safe and suitable education, whether they are educated at school or otherwise. We recognise that parents have a right to home educate and we know that many parents work hard to provide a suitable education for their children. Local authorities must identify children who are not in school and are not receiving a suitable education, but that existing duty is undermined by parents having no obligation to inform their local authority that they are home educating.
Statutory registers of children not in school, along with duties on parents and out-of-school education providers to provide information, will support local authorities to identify all children not in school in their area, including those not receiving a suitable education or at risk of harm, and to take action where that is the case. This was raised earlier, but crucially, parents will also be able to access tailored advice and information from local authorities, thanks to the new duty on local authorities to provide support should parents request it.
The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) raised concerns about the single unique identifier and the information-sharing duty. For too long, poor information sharing has been identified as a contributory factor to serious child safeguarding incidents. As outlined in “Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive”, we are taking two important steps in the Bill to improve how services share information. First, we are introducing an identifier system for children to end misconceptions about the legal barriers to sharing information for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. Alongside that, we are piloting the use of the NHS number as a SUI, starting with Wigan local authority. The pilot phase allows us to test the approach in practice, understand the implications fully and determine whether it should be mandated via future regulations.
Andrew Cooper
The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) raised concerns about the General Medical Council’s view on this. Is the Minister aware that the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health is advocating the use of the NHS number? Is she therefore aware that there is a divergence of views in the medical community on this point?
Olivia Bailey
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that useful contribution to the debate.
I am conscious of time, so I will conclude by once again thanking the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross for presenting this debate. I also thank Members across the Chamber for an excellent debate and for their thoughtful contributions this afternoon. I would like to recognise the tireless efforts of schools, local authorities and the many organisations that champion children’s wellbeing every day. The Bill will put more money back into the pockets of parents, reform our children’s social care system, safeguard vulnerable children and drive rising standards in all our schools. As we continue the passage of this transformational Bill, our focus will continue to be on breaking down the barriers to opportunity and ensuring that every child is safe.
Jamie Stone
As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said, it has been a good debate, although perhaps a little sparkier than I had first anticipated. As Chairman of the Petitions Committee, I must remain resolutely impartial in these matters. If we say that the overall impression of the Bill at this stage has some way to go, it is like the proverbial curate’s egg—good in parts.
I particularly thank Michelle Zaher, who must take considerable satisfaction from the fact that the petition that she launched, with all the many people who support her, has achieved such a far-ranging and broad debate. The petitioners can take pleasure from how it has worked. That is how it works in the Petitions Committee: the petition has instigated a response from the Government. That is how we deal with petitions in this place. Ms Barker, thank you for chairing this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 722377 relating to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.
Evacuation Chairs: Schools and Colleges
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 706513 relating to evacuation chairs in schools and colleges.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec, and a privilege to lead this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. It is especially appropriate that we are having the debate during UK Disability History Month, which asks us to recognise the realities faced by disabled people in our society and to confront the barriers that remain. Few things bring those barriers into clearer focus than the question of whether disabled children can evacuate safely from their school in an emergency. More than 100,000 people signed this petition, because they believe that every child deserves a safe and dignified exit from a building during a fire alarm or real fire, and that disabled pupils must not face greater danger than their friends.
I pay tribute to the petition’s creator, 16-year-old Lucas Vezza-O’Brien, who is here with us in the Gallery today. He is joined by his mum, and by Nick from the Emergency Group, who has been supporting Lucas in his campaign and donated evacuation chairs to Lucas’s school.
Lucas has shown incredible courage in reliving a horrifying experience so that other children will not go through the same ordeal. I want to start the debate with Lucas’s story and the reason why he started the petition in the first place. In November of last year, a small electrical fire broke out at Hyde high school. Staff followed the procedures available to them. Pupils were evacuated, but Lucas, who uses a wheelchair, was taken to a designated safe area—rather than being evacuated with his classmates—because the school did not have an evacuation chair to bring him downstairs. He was led to a room on an upper floor and left there, alone and with the smell of smoke in the air. What makes that even more disturbing is that after Lucas was placed in that refuge, the fact that he was still in the building was not reported to firefighters. He waited in that room while everyone else believed that he had been brought out to safety.
The fear that Lucas felt is captured in the poem that he wrote afterwards, which has touched so many people. He says:
“The bell screams loud the smoke runs fast
Footsteps pound as students dash past
The fire alarm wails its desperate cry
But here I sit just asking why
No ramp, no chair to help me flee
Just stairs that laugh and imprison me
My hands shake tight upon my wheels
A rising fear too sharp to feel”.
That is a powerful reminder that disabled children and the wider disability community are too often asked to trust systems that have not been built for them.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, and Lucas’s poem really resonates with that. In my constituency, we have Evac+Chair, which creates evacuation chairs like the ones we have in Parliament. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the current legislation, the stay-put policy from an outdated era—1962—does not recognise that the technology has moved on?
Jacob Collier
Yes, absolutely. I will come on to some of the legislation later, but the hon. Member highlights a really important issue and I know that he is a big supporter in this space, so I thank him for that intervention.
Fire and rescue services in England attended 417 primary fires in education premises in the last financial year; primary fires are generally more serious fires causing damage to property or harm to people. Of these primary fires, 355 were accidental fires and 62 were deliberate. When we look at the current legal and guidance framework, the gaps become clear.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is nice to see you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I did not know that you would be chairing Westminster Hall. I wish you well.
The provision of evacuation chairs is imperative—all schools and colleges, across the whole of the United Kingdom, must have them for pupils, staff and visitors. Furthermore, where evacuation chairs exist, staff must be trained in their use. Without mandatory training, the presence of a chair alone does not ensure safety. Does the hon. Member agree that there must be an adequate number of staff trained in the use of these chairs so that schools can make full and proper use of them in the event of an emergency?
Jacob Collier
I agree with the hon. Member—he must have read what is coming up in my speech. He is absolutely right, and I will come to that point.
Under the Equality Act 2010, schools have duties to avoid substantial disadvantage for disabled pupils, but they are not required to make any physical changes to features of the building for individual children. Instead, they must prepare long-term accessibility plans that look years ahead. That means that a multi-storey school does not have to provide an immediate safe route for a specific child who cannot use stairs. Fire safety legislation requires responsible persons to ensure that everyone can escape safely, but it does not specify how. It does not mandate personal emergency evacuation plans—or PEEPs—for pupils who cannot self-evacuate. It does not require evacuation chairs. It still allows the use of refuge rooms, even though children cannot be left alone in them and cannot legally be lifted by staff.
Current guidance for the evacuation of disabled pupils is simply not sufficient, as has been highlighted by Lucas’s experience. In many cases, PEEPs do not identify the need for evacuation chairs, which means that schools conclude the equipment is unnecessary and therefore never purchase it. PEEPs vary widely in quality, and often lack a clear method for onward evacuation. They need to be significantly strengthened.
In 2015, the Equality and Human Rights Commission commented that schools were in effect exempt from removing barriers to extraction during emergency. That exemption explains why so many pupils remain unprotected. There is also a profound accountability gap: no single regulator or public body is charged with assessing whether disabled pupils can be evacuated safely. No one is tasked with checking whether reasonable adjustments have been made for the purpose of extraction. Ofsted does not inspect evacuation readiness or assess whether disabled pupils can leave a building in an emergency. In that vacuum, schools are left to interpret a patchwork of rules that are not abundantly clear. In a response to a written question from the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), the Department for Education stated:
“Schools and their responsible bodies are not obliged to notify the department of fires at their premises and we therefore do not routinely collect or record this data…nor information on fire-safety-related repairs.”
PEEPs are not legally mandated in schools. They are planned to become mandatory for residential buildings following the Grenfell Tower tragedy, but remain non-mandatory in school environments, which have the highest numbers of individuals who cannot self-evacuate. That contrast should concern every Member of this House. In some circumstances, staying put and awaiting the fire service is the safest approach. When someone dials 999, fire control operators will issue that safety advice. In Lucas’s case it was not even recognised where he was in the building. That highlights a need for a clearer process for everybody to follow so that all people are accounted for and safely evacuated.
Evacuation chairs are not suitable for every disabled pupil, but they are a safe and internationally recognised non-lifting method for bringing a person downstairs in an emergency. When a child cannot use stairs and has a lesson on the upper floor, the school must have a safe evacuation method. It should not fall on teachers to improvise solutions when an alarm is sounding and smoke is spreading, and it should not fall on a child to wait in fear and hope that someone will remember that they are upstairs.
This petition is measured in its request. It does not call for every school to purchase equipment that is not relevant to their buildings; it calls for evacuation chairs or equivalent equipment to be required when a pupil’s needs make them necessary. It also calls for personal emergency evacuation plans to be prepared for those who cannot self-evacuate and, crucially, for them to contain a clear method for reaching safety. Finally, it calls for a clear national standard, so that schools are not guessing what is expected of them.
The Labour Government have committed to building safer and more inclusive public services, and we promise to learn the lessons of the Grenfell tragedy. We also promise that no one who cannot self-evacuate will be left without proper planning. Schools must be a part of that commitment.
Today, I urge the Government to act. We must ensure that personal emergency evacuation plans are required for every pupil or staff member who cannot self-evacuate. A personal emergency evacuation plan must set out the equipment, the route, the timing and the staff support needed. We must establish national expectations for evacuation equipment—not just a blanket rule, but a clear principle that when a child is taught on an upper floor and cannot use stairs, their school must provide a safe assisted evacuation method.
We must provide consistent guidance and high-quality training, so that staff know exactly what to do. We must make accountability meaningful. It must be clear which organisation checks whether disabled pupils can be evacuated and whether reasonable adjustments have been made for that purpose. Finally, we must design these policies with disabled pupils, their families and school staff at the centre. They know better than any of us what a safe and dignified evacuation looks like.
I will close my remarks by quoting the end of Lucas’s poem—with a plea that we cannot ignore:
“So hear my voice through smoke and ash
Make sure the next can make a dash
For no one’s life should end in flame
Because the world forgot their name”.
Our responsibility as legislators and as a Government is not only to remember the names but to protect those children, to ensure that no child is ever forgotten in a refuge room, and to build a system where a disabled pupil is not an afterthought but a child whose safety is guaranteed. We need to ensure that no student is ever left behind like Lucas was.
I thank those who took the time to meet me in preparation for this debate, and I especially thank Nick and Lucas. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other hon. Members, and to Ministers turning this petition into meaningful action.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Alec.
I start by thanking all the people—over 104,000 in total—who have signed this petition, including 65 people in my own constituency of Twickenham. They are the primary reason why we are debating this important issue. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for his speech. It was hard to disagree with a single word of it.
However, I particularly thank and pay tribute to 16-year-old Lucas for his #NoStudentLeftBehind campaign, which has included starting this petition and then gathering such a large number of signatures that we are now debating it in Parliament. It is an incredible campaign, and it is just brilliant and brave of him to lead it in the way that he has.
I was shocked to learn of Lucas’s case when I read about it. As a wheelchair user, he was left upstairs on his own when a fire broke out at his school. Although it was only a small fire and thankfully no one was hurt, Lucas described feeling petrified and even considering getting out of his wheelchair to crawl down the stairs, because there was no evacuation chair. No person should ever have to feel like that, and Lucas’s passion to ensure that no disabled child or staff member has to endure the fear and indignity that he had to go through is truly commendable. I was very moved by his powerful poem, which the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter read out.
Lucas is not alone. According to Disabled Students UK, more than one in five students with physical or sensory needs do not feel confident that they would be able to exit on-campus buildings in case of emergency. That is unacceptable. Disabled people must be sure that, like all other pupils, they will be quickly and safely evacuated from schools during fires or any other emergency. Although there were no fire-related fatalities in schools in the 2024-25 financial year, we cannot continue to hope for the best and run the risk of somebody losing their life because of a lack of accommodation for the needs of disabled people.
Evacuation chairs are vital to meeting these needs. Not only do they provide a safe and effective means of escape for individuals with mobility impairments, but they ensure that everyone has equal access to emergency evacuation procedures. In the case of a fire or other emergency, individuals with disabilities should not be left behind or be unable to evacuate because of a lack of proper equipment.
As the Government’s response to the petition acknowledges, not all disabled people feel comfortable using such chairs, and it is not always possible for wheelchair users to transfer into an evacuation chair or to maintain a sitting position once seated in one. Evacuation chairs are incredibly important, but they are not an automatic solution to the escape requirements of all wheelchair users. However, it is essential that they are readily available and well maintained, and that staff are trained in their proper use to guarantee a smooth and efficient evacuation process when someone’s personal emergency evacuation plan requires an evacuation chair. It should also be checked that the evacuation chair is suitable for the person who will be using it, as different types of chair are available.
The legal framework for this issue has room for improvement. The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, which applies to schools, does not mandate that evacuation plans for schools must include PEEPs. That is in contrast with the Fire Safety (Residential Evacuation Plans) (England) Regulations 2025, which were rightly brought in to mandate PEEPs for relevant persons in specific residential buildings in England from April 2026 following the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower inquiry.
The Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to go further and to widen mandatory PEEPs beyond residential buildings to include schools. We believe that PEEPs should be mandatory for students and school staff with a disability who might require evacuation assistance, and that they should be developed in genuine partnership to ensure students’ needs and preferences are fully understood and acted upon, so that disabled children and staff feel safe and secure at school. This change to the regulations is common sense and clearly implementable, given the Government’s identical changes to fire safety regulations in residential buildings. This change to the regulations will ensure that every disabled person can safely evacuate schools during a fire or other emergency, whether with an evacuation chair or via another method.
It is vital that no disabled person is left behind during a fire or other emergency that could put their life in danger. If we are truly committed to equality of opportunity for everyone, especially for children and young people, we must ensure that every person is free from fear. We owe it to Lucas and many others like him.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec, and may there be many more opportunities for me to do so.
I thank the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for his opening remarks. I thought he spoke eloquently and raised some really pertinent questions. I will not repeat them all, but I do hope to support him. As we have heard, this debate is extremely important and timely, and I want to start by putting on record the thanks of His Majesty’s official Opposition to all Members who supported the petition. In particular, I thank the more than 104,000 signatories, including 266 of my own constituents in Meriden and Solihull East. This is the second consecutive debate that I have responded to. My constituents have been very busy, and long may that continue.
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) for highlighting the good work of Evac+Chair. He is a formidable parliamentarian on this issue and many others. I want especially to thank Lucas Vezza-O’Brien, who started this important petition; I know he is in the Public Gallery. His poem gave me goosebumps, and his story is immensely moving and thought provoking, so I thank him for standing up on this issue. Last year, as has been said, at his school in Manchester he was forced to stay put during an evacuation, not through choice but because the school did not have adequate facilities to get him to safety. I can only imagine the fear, stress and anxiety that Lucas experienced. The fact that this happened is nothing short of unacceptable, and we should all try to rectify it.
I am sure I speak for all hon. Members when I say Lucas’s courage and bravery are absolutely commendable. He has shown immense resilience in bringing this petition forward so that others do not have to experience the same stress and anxiety that he did. I hope this debate has focused the Government on ensuring that people such as Lucas can remain safe and be evacuated from danger.
Lucas has joined forces with the Emergency Group, a collective of emergency response companies dedicated to providing life-saving equipment, including evacuation chairs and defibrillators. The group donated four evacuation chairs to his school to ensure that this never happens again, and it is supporting his campaign for safer and more accessible schools. The Emergency Group has since made him an ambassador—a very wise decision. Between them, they are calling for policy changes to ensure that all schools have evacuation chairs for disabled students and proper emergency evacuation training, something that Members from all parts of the House are calling for.
This petition asks the Government to make it a legal requirement for all schools and colleges to have evacuation chairs, and for all staff to be trained in using them. It is backed by the National Fire Chiefs Council and the Health and Safety Executive, who emphasise the importance of having the right equipment to support mobility-impaired individuals during evacuation.
Under the Equality Act 2010, schools and other educational premises have a duty to make reasonable adjustments where necessary for anyone with a disability. Moreover, under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, all UK educational establishments have a legal responsibility to ensure that every person on the premises can escape safely during an emergency. One of the key requirements of that legislation is that evacuation plans must take into account individuals with additional needs. That has come in the form of personal emergency evacuation plans—PEEPs—as has already been referred to. They play a crucial role in supporting group evacuations by providing clear guidance on how to respond quickly and safely. Could the Minister reflect on some of the points made around PEEPs and whether they are adequate?
The legislation provides that failure to provide appropriate evacuation equipment, such as evacuation chairs, can result in enforcement notices, fines and reputational damage. It is important that all schools and education establishments comply with those regulations and guidelines. It is also essential that the Government ensure that, in cases where evacuation chairs for disabled people are not in place in schools or colleges, the institution acts immediately to meet its legal duties. To that end, I ask the Minister: what steps are the Government taking to ensure schools comply with this legislation? In addition, does the Minister have any consideration for strengthening it so that it is robust enough to keep everyone safe?
It is important that this House understands that failure to comply with these requirements may constitute a breach of the Equality Act 2010 and the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. More importantly, as His Majesty’s Opposition are making clear, failing to do so could place vulnerable individuals at significant risk during a fire or other emergency situation. We are very clear that where such provisions are not in place, the institution’s compliance should be reviewed and it should be held to account. Will the Minister confirm that those regulations will be enforced in full? Can the Minister tell the House what steps the Government are taking to hold to account institutions that do not comply?
To conclude, I once more thank all the signatories of this important petition. Again, I pay a special tribute to Lucas, who has led this petition and ensured that this House has considered its important message. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I am really pleased to have the opportunity to discuss fire safety and the provision of evacuation chairs in our schools and colleges.
I thank the Petitions Committee for granting time for this important debate, and I join everyone across this House in congratulating Lucas on his campaign and his leadership. It is because of that leadership, and the national attention he has brought to this issue, that we are having this debate. No one listening to the poem that Lucas wrote can fail to be moved by his words. The fact that we are here discussing it shows the difference that Lucas is already making, and has made, in his own school. I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier), who spoke really powerfully on Lucas’s behalf. I would be happy to meet him, Lucas and Lucas’s mum to talk through this in more detail, and about some of the ideas we have discussed today.
The safety of all pupils, students and staff at schools and colleges is paramount. Educational premises are workplaces and public buildings, and they are therefore already subject to national health and safety legislation, fire safety legislation and other statutory duties around their use, access and safety. Under current fire safety legislation, those who have responsibility for the building must ensure that everyone in the building can leave safely in the event of a fire.
Schools and colleges need to have an up-to-date fire-risk assessment, appropriate fire alarms and regular fire drills to ensure they are as safe as possible and well prepared in the event of a fire. A school’s fire safety risk assessment should include an emergency evacuation plan for all people likely to be in the premises, as part of its fire safety strategy. Risk assessments include disabled people or anyone needing particular consideration or help during an evacuation, for example because of temporary injuries or pregnancy.
Schools and colleges have a duty under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments where necessary for anyone who has a disability or needs special consideration because of pregnancy or age. All students or staff who need one should have a personal emergency evacuation plan. As we have heard, a PEEP is a tailored plan to ensure someone who may need assistance in a building evacuation can safely reach a place of safety. It is designed for individuals with disabilities and other permanent or temporary conditions that might make it difficult for them to evacuate on their own.
Ideally, a PEEP should be developed as part of a school enrolment or staff induction process for students or staff with disabilities or otherwise requiring assistance in an emergence evacuation situation. If students have an education, health and care plan or an individual healthcare plan, their PEEP should capture any requirements. PEEPs are developed collaboratively between the individual and relevant staff, such as managers, fire safety officers or disability advisers, to ensure the plan is effective and meets their needs.
A well-prepared PEEP ensures that everyone understands their role, making the evacuation process efficient and effective. It is important to stress that a PEEP is a personal document relating to a specific individual. The requirements and preferences of individuals may vary even when their disability is similar. While some people with mobility impairments will require the use of an evacuation chair, others would not welcome using one to escape and may prefer other options to be available.
An evacuation chair looks like a deck chair with skis and wheels underneath. When placed at the top of the stairway, it slides down the stairs. Although there are wheels on the back that facilitate movement on flat surfaces, they are not suitable for long distances. An evacuation chair is operated by one or two people and it requires training and regular practice to use one safely, as we have heard from hon. Members.
In most instances, training need not include the person with the PEEP, although some may wish to practice being moved in the evacuation chair. It may be appropriate for the group of people trained to operate the evacuation chair to take it in turns during the practices, so that they are ready for an incident. That will increase their confidence in using the equipment and reduce their risk of injury to others. As hon. Members may imagine, not all people with mobility impairments feel comfortable using evacuation chairs, and it is not always possible for wheelchair users to transfer into an evacuation chair or to maintain a seated position once seated in one.
Almost half of schools in England are single-storey buildings, with no stairways on which to operate an evacuation chair. That is why it is important the provision and use of an evacuation chair should be determined on a case-by-case basis at a local level based on the specific needs and preferences of the individual concerned. Government guidance is clear that in any school or college where a personal emergency evacuation plan of a student or member of staff requires an evacuation chair, it must be provided.
Fire marshals or nominated evacuation staff and the person needing the chair must be trained in its use. Under school premises regulations, each school’s responsible body must ensure that schools are maintained so that pupils’ health, safety and welfare is ensured. The responsible body is usually an academy trust or a local authority. Schools and responsible bodies have duties as employers under health and safety legislation.
The Department’s health and safety guidance sets out clearly what schools must do, and the Health and Safety Executive provides additional guidance on managing health and safety in schools. Additionally, as we have heard, all schools must comply with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, which requires schools to have an up-to-date fire risk assessment, appropriate fire alarms and regular fire drills to ensure that they are as safe as possible and well prepared in the event of a fire. The Department provides comprehensive supporting guidance to schools in the “Good estate management for schools” guide, which covers all aspects of estate management, including fire safety.
It is the responsibility of those who run our schools, such as academy trusts and local authorities, to ensure that they can be safely operated and to carry out necessary maintenance, including ensuring that a fire risk assessment is undertaken and kept up to date. Since 2010, the Department’s standards require staircases to be wide enough to allow for carry-down evacuation where necessary, and from November 2021, the Department has required that all new schools with more than one storey must have an evacuation lift as standard, providing means of escape from the building for disabled people in the unlikely event of a fire.
The Government have published guidance on fire safety risk assessments for organisations responsible for providing means of escape for disabled people. There is school-specific guidance that includes considerations for mobility-impaired people, and it makes it clear that effective management arrangements must be put in place for those needing help to escape. A well-prepared PEEP ensures that everyone understands their role, making the evacuation process efficient and effective.
A number of other ideas and issues have been raised today, which I will look into further, and I am also happy to take meetings to discuss them. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is rewriting its guidance to ensure that we continue to do all we can to protect children and young people in the event of fires.
Jacob Collier
I thank all Members who have taken part in this debate. In particular, I thank the Minister for her commitment to meet Lucas so that she can hear more about his story, and to take on board some of the things that have come out of the debate—one thing I have learned is that I need to ensure that people know how to say Uttoxeter. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) highlighted the contrast in the changes to personal evacuation plans that we are making following Grenfell; we are making them mandatory in certain settings but not in schools. Finally, I thank Lucas and Nick for their work on the campaign. Lucas has been in the media today, and I am sure that he will continue to be until he gets the changes that he needs to see. I thank him for coming today and for starting the petition, and I thank everyone who signed it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 706513 relating to evacuation chairs in schools and colleges.
Culture, Media and Sport
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir John Whittingdale
The Secretary of State will be aware that, as the Public Accounts Committee has pointed out, last year the BBC lost more than £1 billion as a result of evasion and households declaring that they no longer need a licence. That figure is going to grow over the course of the next charter, so will she look at finding other ways in which we can close the funding gap?
Lisa Nandy
Yes. As the right hon. Gentleman would imagine, we are looking at a whole range of options around BBC funding to ensure that it is sustainably funded for many years to come. In particular, we are very keen to ensure that people feel a sense of ownership and belonging over the BBC, which is why the point about the nations and regions is so important. Ofcom recently produced a report in which it showed that of the top Scottish producers who fulfil the Scottish quota, for example, only one third are actually based in Scotland among the public sector broadcasters.
[Official Report, 27 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 503.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy):
Lisa Nandy
… In particular, we are very keen to ensure that people feel a sense of ownership and belonging over the BBC, which is why the point about the nations and regions is so important. Oliver & Ohlbaum Associates recently produced a report, drawing on Ofcom data, which showed that of the top Scottish producers who fulfil the Scottish quota, for example, only one third are actually based in Scotland among the public sector broadcasters.
Other Correction
Jim McMahon
Business of the House
The following extract is from business questions on 27 November 2025.
Jim McMahon
For 15 years, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs mileage rate has been 45p per mile for the first 10,000 miles. In that time, the cost of buying and running a car, and of insurance and repairs, has clearly increased, but HMRC has not caught up. As a result of those cost rises, the NHS uprated its figure and will now pay 56p per mile for the first 3,500 miles.
[Official Report, 27 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 540.]
Written correction submitted by the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon):
Jim McMahon
For 15 years, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs mileage rate has been 45p per mile for the first 10,000 miles. In that time, the cost of buying and running a car, and of insurance and repairs, has clearly increased, but HMRC has not caught up. As a result of those cost rises, the NHS uprated its figure and will now pay 59p per mile for the first 3,500 miles.
Employment Rights Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
The Government convened a series of constructive conversations between trade unions and business representatives. On the basis of the outcome of these discussions, the Government will now move forward on the issue of unfair dismissal protections in the Employment Rights Bill to ensure it can reach Royal Assent and keep to the Government’s published delivery timeline.
This will mean delivering day one rights to sick pay and paternity leave in April 2026 as well as launching the fair work agency. Reforms to benefit millions of working people, including some of the lowest paid workers, would otherwise be significantly delayed if the Bill does not reach Royal Assent in line with our delivery timetable. Businesses too need time to prepare for what are a series of significant changes.
The discussions concluded that reducing the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from 24 months to 6 months—whilst maintaining existing day one protection against discrimination and automatically unfair grounds for dismissal—is a workable package. It will benefit millions of working people who will gain new rights and offer business and employers much needed clarity. To further strengthen these protections, the Government have committed to ensure that the unfair dismissal qualifying period can only be varied by primary legislation and that the compensation cap will be lifted.
As a result of these constructive conversations, we have agreed a way forward with trade unions and business representatives who agree that the Bill should progress to Royal Assent as soon as possible. We will table the necessary amendments to deliver the Bill. Furthermore, the Government have reiterated their commitment to full, fair and transparent consultation on the detail and application of the secondary legislation as they move to implement the Bill. This will enable the Government to deliver the necessary consultations and implementation in line with their timetable and manifesto commitments to make work pay.
We will not build a robust and growing economy through employment insecurity. Instead, we are building an economy based on fair competition between businesses, greater productivity in the workplace, job security for workers, and fair reward for hard work. Once implemented, these important and popular reforms will give long overdue new rights to working people, including:
Ending exploitative zero-hours contracts that leave some workers unable to plan their working lives or manage their family finances, saving them up to £600 in lost income from the hidden costs of insecure work;
Establishing bereavement leave as a day one entitlement and extending it to those who lose a pregnancy before 24 weeks, giving the hundreds of thousands of families affected each year the recognition and protections they deserve;
Supporting working parents to juggle the competing demands of work and raising children, including the 32,000 fathers and partners per year who are not entitled to paternity leave and the 1.5 million parents who are not allowed to take unpaid parental leave;
Helping more working mothers stay in their jobs, including the 4,000 women who are unfairly sacked each year when returning from maternity leave;
Guaranteeing workers get paid when they have to take time off because of illness and expanding statutory sick pay to up to 1.3 million of the most vulnerable workers in society who currently earn below the lower earnings limit;
Reinstating the school support staff negotiating body to improve pay and conditions for up to 800,000 school support staff in England;
Providing for the establishment of a fair pay agreements process in the adult social care sector in England and social care sectors in Scotland and Wales; and
Creating a single point of contact for advice and help for businesses and employees—the fair work agency—to ensure better understanding of people’s rights at work, ensure best practice for implementing employment law, and tackle the unfair competition that some bad employers use to beat their competitors.
The Government were pleased to facilitate these discussions and to set an example of the benefits of working together, and remain committed to continue engaging with trade unions, business and employers to make working lives better, support businesses and, vitally, deliver economic growth and good job creation. The Government are particularly aware of the need to support small businesses in the effective adoption of these changes. Constructive dialogue and full consultation with business, employers and unions will continue beyond the passage of the Bill.
[HCWS1115]
Mozambique LNG: UK Export Finance Withdrawal
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Peter Kyle)
In 2020, the Government committed UK Export Finance support for the Mozambique liquified natural gas project operated by TotalEnergies. Mozambique LNG was paused in 2021 when force majeure was called due to the deteriorating local security situation and the terrorist insurgency. In preparation to restart the project, UKEF was presented with a proposal to amend the financing terms it had agreed originally. There has been much media speculation on this matter, and I am now able to address the subject and update members of the House. After a detailed review, the UK Government have decided to end UKEF’s participation in the project.
My officials have evaluated the risks around the project, and it is the view of His Majesty’s Government that these risks have increased since 2020. This view is based on a comprehensive assessment of the project and the interests of UK taxpayers, which are best served by ending our participation in the project at this time. While these decisions are never easy, the Government believe that UK financing of this project will not advance the interests of our country.
UKEF has over 100 years’ track record as a reliable financing partner in support of UK exports and exporters. The decision to end participation in Mozambique LNG at this time is specific to this project and made with the agreement of the project sponsors and other participants. UK Export Finance will reimburse the project for the premium paid, reflecting the end of the Department’s risk exposure to the project.
The Government remain committed to backing British exporters, including through support from UKEF, as we have set out in our industrial and trade strategies. We also remain committed to our national partnership with Mozambique and building long-term respectful relationships with African countries to boost sustainable growth, tackle the climate crisis and address insecurity.
[HCWS1111]
UK-US Economic Prosperity Deal
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
The UK and US met virtually to continue talks on the UK-US economic prosperity deal during November 2025. Discussions included areas across the scope of the EPD set out in the 8 May general terms, including tariffs and non-tariff barriers, digital and services. Constructive talks continued on US section 232 investigations, including pharmaceuticals and heavy trucks.
Thanks to the EPD, the UK remains the only country in the world to benefit from a preferential 25% rate on steel, aluminium and derivative exports to the US, a special 10% tariff on cars, as well as receiving preferential treatment for lumber products, with the lowest tariff rate of any country in the world at 10%. Other countries face tariffs of up to 50%.
The UK and US will continue negotiations across the range of issues outlined in the general terms for the EPD.
The US is the UK’s largest single country trading partner with a trading relationship worth some £331 billion in the 12 months to June 2025. UK firms employ some 1.2 million US workers while 1.4 million people work here in the UK for American companies. We have £1.2 trillion invested in each other’s economies. The EPD will continue to deliver on saving thousands of jobs, protecting key British industries, and helping to drive economic growth.
[HCWS1108]
UK-EU Relations
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
At the first ever UK-EU summit on 19 May, the Government agreed a new strategic partnership with the EU—a partnership to boost the prosperity, safety and security of both our peoples, and to help strengthen Europe-wide defences.
We have made good progress since May, with negotiations ongoing to implement these commitments, including on energy co-operation, youth experience, education, judicial co-operation and law enforcement. In the past fortnight, we also launched negotiations on a food and drink deal and the linking of our carbon markets. Whether it is slashing red tape for business, helping to bring down bills, or deepening co-operation on challenges posed by illegal migration, including action to tackle people smuggling and deepen information sharing, these deals are good for bills, good for our borders and good for jobs.
A key outcome from the summit was the adoption of a new security and defence partnership with the EU, filling a critical gap left in the trade and co-operation agreement between the UK and EU, and enabling us to strengthen our co-operation on a wide range of areas critical to European security. We are working quickly with the EU to implement the partnership and have stepped up our co-operation on key issues such as support to Ukraine, tackling hybrid threats and supporting stability in the western Balkans.
The SDP also unlocked the possibility for enhanced UK participation in the Security Action for Europe instrument. Earlier this autumn, the UK and the EU commenced formal negotiations on a bilateral agreement to facilitate UK participation. The UK entered these negotiations in good faith, recognising our mutual strategic interest and commitment to work with the EU on defence. However, we have not been able to conclude these negotiations with an agreement.
This Government have always been clear that we will only sign agreements that are in the national interest. In this case, we were unable to reach an agreement that passed that test.
While it is disappointing that we have not been able to positively conclude discussions on UK participation in the first round of SAFE, the UK’s defence industry continues to have access to SAFE under standard third country terms. UK companies will be able to participate and benefit from SAFE contracts to provide up to 35% of their content.
International partnerships, including with our European allies, will remain key to delivering our defence industrial strategy. The UK and EU member states are already working closely to strengthen the European defence industrial base. Since this Government took office, we have struck defence agreements across Europe, including the landmark Trinity House agreement with Germany, and the historic Northwood declaration to deepen nuclear co-operation and co-ordination with France, and we will continue this close co-operation.
The UK is already at the heart of European co-operation in the face of rising threats—through one of the largest defence budgets in Europe; unmatched alliances, including through NATO; a world-leading defence industrial base; and iron-clad military and training support to Ukraine.
And we continue to step up on European security, from leading the coalition of the willing for Ukraine to strengthening our relationships with allies.
We will continue to pursue export deals that benefit Britain, and to provide these systems and weaponry and the innovation that helps make Europe safe. In the last year alone we have struck a £10 billion deal with Norway and secured an £8 billion Typhoon agreement with Türkiye.
Yesterday I spoke with EU Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, where I underlined that the UK remains fully committed to continuing our close co-operation with the EU and our European partners, including to strengthen European security and maintain our unwavering support for Ukraine.
We will continue working together in good faith to implement the wider package agreed at the UK-EU summit.
[HCWS1114]
FIFA Women’s World Cup 2035: UK-wide Bid
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
On 3 April 2025, FIFA confirmed that the UK is the sole bidder to host the FIFA women’s world cup 2035. I can now confirm that, on 28 November 2025, the four home nations football associations submitted their joint bid to host the tournament, supported by the UK Government, Scottish Government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive.
The Government are committed to hosting major sporting events with pride and impact, with the FIFA women’s world cup being the largest major sporting event the UK has never previously hosted. As the Prime Minister set out in March 2025, hosting this tournament would provide another monumental moment in our sporting history, driving growth, uniting communities and enhancing the UK’s soft power. With the inclusion of prospective host cities and stadia across England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland within the bid, we will ensure that the socioeconomic benefits of hosting are felt in every corner of the country.
As the largest single sport women’s event in the world, the FIFA women’s world cup would act as the culmination of this Government’s decade of change for women’s and girls’ sport. From our significant investment in new and upgraded grassroots sports facilities, to our independent expert-led review of the curriculum to ensure all children can engage in PE and sport, we are committed to showcasing the UK as a world leader in all aspects of women’s and girls’ sport by 2035.
Following a thorough evaluation process of the UK-wide bid, FIFA congress is expected to make a decision on the hosts for the 2035 tournament in April 2026.
[HCWS1109]
Environmental Improvement Plan 2025
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
Today I am laying the environmental improvement plan 2025 in Parliament. This sets out a road map for improving the natural environment. It explains how this Government will protect and restore our iconic places and wildlife, boost biodiversity, create a circular economy, protect environmental security and improve people’s access to nature. It is a prioritised, systems-based plan that is clear on what, how and who will deliver our environmental ambitions.
The EIP underlines our commitment to delivering the statutory Environment Act 2021 targets. It includes updated interim targets for the next five years that are ambitious and achievable. They span air quality, water, terrestrial and marine biodiversity, and resource efficiency and waste reduction.
To be transparent on the actions required to achieve each target, for the first time we are publishing Environment Act target delivery plans alongside the EIP. The EIP and the delivery plans will be delivered in collaboration with partners including Government Departments and bodies, local authorities, landowners, farmers, private companies, third sector organisations and community groups. These delivery plans will be refined over time as we work collaboratively to support, deliver and monitor the impacts of actions.
Laying the EIP in Parliament and publishing it concludes the statutory review of EIP23. In producing this plan, we have reviewed and improved upon EIP23. In particular, our revised plan:
prioritises actions, moving to a clear framework that sets out how objectives and actions “stack up” to contribute to our environmental outcomes;
sets out who is responsible for delivering actions, across Government and wider society;
provides delivery plans for the Environment Act targets, alongside the EIP;
and includes a clearer framework for monitoring and evaluating progress to improve transparency.
The EIP includes a summary of the EIP review and how this revision responds to it.
This Government have already made significant progress in protecting nature. The EIP will drive forward this momentum and sets out how the Government will, for example:
Restore nature, with stronger interim targets to restore or create a total of 250,000 hectares of a range of wildlife-rich habitats outside protected sites by December 2030, in line with the Government manifesto. Action will be backed by £500 million for landscape recovery alongside funding for tree planting and peatland restoration. This follows announcement of two new national forests backed by £1 billion investment.
Reduce harmful pollutants in the air with revised interim targets to reduce exposure to PM2.5 particles by nearly a third by 2030 compared to 2018 levels. We will consult on new measures to cut emissions from domestic combustion.
Tackle forever chemicals that can harm people and pollute air, land and water. A new PFAS plan will set out how sources, pathways and exposure to forever chemicals will be addressed.
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and ensure resilience of the natural environment to climate change with at least £85 million invested in improving and restoring our peatlands and £1 billion in tree planting.
Take tougher measures on waste crime with stronger penalties to ensure that only the right people transport and manage waste and a digital waste tracking service to modernise record keeping, to tackle waste fraud.
Improve access to nature by completing the King Charles III England coast path next year and publishing a Green Paper on measures to ensure everyone has access to nature close to home.
Our revised plan provides the clarity and detail needed to manage competing pressures on our limited land and water, integrating environmental action with our plan for change to grow the economy, build homes, boost food security and meet climate targets.
Achieving our environmental ambitions requires collective action from individuals, communities, and organisations across all sectors. We look forward to working in partnership to achieve them.
[HCWS1106]
Antarctic Strategy
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The Government are today publishing a UK Antarctic strategy. This sets out the UK’s aims and ambitions for the Antarctic for the next decade.
The strategy brings together the UK’s approach to the Antarctic under a single document for the first time. It outlines the full range of UK interests in Antarctica that shape our engagement in the region, and our priorities looking ahead.
At a time of growing global interest in Antarctica, our approach will see the UK continuing to play an active and leading role in the Antarctic treaty system, upholding our rights and responsibilities and reiterating the importance of international collaboration. We will also safeguard our sovereignty of the British Antarctic Territory, ensuring the effective administration of the territory.
Our long-term strategic objective remains for the Antarctic to be a place dedicated to peace and science, characterised by co-operation.
The UK will focus activity across four areas.
Governance and UK sovereign interests: Antarctic matters are characterised by international co-operation, which the UK will seek to enhance. We also want to celebrate our long-standing connection with Antarctica and why it matters to the UK. The UK will continue to chair the commission for the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources to 2026 and to work with parties on the sustainable management of Antarctic marine resources.
Science: we will continue to invest in our world-leading polar infrastructure, ensuring that the British Antarctic Survey and UK researchers have the platforms they need to carry out the science we all need to protect Antarctica and the UK from the impacts of climate change, including our continued programme of infrastructure work at Rothera research station. The focus of UK science is on climate change, with projects looking at the rate of sea ice loss and glacier retreat, and ongoing work to drill ice cores, which can give a better understanding of a changing climate and the subsequent impacts for the world.
Environmental protection: the UK will continue to advocate for enhanced environmental protection for Antarctica, including for British heritage in the region, working with the UK Antarctic Heritage Trust. We will continue to push for greater protection of Shackleton’s famous ship Endurance, to identify sites for designation as Antarctic specially protected areas, and to advocate for specially protected species status for the iconic emperor penguin.
Ensuring peaceful and lawful use: we will continue to work closely with Antarctic partners to ensure we uphold the principles of the Antarctic treaty system, including the environmental protocol’s ban on commercial mineral resource activity. We will also work with parties on continued negotiations to develop a framework for the management of Antarctic tourism, ensuring it is safe and environmentally responsible, and does not unduly impact the Antarctic environment.
Through this new strategy, the UK will draw on our years of Antarctic experience and expertise to ensure Antarctica remains a continent preserved for peace and science.
We are publishing this strategy on Antarctica Day, which commemorates the signing of the Antarctic treaty in 1959. 66 years after this vital international agreement was signed, the UK is committing further to Antarctica. On this anniversary, we wish all of those working in Antarctica well.
[HCWS1113]
HIV Action Plan
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
I am pleased to announce to the House that today the Government will publish its HIV action plan, setting out how we will achieve our ambition to end HIV transmissions within England by 2030.
We are at a pivotal moment in the fight against HIV.
Over the past two decades in England, the epidemic has been transformed, and in the last five years we have made major progress in prevention, testing, PrEP use and treatment.
However, progress is slowing. New diagnoses fell by 2% from 2023 to 2024, with progress not benefiting all groups equally. For example, in white gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM), diagnoses fell by 11% from 2020 to 2024, but among ethnic minority GBMSM, they increased by 50% over the same time period.
The epidemic we face today is broader and more complex, requiring an equitable, evidence-driven response.
As set out in our 10-year health plan ending HIV transmission is a national priority for this Government, supporting the three major shifts our health system needs: from hospital to community, from treatment to prevention, and from analogue to digital.
The plan I am announcing today has been developed by my Department, in partnership with the UK Health Security Agency and NHS England, and informed through extensive engagement with other Government Departments, local government, voluntary and community sector partners, sexual health stakeholders and—crucially—with people with lived experience.
Our plan sets out a clear framework for action, backed by over £170 million in funding over the next three years.
It focuses on five core themes: prevent, test, treat, thrive and collaborate.
Through these themes, the plan commits to:
Prevent HIV transmission through equitable access to HIV prevention services.
Scale up testing to reduce transmission and protect people’s health.
Rapidly linking and retain people living with HIV in care, ensuring individuals can live healthy lives and cannot pass it on
Address stigma and improve the quality of life for people living with HIV.
Strengthen the healthcare system to improve HIV and wider sexual health.
Importantly, this plan sets out the national, regional and local actions required to accelerate progress and deliver.
It will enable Government, the NHS, UKHSA, local government, academia, industry, the voluntary and community sector, and people living with HIV to work together to engage everyone in prevention, testing and treatment, and to tackle stigma.
I would like to thank the many individuals and organisations who have supported the development of this plan, including community partners and those with lived experience. Their insights have been invaluable in shaping actions that will meet real needs and address health inequalities.
I too am very grateful for the cross-party support that has helped shape this plan and for the foundations we have built this on. Working together in this spirit will be essential to tackling HIV going forward and to reach our ambitions. I urge all members to lend their backing to this plan so we can deliver meaningful change across the country.
[HCWS1107]
Victim Information Requests: Code of Practice
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
For too long police requests for victims’ sensitive records such as medical and counselling notes have been disproportionate during investigations. This has been a particular concern in cases involving rape and serious sexual offences. Unnecessary requests are distressing for victims and delay the investigative process.
The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 introduced duties mandating police and other authorised persons to only request victim information such as medical records when it is necessary and proportionate, and in pursuit of a reasonable line of enquiry. These duties also created special protections for victims’ counselling records, reflecting the highly sensitive nature of these records.
To enable these measures to come into force, the Government have now defined counselling services in regulations under section 44A of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and finalised the accompanying code of practice. Stakeholder feedback informed changes to strengthen the code.
We have defined counselling services broadly for the purposes of these duties. The definition is intended to capture all services, whether remunerated or voluntary, offering psychological, therapeutic or emotional support aimed at improving the service user’s emotional, psychological and mental health. This means that a broad spectrum of victim information will be afforded the higher safeguards outlined above and is intended to protect the privacy and dignity of victims within the criminal justice system. It also supports the Government’s wider commitment to halving the incidence of violence against women and girls over the next decade.
The final code of practice to be brought into force, which includes this definition of counselling services, has been laid before Parliament as a draft. A copy of the Government response to the consultation on the code will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on www.gov.uk.
These new duties will come into force on 12 January 2026.
[HCWS1112]
Local Government Best Value
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
The Government are committed to taking the action necessary to fix the foundations of local government. Today I am updating the House on the steps that we are taking to support two councils to recover and reform: Birmingham city council and Nottingham city council.
Birmingham city council
Today I am publishing the Birmingham commissioners’ third report, alongside my response.
I welcome the commissioners’ assessment of the period since January 2025, in their first report since the start of all-out industrial action in the waste service. The commissioners highlight that the council has made clear, positive progress in key areas. A landmark equal pay framework agreement has been signed, and there has been externally validated improvement in children’s and adult services. These are important steps towards delivering the improvement that residents deserve and are testament to the committed and focused leadership of Councillor John Cotton and his cabinet, with the support of the commissioner team, and the hard work of council staff.
During this period, the council has been managing the impact of continuing industrial action by Unite the union in the council’s waste services. The Government’s priority throughout this industrial dispute is, and has always been, Birmingham’s residents. While industrial action continues to affect waste disposal services at Birmingham city council, in the spring the Government took decisive action, in lockstep with the council, to ensure that waste in the city can be safely and sustainably managed. The result has been to establish a regular, reliable waste collection service despite industrial action. But this new wave of strikes threatens to derail progress for residents. Despite efforts to resolve the dispute by the council, commissioners assess that the ongoing waste dispute has diverted attention away from the vital improvements that the council has been making and slowed progress in key areas. The council still has work to do to move towards financial sustainability and is being hampered by this ongoing issue. Once again, we urge Unite to call off these strikes and end the disruption and misery caused to local people. Unite has acknowledged that, on occasion, behaviour on the picket line during this dispute breached a court order. This behaviour must not be repeated.
The distraction of the waste dispute is deeply disappointing and frustrating for the residents of Birmingham. We have seen again that, due to protest and picketing action relating to a new industrial dispute between Unite and an agency of the council, Birmingham has had to suspend its waste collections today. Further disruption is in no one’s interest. This remains a local issue for employers and the council to deal with in the first instance, but in the interests of Birmingham residents we remain in close contact with commissioners and the council and continue to monitor the situation. Commissioners continue to support the council in its operational response to the ongoing dispute, and in developing much-needed transformation plans for the waste service.
If the council can continue to progress and focus on improving critical areas of risk, we would hope to review the shape and focus of the intervention, with phased reductions at the appropriate time. I have asked Tony McArdle OBE to set out options for that in the next report from the commissioner team, as part of the work he is leading on the intervention exit strategy.
It is vital that the council is able to continue the pace at which it is delivering necessary improvements. I look forward to receiving an update on the steps taken to tackle the remaining risks and the development of an exit plan through the next commissioners’ report.
Nottingham city council
Nottingham has been in intervention since January 2021, and commissioners were appointed in February 2024.
On 21 November 2025, I published the commissioners’ third report, received in August, alongside my response. I am encouraged by the commissioners’ report, which highlights the steady progress being made by the council in delivering its improvement plan. It is reassuring that the council is now showing some “early signs of a shift towards continuous improvement thinking” and that positive changes are beginning to embed. I note that while noting that some key challenges remain. To maintain capacity and oversight until the current directions expire on 22 February 2026, the Secretary of State has made some changes to roles within the existing commissioner team and appointed Sharon Kemp OBE as lead commissioner, with Tony McArdle OBE and Margaret Lee OBE continuing as commissioners.
I look forward to receiving the commissioners’ next report in December and will carefully consider this before determining the next steps for Nottingham.
Conclusion
I am committed to working with these councils to ensure their compliance with the best value duty and the high standards of governance that local residents expect. This Government are working to deliver a consistently fit, legal and decent local government sector that provides good-quality essential services for all residents.
I will deposit in the House Library copies of the documents referred to, which are being published on gov.uk today. I will update the House in due course.
[HCWS1116]
Criminal Legal Aid Solicitor Fees Consultation: Government Response
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
Today I am laying before Parliament the Government’s response to the consultation “Criminal Legal Aid: proposals for solicitor fee scheme reform”.
Criminal legal aid lawyers play a crucial role in our justice system, taking on some of the most complex cases that go through our courts and ensuring the most vulnerable people in society can access justice. The consultation invited responses to fee scheme proposals that would allocate an additional £92 million per annum investment once fully implemented.
The consultation paper was published on 9 May 2025, with proposals that covered work carried out by legal aid providers at police stations, in magistrates’ courts, in the Crown Court, and in prisons.
After considering the responses, we have decided to implement the majority of the proposals put forward. These involve harmonising police station fees, a 10% increase to magistrates’ courts fees—including youth court fees—and a 24% increase to fees for work done in prisons. In line with our initial proposals, we will also increase some litigators’ graduated fee scheme trial basic fees for the lowest paid offences and will introduce a fixed ratio between guilty plea, cracked trial and trial basic fees.
As a result of some of the responses we received during the consultation period, we will be making some changes to our final proposals, so that we can ensure these measures support providers as effectively as possible. We have amended the escape fee threshold in the police station fee scheme to enable more cases to qualify for the fee, and we will additionally uplift fees for all solicitors’ appeals work by 10%.
This significant investment, once fully implemented, means that criminal legal aid solicitors will have received a 24% overall uplift in funding since the criminal legal aid independent review. This investment will support a stronger and more sustainable legal aid sector—one that is fit for the future and retains the brightest and the best practitioners. It is part of this Government’s plan for change to ensure justice is done and our streets are safe.
We announced these fee uplifts in December 2024, before the Legal Aid Agency was subject to a cyber security incident in mid-2025. The LAA has swiftly responded with comprehensive measures designed to maintain access to justice and protect provider cash flow during system disruption. Throughout this disruption, we remain committed to delivering these important uplifts for the sector. We are pleased that we remain on track to deliver on our commitment to invest in the legal aid system.
We intend to bring forward statutory instruments to amend the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013 to reflect the changes and fee increases. Our intention is that the first statutory instrument will come into force from 22 December 2025. This will cover the crime lower fee increases set out in our response, relating to work in police stations, magistrates’ courts, prisons and for some appeals work. A second statutory instrument will be laid as soon as the required changes to uplift fees can be delivered through Legal Aid Agency digital systems. This will cover the crime higher fee increases set out in our response, relating to the LGFS and remaining areas of appeals work.
As well as our investment in criminal legal aid, the Government are also today announcing implementation of our fee uplifts for immigration and housing controlled work in civil legal aid confirmed earlier in the year.
[HCWS1110]
South Sudan
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking with international partners to bring about stable government in South Sudan.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the United Kingdom is deeply concerned by the deteriorating political and security situation in South Sudan. That is why we, alongside our like-minded international partners, continue to urge for an immediate de-escalation of current tensions and a return to an inclusive political dialogue. The transitional Government of South Sudan must engage with regional efforts towards de-escalation, led by IGAD and the African Union, of which the United Kingdom is in support.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I thank the Minister for her reply. The devastating civil war in South Sudan left 400,000 dead and nearly half the population displaced. The 2018 peace agreement was based on power-sharing between Salva Kiir, largely supported by the Dinka people, and Riek Machar, largely supported by the Nuer. But in November, the president sacked his vice-president and a number of his supporters in the Cabinet. What international pressure has been brought to bear to reinstate the vice-president to his position so that civil war may not break out again?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble and right reverend Lord is completely right when he says that the political instability in South Sudan does not in any way help us achieve the lasting peace we need or the implementation of the power-sharing agreement. But we continue to work closely alongside international partners and with our team in Juba to make sure that any processes there might be around the situation that he identified are done properly. We continue to make the case for stability and the inclusive politics that, in the end, will be the key to a peaceful future for South Sudan.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chief executive of United Against Malnutrition & Hunger. In his 3 November report, the Secretary-General of the UN warned that without humanitarian access being restored to all areas, South Sudan risks a full-scale food and nutrition crisis. Can the Minister update the House on whether any progress has been made on humanitarian access and what discussions the Government have had with the South Sudan Government, other warring parties and other influential actors such as the Vatican, the Anglican Church and other AU Governments?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is certainly true that humanitarian access is incredibly challenging and, sadly and devastatingly, we are seeing some of the dynamics of the conflict in Sudan showing themselves in South Sudan as well. The UK has spent £100 million in the last year and over £1 billion since the peace agreement on exactly the kind of work the noble Lord is talking about. While access is undoubtedly challenging, we will continue to work alongside others to try to get the help where it is desperately needed. Our support for the UN peacekeeping mission will be vital in securing that access.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, we had a wonderful and very productive debate last week on Sudan. These issues will continue to impact the people of South Sudan and Sudan. Will the Minister ensure that in any work Britain is doing, we are never again accused of interfering in what the people of Sudan are able to do in any democratic processes? What are our Government doing to ensure that they are talking to regional partners, especially the African Union, as well as the OIC?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
This really matters, and it is good that there is regional leadership to help try to improve the situation. There is no lasting answer to this that does not involve regional and national leadership, which is why we are insistent that the humanitarian and peacekeeping work goes alongside the work on democracy and inclusivity that will, in the end, be what makes the peace in South Sudan. We need a full return to the power-sharing agreement to make sure that the situation can be improved, because in the end, it is the people of South Sudan who suffer the worst of this.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that if we really want to help people in places such as South Sudan escape horrendous conflict and suffering, we need to do something about the runaway arms trade, in which arms are sold to friendly countries and then go on to other countries for crude economic gain? For example, India—the land of Mahatma Gandhi—sells arms to Russia; Russia, in turn, sells arms to Pakistan, again with the possibility of conflict.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We have a very strict regime about arms sales, which includes measures that prevent and rule against diversion. We also keep these things incredibly closely monitored. Noble Lords will know that there is a UN embargo in respect of South Sudan, which we support. I commit to noble Lords that we will continue to work to make sure that our regime is as tightly managed and robust as it can be.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, one of the major concerns in both Sudan and South Sudan is the continuing prevailing nature of sexual violence in conflict. As the Minister has acknowledged several times, the previous Government had a strong and long-standing record on this. With the recent challenges facing the development budget, what assurance can the Minister provide that this issue will remain a priority and a focus, in both Sudan and South Sudan?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is vital that it does, and I commit to the noble Lord that it will. We have the amazing services of my noble and learned friend Lady Harman to support us, hold us to account and offer internal challenge. I have every confidence that she will be able to do that. We need to have specific programming on violence against women and girls, but we also need to mainstream this approach throughout everything we do, so that the needs of women are met through all our activities and are not just left to a specialised team, important though that specialism will remain.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lord, sustaining peace and nurturing democracy often requires a strong civil society. What are our Government doing to nurture and strengthen civil society in South Sudan?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
This is essential. We work through the United Nations and other large organisations, but it is important, especially for communities that are difficult to reach or contexts that are difficult for large organisations to gain access to, that smaller civil society and mutual aid groups are empowered and supported by us in the international community. This way, we are able not only to reach more people but to build a capability, a network, a strength and a set of skills that can do enormous good for years into the future, perhaps after the international activity has reduced.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister said earlier, political stability and inclusive politics are important for the future of Sudan to improve the dreadful situation there. The previous Foreign Secretary advised, or encouraged, all Britons to leave Sudan if it was safe for them to do so. Has the department assessed how many Britons remain in South Sudan and has it begun planning any necessary support should the situation deteriorate?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Thankfully, we live in a free country and our citizens, sometimes in their wisdom, despite the best efforts of the Foreign Office and the advice given by it, decide to go anyway, so we do not hold numbers on how many British citizens are in any particular place. But we will of course make sure that the expected, necessary consular support is available to any British citizen, wherever they happen to be in the world.
Lord Hain (Lab)
Will the Minister say what discussions are taking place with the United Arab Emirates Government about their role in Sudan and South Sudan, which is quite malevolent?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We continue to encourage all those with any influence over any of the warring parties in Sudan, or the Government or Opposition in South Sudan, to make sure that that influence, whether it is financial or comes in the form of weapons, is used in a way that encourages dialogue, de-escalation and, ultimately, peace.
AIDS
Lord Fowler
To ask His Majesty’s Government, in the light of World Aids Day 2025, when they estimate that the goal of eliminating AIDS as a public health threat will be reached.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the global response to HIV and AIDS has seen outstanding achievements, with infections up to 40% lower globally than in 2010. But, despite this, our work is not done. The UK Government remain firmly committed to eliminating AIDS as a public health threat, and we are proud to continue our support to the organisations at the forefront of the HIV response, including the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, whose eighth replenishment we co-hosted, alongside South Africa and UNAIDS.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Today on World AIDS Day, we acknowledge the radical reduction that there has been in deaths from AIDS over past years, with deaths reducing worldwide from 1.4 million a year in 2010 to the present total of around 630,000. I hope that we will also acknowledge the terrible irony that, in spite of this success and in spite of the breakthrough with new drugs, nations, led regrettably by the United States but including others such as Britain, are cutting their overseas budgets. Surely, we will not be forgiven if we reject the exceptional opportunity we have now to eradicate AIDS as a public health threat as quickly as humanly possible.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We would not be forgiven, but that is not what we are doing. We are now the third-biggest contributor to the Global Fund, which is the world’s leading mechanism for fighting AIDS, TB and malaria, and we have continued to fund UNAIDS. We work through Unitaid and with the Robert Carr Fund. The UK is doing everything that it can, internationally and domestically, to fight HIV and AIDS. We must not forget the work that we are doing to fight against the rollback of LGBT rights, the absence of which does so much harm to prevention and promotes the stigmatisation that leads to people being unable to access their treatment. I respect the incredible work that the noble Lord has done over very many years and I look forward to continuing to be held to account by him on this vital issue.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I refer to my registered interests, particularly as a patron of the Terrence Higgins Trust. Today, on World AIDS Day, we remember those, some of them friends, whom we lost to HIV-related illnesses, and how very different the world might have been had they survived those dark times. So today I ask: domestically, what provisions will the Government undertake to ensure that people living with HIV who subsequently go into residential social care do not face stigma and discrimination because of their HIV status or associated status?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That would be a fascinating question to put to my colleague the Health Minister, but the issue the noble Lord raises is really important, because it speaks to the point about stigmatisation and awareness, and about the amazing fact—which, 20 or 30 years ago, would not have been the case—that so many people now live incredibly long, fulfilling and healthy lives. I have many friends with HIV and I am sure that, one day—they might not want to talk about this—they will be looking at the prospect of being in some kind of care facility. It is vital that that stage of their life can be lived with dignity and in as fulfilling a way as possible. There is no reason whatever that their HIV status should be an impediment to that, and the Government will work to do whatever they need to do to make sure that that is the case.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, the decision of the United States Government to end, almost without notice, funding to many multilateral programmes for HIV and AIDS has destroyed medical and scientific research networks across the world, particularly in Africa, and they cannot be rebuilt. Our Government have agreed to continue to fund the Global Fund, for which we are most grateful, but it is important that we continue to fund Unitaid and Robert Carr, so that emerging technologies for prevention and treatment can be scaled up quickly. Will the Government commit to maintaining that intervention?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We absolutely can commit to continuing to fund those organisations. I cannot give numbers at the moment—we are working through the specific allocations at the moment—but the noble Baroness makes a really strong case, which I hear. The fact that we are backing the Global Fund to the extent that we are shows the Government’s intentions on this issue.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, as a junior Minister back in the 1980s, responsible for health in Scotland, I was acutely aware of the wonderful work of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, in leading the campaign. In those days, it was an absolute death sentence. One reason we need to think very carefully about the support provided now is that it is about not just drugs but education and tackling prejudice, particularly in those countries that are most vulnerable and most affected. So I join with him in urging the noble Baroness to continue that work in supporting those who are spreading education against prejudice and encouraging people to be made aware of the treatments that are possible for this dreadful disease, which still kills so many people in our world.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That was a point very well made and I thank the noble Lord for making it. I am told by my good friends at Terrence Higgins that the rollback of rights and the absence of education is as big a problem to them as many other issues that we face. Our network around the world works hard on this as well. On rights, I have never seen such pride in an ambassador’s face as when they tell me that they have conducted a same-sex wedding in their ambassador’s house in the capital city of a country where this is not permitted more generally. They are very proud of that. Things such as that speak to the UK’s unwavering support for this agenda, which I do not think will ever diminish.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, one of the most tragic consequences of AIDS remains children who lose both their parents at a very young age and often end up in an orphanage. We were talking in the House just last week about some of the challenges of orphanages. What is the Government’s plan to support children who have been left orphaned as a result of AIDS?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is a tragedy, as the right reverend Prelate said. The former Foreign Secretary David Lammy felt incredibly strongly about this and had an initiative to support the care of orphaned children in family settings. He was working with many Governments around the world to do this. This is something, from the last conversation I had with him about it, he intends to maintain and continue to champion as Deputy Prime Minister.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, on World AIDS Day, would the noble Baroness join me in paying tribute to all those worldwide who care for people with HIV, who often have very complex health needs? Doctors, nurses and health professionals who work in very special places, such as the Ian Charleson Day Centre at the Royal Free Hospital, used to minister to the dying but now care for the living. Are we not in their debt?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We really are, and what the noble Lord said is absolutely right. We should pay tribute to those who care and those who innovate, including the scientists who are finding new treatments that are making such a difference. It really is a joy to know not just that so many of our friends and those we love will live long, happy lives, but also that they are happy to share this and talk about it openly. This is something, again, that I do not think we would have seen in the past. It is such a wonderful improvement.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate—as I am sure the whole House does—the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, on the work he has done over many years on this subject. Domestically, I understand that 5% of people living with HIV do not know their status. What does this mean as a whole throughout the whole world? How many people do not know? With medication available, and not at a great expense, can the Minister say what we are doing, internationally and nationally, to try to make people more aware of their status, so they can get this very useful treatment?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is such an important point. Noble Lords will have heard the announcement from my right honourable friend Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, this morning about opt-out testing, which addresses exactly the issue the noble Earl referred to. Internationally, this is a real problem. A lot of this goes hand in hand with the issue we have already discussed around stigmatisation. We will work with partner Governments and all agencies that we can to try to address this because, as the noble Earl said, not knowing can be deadly for yourself and others.
Walking, Wheeling and Cycling Paths
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pidgeon
To ask His Majesty’s Government what support they are providing to increase the number of walking, wheeling and cycling paths across the country.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, in the spending review, the Government allocated £616 million for Active Travel England from 2026 to 2030 to support local authorities to build and maintain walking and cycling infrastructure. Revenue funding details will follow very soon. This is in addition to the almost £300 million for 2025-26 we announced in February, which included £30 million for the Walk Wheel Cycle Trust, formerly Sustrans, to deliver improvements to the national cycle network.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I welcome the Minister’s Answer, but can I push him, as part of the Government’s strategy development, to mandate public rights of way for walking, wheeling and cycling alongside new railway lines, as well as improving existing railway active travel routes, transforming more disused railway lines into public rights of way?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Local highway authorities are responsible for public rights of way and are required to keep a rights of way improvement plan. Where opportunities exist to bring historical routes into use for walking, wheeling or cycling, local authorities must decide how to integrate them into their active travel networks. The Government have announced their intention to remove the 2031 cut-off date for recording unregistered historic rights of way so that routes can continue to be identified, protected and enjoyed. I think the noble Baroness will know that, in respect of new railway lines and particularly HS2, there are plans to use the line of route for walking and cycling paths.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, in Holland, 55% of cyclists are women. In this country it is less than half that, at 25%, so what are the Government doing to encourage more women to enjoy the benefits of cycling?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I hesitate to speak in front of such a well-known cyclist as the noble Lord. The answer to that question is to make cycling both more convenient and safer. There are a whole range of measures, including those set out in my two previous responses, to make cycling a more general feature. Of course, safety is a particular issue, which is why investment is needed in making dedicated cycle paths and in cycling on the highways, which are both important. There are a whole range of measures, many of which will no doubt come up in the next eight minutes, about safety, the Highway Code and all those things, in order to get a much better gender balance in cycling, which the noble Lord is absolutely right to raise.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, while the Minister is on this subject, can he update the House on what action has been taken against cyclists who dangerously ride their bikes around the country, often causing damage to the general public?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend will know that this is not the first time this subject has been raised in this House. A variety of actions need to be taken, including enforcement, which is of course the responsibility of chief police officers. But he will also note that, in the new Crime and Policing Bill, the Government are proposing new provisions intended to tackle the rare instances where a cyclist’s behaviour is so dangerous or careless that it results in the death or serious injury of another road user, and to treat that with the appropriate seriousness, in the same way as any other road user would be treated.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, is there a plan to put in new permitted development rights for cycle, wheel and walking routes? That could be done quite easily by changing existing regulations. Allowing these paths to go ahead is crucial for human health.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
All too frequently, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, wants to answer the questions for me; she is very welcome to. The question about permitted development rights is, I think, a blind alley, but I will take some advice and write to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about it. What we are talking about is making this easy and economical to do. My Answer demonstrated that the Government are putting money into this activity for local transport authorities and giving them the opportunity to develop their plans. I will take some advice to see whether the noble Baroness’s suggestion is something that I should write to her about.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister update us on the review of floating bus stops, which are truly democratic in that they are lethal for everybody?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord was active on this subject during the passage of what became the Bus Services Act. I am delighted to tell him that my colleague in the other place, the Minister for Roads and Buses, has now written to every local transport authority in England about floating bus stops. I committed in this House to a pause on the particularly difficult design of those that require passengers to board from or alight directly into a cycle track. My colleague has now written to all local authorities to say that there should be a pause on design while we work with interested parties on a better and more satisfactory design.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, at this time of year, the thoughts of many of us, like those of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, turn away from active travel and towards the bus. Much cycle infrastructure that has been installed has inhibited bus journeys and contributed to deteriorating journey times. Does the Minister think that the powers on transport to be devolved to local authorities in the English devolution Bill will make this situation better or worse, and why?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord certainly knows about that, because during his time working for the erstwhile Mayor of London, he and the Mayor of London directed me, as the commissioner of transport, to take out more road space for the benefit of cyclists than probably anybody has ever done in London. It certainly is the case that on some occasions that design has reduced bus service speeds, with a detrimental effect on overall journey times. The answer is to give local transport authorities the powers, the money and the training to do the job correctly. Another thing that has been mentioned here before is the additional money for training for local transport authority officers so that the design of cycle lanes, as part of the general highways network, is a benefit to cyclists without being too much of a detriment to other traffic, especially buses.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Further to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Watts, we all know, and the Minister knows, that if a motorist goes through a red light, there are consequences, whether that is points on the licence, fines or maybe increased insurance costs. Can the Minister remind the House what penalties accrue to cyclists when they go through red lights?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The first thing to say is that the Highway Code tells cyclists to behave properly on the road. Enforcement of the Highway Code is up to chief police officers; it is not our job to tell them what to police. When there is enforcement, compliance is much greater—and what we are seeking here is not penalties but compliance. It ought to be safe to cycle and drive, and it ought especially to be safe for pedestrians, particularly those with disabilities, to cross the road when the traffic lights are red.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
Can the Minister comment on the fact that the Government’s consultation for the new cycling and walking investment strategy for England does not set any specific targets to increase those modes of transport, and there are no KPIs to make it more inclusive for people with disabilities, for example? Will the Minister ensure that the final strategy addresses those concerns? If it does not, we will not see the action we need.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right that currently there are no targets, but the consultation on the third cycling and walking investment strategy, which started on 3 November and runs till 15 December, is wide-ranging and will inform the next strategy, which runs from 2025 to 2030. As part of that, we will consider what targets need to be established, for precisely the reason that she gives.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, are there any plans to increase the number of bridle paths as well? The roads are becoming ever more dangerous for horse riders—and I declare my interest as a horse rider.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I believe that the responsibility of local highway authorities, so long as the bridle path is a public right of way, means that, as I said in my supplementary answer, they are required to keep a rights of way improvement plan. There is a responsibility on local highway authorities to consider the proper establishment of bridle paths. As I have said before, the Government announced their intention to remove the present 2031 cut-off date for recording unregistered historic rights of way, so I advise the noble Baroness that, if she knows of ones that are well used but not registered as rights of way, now is the time to put that right.
Small Farms
The Lord Bishop of Hereford
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that agricultural policies improve the profitability and long-term viability of small farming enterprises.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, we have allocated £11.8 billion this Parliament to sustainable farming and food production, targeting public money where it delivers most value. We are making supply chains fairer to ensure that farmers, particularly smaller farmers who can be most exposed to market pressures, are protected in their contracts, while unlocking new markets for British produce. We are reviewing the profitability review recommendations from the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, and developing our 25-year farming road map for England.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford
I thank the Minister for his Answer. Farming is a long-term business, and long-term strategic planning is necessary for profitability. Yet we have seen over the course of the past 18 months the devastating effect of the withdrawal of the sustainable farming incentive and the very serious effects of the changes in APR and BPR on long-term planning. While it is welcome that the sustainable farming incentive will be reopened in the first half of 2026, we still as yet have no details of what that initiative will be. Can the Minister let the House know when the details will be released?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for his question. He is right to say that the Government are committed to farming, food security and nature recovery through a number of different environmental and land management schemes, including the sustainable farming incentive. He will be aware that the current scheme was closed last March, but it is fair to say that all agreements agreed to under previous iterations of the scheme are still live. It pays farmers to adopt and maintain sustainable farming practices that can protect and enhance the natural environment, alongside food production, and support farm productivity. We are determined to get this right. It is worth noting that only 40,000 of a potential 100,000 farming businesses took up the scheme under previous iterations, so it is really important that we get it right. We are determined to ensure that every farmer takes a look at the new scheme when we do, and we will obviously keep the House updated as to its publication.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
It is the turn of the Conservative Benches.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does the noble Lord share my concern that, on the figures I have, 6,365 agriculture businesses have closed in the last year? That is the highest number of businesses to close in farming since 2017. Will he bring forward SFI to new entrants as a matter of urgent priority? Payments under the basic farm payment scheme in England are going down much faster than anyone envisaged, and this is causing real hardship for those who farm in the hills and dales of northern England.
Lord Katz (Lab)
Of course, the Government share concern when any farming business closes, which is why we are backing farmers to be more profitable and unlocking the full potential of the rural economy, making sure there is business stability and clarity so that they can invest with confidence. That is why we very much welcome the work that the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, did on profitability. We will align that with other strategies, such as the land use strategy, as we unveil this once-in-a-generation farming road map that should cover the next 25 years of agriculture. It is important to understand that over half of England’s farmland, more than 50,000 farm businesses, are already benefiting from our investment in environmental land management schemes, not just SFI but the Countryside Stewardship and landscape recovery schemes. It is important that we get the balance right between restoring nature and having productive farming.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister share with the House any analysis in advance of last week’s Budget to explain how the Government reached the conclusion that freezing income tax thresholds and raising the national living wage and national insurance costs, with only a modest tweak to inheritance tax, will avoid further existential threats to the viability of so many small family farms? If the Minister has that analysis, will he be willing to publish it?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question. To be clear, I do not know whether the Treasury has done precisely that analysis, but I can say that at the Budget last week, the Chancellor announced that any unused allowance for the 100% rate of agricultural property relief and business property relief will be transferable between spouses and civil partners from 6 April next year. We have taken this action after listening to feedback from many stakeholders who called strongly for the change to planned reforms to reduce complexity and remove an unfairness for widows and widowers. This change will double the tax-free allowance for agricultural business property available to estates of those widowed before 6 April 2026. It is worth pointing out that almost three-quarters of estates claiming agricultural property relief, including those that also claim business property relief, are not expected to pay more tax as a result of the changes in 2026-27, based on the latest available data.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the farming pattern in Wales is very different from that in the majority of England? Most farmers may be capital rich but are income poor, with average incomes under £25,000 a year. In these circumstances, will the Government either exempt all agricultural holdings from capital gains tax where they are transferred from family to family for an ongoing agricultural purpose, or enable Senedd Cymru to introduce a new agricultural taxation system in Wales to safeguard our traditional family farms?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. It is probably a little outside my bailiwick to talk about changing the devolution settlement with the Senedd. To reassure him, we are working with farmers in all parts of the country and in all farming sectors to ensure that they have fairer, more equitable supply chains, which is of course a really important factor in ensuring that businesses are viable. We have already introduced fair dealing regulations for pig and dairy farmers to ensure that small businesses are treated fairly in their contractual dealings with large buyers. We are currently developing those regulations in other sectors, such as the milk/dairy sector, and I can tell him that the egg sector regulations are well advanced: we are getting cracking with it.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, in March 2023 this House passed the precision editing Bill, which allowed the release of modified organisms, plants and animals into the environment, specifically to help farmers, including small farmers—particularly with plants—to make profit. Many scientists felt, as I did, that this was a risky process, and it is still under review. This March, nine months ago, the Government announced that they were going to do some tests to see what the risk of mutations and other things might be with such plants. Can the Minister please update us on the current situation?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. I will have to write him with the details of the review. Agritech and engineering biology, such as precision breeding, are frontier growth sectors, which is why they were put in the Government’s industrial strategy that was published in June this year. We have a clear vision to make the UK the best place in the world to start growing and investing in agritech, in a safe and scientifically responsible way. To date, the farming innovation programme has supported almost 300 projects, which include a wide range of interesting uses of new technology that will benefit small farmers particularly, whether it is bio-derived fungicides, monitoring tools for dairy cow welfare or equipment to help maximise strawberry yields.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, last week BBC “Countryfile” broadcast an interview with an 82 year-old farmer who said he had considered suicide in direct response to the Government’s family farm tax. Given that the Budget makes clear the Government’s intention to press ahead regardless with a tax that dwarfs profitability, will the Minister commit to recording and publishing in a timely manner the number of farmers and family business owners who commit suicide in the run-up to April next year when the rules change? I refer the House to my registered interest as a farmer.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, this is a subject of the utmost seriousness. I cannot commit to publishing data without understanding that the data is available to be published in a correct and statistically reliable format. This is something that the Government take very seriously. The noble Lord will be aware that, since May 2024, Defra has funded the farmer welfare grant, which provides half a million pounds to support charity projects focused on improving the mental health and well-being of farmers in England. That fund runs until next March; we are currently evaluating how it works to see whether it is possible to extend and expand this fund post 2026.
In the wider NHS, we have hired 8,500 new mental health support workers, which will help access for anyone in distress. It is important that we do not politicise mental health issues across society, particularly when we have sectors that are impacted by it. This Government stand behind their farming sector. We understand that the changes that we had to make in last year’s Budget, which we have ameliorated in this year’s Budget, are tough on farming businesses, but it is important that we make decisions that put farming on a firm footing and are fair by the public finances.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, following my earlier question, I wish to ensure that my interests in matters regarding agriculture, which are in the register, are drawn to the attention of the House.
Sentencing Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sandhurst
“Whole life order: murder of a police or prison officer(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph 2 of Schedule 21 (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence for murder etc), in sub-paragraph (2)(c), after “duty,”, insert “or if the motivation for the murder was connected to the police officer or prison officer’s current or former duties,”.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would expand the circumstances in which it is appropriate to apply a whole life order for murdering a prison or police officer, to include murder motivated by the victim’s current or former duties.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce the second day of Committee on the Sentencing Bill. Amendment 51, in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie, proposes a targeted and necessary change to Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act, dealing with the Sentencing Code. Its purpose is straightforward: to ensure that, where a police or prison officer is murdered because of or in retaliation for their current or former duties, that murder automatically falls within the highest sentencing category—that is, one where a whole-life order is available and, ordinarily, appropriate.
At present, Schedule 21 refers to murders committed “in the course of” the victim’s duty. Those words are too narrow. We suggest that the provision was intended to capture the most egregious attacks on those who serve the public in roles that inherently expose them to danger. However, the phrase
“in the course of … duty”
in the statute has, in practice, been interpreted by the courts in a restrictive manner, excluding cases where an officer is murdered because of, in retaliation for or in consequence of their earlier performance of their official duties—for example, when a murder takes place a while later, after service has ended.
This amendment would correct that anomaly by inserting the essential clarification that, where the motivation for the murder is connected to the officer’s current or former duties, the case will fall within the highest sentencing category. That is legally coherent and morally necessary. Motive is already a well-recognised component of sentencing. It is taken into account in terrorism offences, hate crimes, witness intimidation and organised crime retaliation. It is therefore entirely consistent with the existing principle that the deliberate targeting of an officer because he or she carried out their duty should be regarded as an aggravating feature of the utmost severity.
This amendment would not create a new offence. It would not broaden the law on homicide or interfere with the Law Commission’s wider review. With precision and exclusively, it would ensure that the statutory scheme reflects Parliament’s clear and settled understanding that to murder a police officer or prison officer simply for having done their job is among the gravest crimes known to our law.
Let me speak plainly. We have seen the consequences of the existing drafting. The tragic case of former prison officer Lenny Scott revealed the gap starkly. Lenny Scott, whose widow and father I and others met last week, carried out his duties with integrity in HM Prison Altcourse, Liverpool. In March 2020, he discovered an illegal phone in the hands of a prisoner. He was offered but refused a bribe to turn a blind eye. He duly reported it, and, as a result, not only was the prisoner discovered to have had a phone but it was discovered that he had been having an affair with a woman prison officer—which was pretty serious, if you think about it. For that simple act of professionalism, Lenny received explicit threats at the time that he would be seen to. Those threats were graphic. They contained details about the appearance of his twin boys, who were no older than six years old.
Some years later, on 8 February 2024, after Lenny had left the Prison Service, those threats were put into practice. He was hunted down and murdered—shot as he left a gym class, in a planned act of revenge. It was a murder directly and unequivocally connected to the past performance of his duties. This was a gangland execution intended to punish Lenny for doing his duty and not giving way to what had been asked of him, and to terrify and intimidate other prison officers into doing gangsters’ bidding in the future. Because this crime did not occur in the course of his duty but a couple of years later, the statutory framework failed to treat it as the kind of murder for which Parliament provides the highest penalty and the judge therefore did not pass a whole-life order. This is a clear loophole in the legislation, and I look to the Minister to put it right. How many more Lennies will there be?
Serving officers in prisons and in the police force must know that there is the added protection of whole-life-order deterrence after they have left as well as when they are in active service. How many serving or former officers walk our streets knowing that they will remain potential targets long after they take off the uniform, and knowing that under the law as presently interpreted, their killers may not face the penalty that Parliament intended for those who attack innocent public servants?
We cannot undo the tragedy that happened to Lenny Scott and his family, nor repair the pain, but we can ensure that the law is changed. We can ensure that the sentencing framework recognises that the risks to officers do not end when their shift finishes and certainly do not disappear when they have left the force. When a murder is motivated and driven by the officer’s service, the seriousness, risk and moral culpability are exactly the same. This is a plain gap in the legislation as currently drafted, and it must be closed immediately.
It is very disappointing that this amendment was opposed by the Government on Report in the other place. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats together were in rare agreement on this amendment. I urge the Minister not to oppose it.
This amendment is modest in drafting but deep in its importance. It transcends political fault lines. I suggest that there is no reason why any noble Lords should oppose it. It simply makes no sense that a whole-life order can be imposed for the murder of a prison officer while he is a serving prison officer and while he is at work, but not if he is killed on the weekend with his family. This amendment would restore coherence to the statutory scheme and protects those who seek to protect us. I commend it to the Committee.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great honour to have the opportunity to speak for the Government during the second day in Committee on the Sentencing Bill. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for drawing attention to this important topic, which I have carefully considered.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Can the Minister deal with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, made on the amendment’s proposed provision acting as a deterrence so as to prevent further intimidation of serving prison officers in the Prison Service now?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
What happened to Lenny Scott is absolutely appalling, and we need to ensure that we do all we can so that no other prison officers, or previously serving prison officers, have the same fate. We want to work with the Law Commission and to take away the points raised by the noble Lord to discuss them with colleagues. What is important is that we ensure that the public are protected from the people who commit these terrible crimes.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I shall be reasonably brief. Amendment 51 is simple, precise and entirely consistent with established principles of sentencing. It does not create a new offence and, with respect, it does not pre-empt the Law Commission’s broader review. Instead, it addresses a real gap—and, with respect, we do not need the Law Commission to decide whether there is a gap here. Prison officers in particular need this protection. We have seen the tragic consequences, and this is the sort of threat that we are likely to see more of, not less.
We look to the Minister for assurances on this. Otherwise, it will come back on Report. It must be accepted that murdering a police officer or prison officer because of or in the course of their duty is one of the gravest crimes imaginable. The law should reflect this, not simply to punish but to deter. It must deal with and deter against calculated acts of revenge against former officers. Gangland people will learn about this. It will get about in prison. They will know. It will go down the network.
This amendment is significant for the men and women who carry out with integrity the difficult and demanding work of protecting our streets and looking after—I use that phrase advisedly—the prisoners under their care. It is important that we reassure and encourage them. We want the best people to serve in our prisons. We do not want recruitment to be handicapped. What message will it send out if the Government say, “Oh well, if you’re shot down two years later, that doesn’t count. We’ve got to hope that the judge gets it right”? We must provide the right protections throughout the careers of these officers and beyond. We have the opportunity today to close that gap.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment for now, but it remains very much on the table.
Baroness Hamwee
“Rehabilitative programmes for offences relating to violence against women and girls (1) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the potential benefits of creating mandatory rehabilitative programmes regarding healthy relationships for individuals sentenced for offences when the victim is a woman or girl.(2) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the day on which this Act is passed, lay a copy of the assessment under this section before Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the potential benefits of creating mandatory rehabilitative programmes about healthy relationships for those sentenced to offences where the victim is a woman or girl.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 52 would provide for the Secretary of State to make an assessment of the benefits of mandatory rehabilitative programmes regarding healthy relationships for individuals sentenced for offences when the victim is a woman or girl and to lay a copy of that assessment before Parliament. I declare an interest as a trustee of Safer London, a charity which works with young Londoners affected by, or at risk of, violence and exploitation. Among these are young Londoners who display harmful sexual behaviours. Often, they may not have a full understanding of their actions, where their behaviours may stem from or that they themselves need support.
I am under no illusion that an intervention is likely to be quick or easy. These are young or not so young people who have had no role model or a bad role model, who may be neurodiverse, who may be resistant to relevant specialist treatment and support. They may not understand what a healthy relationship is like. They may believe that what is harmful is what a girl or woman wants. The picture over recent years has become further confused by what they see online or on social media. I am under no illusion that this is easy, but it is important. A Bill seeking to reduce reoffending is just the place where this kind of action should be taken. I am not asking for such programmes immediately, though it is good if there are some that can be accessed. However, I would like to see put into the public domain an assessment of the benefits of programmes such as this.
The other amendments in this group are in the name of the Conservative Front Bench. They seem to focus largely on the number of rehabilitation activity days. The number of days is a factor, but it is neither the first factor nor the only one; the content of rehabilitative activity and the reasons for that are more important. In other words, the approach should be more reasoned and nuanced than these amendments might suggest.
I beg to move.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, these amendments, many of which are in my name—Amendments 53, 54 and so on—address the Government’s proposal to transfer a significant element of sentencing discretion from the courts to probation practitioners: determining the number of rehabilitation activity days under community orders and suspended sentence orders. The amendments seek not to frustrate reform, although, as we made clear on our first day in Committee, we oppose the changes. They are intended to ensure that, if such powers are to be reallocated to the probation officer or practitioner from the judges, they are supported and buttressed by the same principled framework of accountability, transparency and procedural safeguards that have underpinned judicial discretion through the years.
The constitutional architecture of this country has long rested on the independence and authority of our judiciary. Sentencing is a judicial function and the product of reasoned evaluation of seriousness, culpability, risk and proportionality. Judges exercise that responsibility transparently, in open court and subject to appellate review. These protections exist because sentencing is a public act in which legitimacy rests on visible fairness. Society, represented by the third limb of the constitution—the judiciary—is passing sentence on outlaws and criminal offenders.
Clauses 11 and 12 would shift this discretion from judges to probation practitioners. Probation professionals are dedicated and skilled, of course, but they were never intended to assume quasi-judicial responsibilities. The Government may describe this as flexibility, but flexibility cannot become a veil for judicial discretion exercised behind closed doors without consistency or oversight. If probation offices are to take on direct decision-making powers that influence the substance of a sentence, proper safeguards must apply; the Bill, we submit, contains none.
Amendment 53 would therefore require the Secretary of State to establish, by regulation, clear national criteria governing how rehabilitation activity days are to be determined. Decisions of such consequence must not depend on local practice, staffing pressures or administrative expediency; in these straitened financial times, I emphasise “staffing pressures or administrative expediency”. Judges operate within well-established frameworks. Probation practitioners should not be left to improvise.
Amendment 54 would require written reasons for the determination of rehabilitation days. Giving reasons is a cornerstone of fairness. Offenders must personally understand what is required of them. Victims must be able to trust the process, and the courts must be able to review what is being done in their name.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I will be brief. At Second Reading, I drew attention to my real concern about the potential lack of resources, in terms of both personnel and finances, to deliver all of the things contained in this Bill. Therefore, it seems very important to me that, as we go forward, we are collecting as much data as possible as the Bill beds in—information on what sort of support requirements are needed to help prevent people re-offending, on what help is being provided and on how much of that provided help is actually being taken up. I look at Amendments 56 and 58 in this group, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, as very good examples illustrating the need to collect this sort of data. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Hamwee has Amendment 58A in the next group, and, when we get to group 7, there are two amendments from me—Amendments 131 and 133—that would have the same effect.
So, across the Committee, there is clearly concern about gathering information as we move forward. It would be helpful and save time in later deliberations if the Minister when he responds could give the broad thrust of the Government’s view on this particular issue.
I end with a point made by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who said that it is very clear that not only should we gather this data but we should have some explanation behind the data. For example, we may well have a situation where an offender, in prison or on a non-custodial sentence, is expected to do a number of days of education or skills work yet does not do that amount. The question is, why is that?
Well, from my knowledge of what happens in prison, it is certainly the case that a number of prisoners do not fulfil the required number of days simply because classrooms and staff are not available. I also know that in prisons it is often the case that prisoners get notified of an available slot for their education after that slot’s work has already started. So, my noble friend is absolutely right that, in addition, we must collect information about the availability of resources that are not being taken up.
Finally, speaking as chair of your Lordships’ Justice and Home Affairs Committee, I say that we have come to the very clear conclusion that we do not like the use of “rehabilitation” and think the public would find it easier to understand if we talked about “activities designed to reduce reoffending”.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, explained very well some of the reasons why this group of amendments is so important. I note, as somebody who is a fan of rehabilitation—although I quite like the rebranding that has just been suggested—that the truth of the matter is that what passes for rehabilitation, certainly in prison, is often shoddy, not available or not up to scratch. By the way, that is not a criticism of the people trying to deliver it. It is for all sorts of reasons.
I am very keen that we think hard about what kind of rehabilitation is being offered in the community. I just cannot see how, even with a pledge to invest £700 million more into probation services, the Government can deliver what is in the Bill. This is part of the problem I have with some of the suggestions around rehabilitating people via community sentences. I am worried that rehabilitation and community sentences will be discredited if this goes wrong. The amendments are trying very hard to ensure compliance and that sentences are completed, and that the victims and the whole of the community and society understand what they are trying to do. That is why these amendments are crucial.
I want to state very clearly that community sentences are criminal sentences. They are not supposed to be a soft option. They have to be taken as stringently and seriously as if you put somebody in prison. If somebody is put in prison and they escape—however that might occur—we think that they are trying to escape justice. My concern is that, if we do not have the resources, or do not keep our eyes on ensuring that community sentences happen properly, that is escaping justice. Therefore, it has to be taken very seriously.
I have some concerns about Amendment 52 in relation to mandatory “healthy relationships” courses. I have some cynicism that the way to solve the problem of violence against women and girls is through education. I have a certain dread of the kind of excuse being, “Well, you know, I committed that offence because I didn’t know that consent was needed. I wouldn’t have done the rape if I’d been sent on a good course”. I hesitate to say this, but some people are violent against women and girls because they despise women and girls: it is not a question of having sent them on a well-resourced course.
I have heard an awful lot of excuses in recent years from people who say, “I wouldn’t be a sex offender if only this had happened”. Well, you would not have been a sex offender if you had not committed the offence of sexual assault. So I do not want this to be an excuse for letting those largely male perpetrators off the hook.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hamwee has spoken to our amendment, which would require the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the potential benefits of mandatory healthy relationship rehabilitation programmes for offenders sentenced to offences against women and girls. We have heard the Minister talk many times about the Government’s target of halving violence against women and girls during the course of the Parliament. That is a target we completely support.
The area of relationship education is a difficult one, but we have evidence that education in healthy relationships helps to address unhealthy preconceptions and outdated—what some used to call “chauvinistic”—attitudes in young men. Sometimes those attitudes spill into offending, and my noble friend was entirely right to talk of harmful sexual behaviours. She also spoke about what young men in particular see and experience online, and how they take encouragement from that to do sometimes unspeakable things.
The question of rehabilitation for sentenced offenders is whether education would address this. I accept that making such programmes mandatory is not easy, but doing so would or might emphasise their importance. I hear the cynicism expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about education for healthy relationships, but we have seen how relationship education in schools encourages healthier attitudes among pupils and greater understanding among young people of the concept of consent, as against the concepts of violence and force. I suggest that, for offenders who commit these offences, education would have the same beneficial effect, particularly if it is combined with a sentence for the offender, whether that is a custodial sentence or a community order. An assessment of that beneficial effect would be entirely beneficial.
In a sense, of course, this is a probing amendment, because we encourage the Government to make the position clear. We hope they will adopt the spirit of the amendment in any event, and that the Minister will commit the Government to undertaking such an assessment of the place of healthy relationship education, but we note that the amendment is also supported by the Opposition Front Bench.
I turn to the rest of the group. Amendments 53 to 55 and 57 would impose extra directions to the probation officers and impose burdens on them as regards the nature of the arrangements they make for rehabilitative activity and the flexibility they have in adjusting those activities.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
As noble Lords know, I have devoted much of my life and career to criminal justice reform, in particular, how to reduce reoffending. Because of this, I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Amendments 52 to 58.
On Amendment 52 on violence against women and girls, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, this is a serious and complex challenge that demands co-ordinated action. HMPPS works closely with partners to manage risk, protect victims and reduce harm through evidence-based interventions. For more than three decades, HMPPS has led in developing programmes that address attitudes and behaviours linked to offending, alongside specialist psychological support and community tools. Guided by the principles of effective practice, these services target those at medium or high risk, ensuring that resources are focused where they make the greatest impact. We are always considering research findings that we can learn from which show us what reduces reoffending both here and abroad. There is evidence that has shown that the effects of accredited programme participation for low-risk individuals are usually found to be negligible or in some cases negative. Therefore, accredited programmes are not routinely recommended for low-risk offenders.
On Amendments 53 to 58, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, I reassure the Committee that, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, reiterated, Clauses 11 and 12 do not remove the court’s sentencing powers. The decision to apply the requirement to an order sits firmly with the court and that will remain the case. For example, as is the case now, where a judge considers it necessary to impose a community or suspended sentence order, it is they who will determine whether to add a probation requirement. The probation requirement will be part of the menu of requirements available to judges to decide to apply to an order. In addition, where a pre-sentence report is requested by the court, the judge will be provided with an indication of an offender’s risk and need, and what intervention they may receive following a more thorough assessment by probation after sentencing.
The removal of court-set RAR days is needed. The evidence shows that RAR is not working effectively. Practitioners are restricted by the current approach, and we know that RAR days sentenced are not always aligned with an offender’s rehabilitative needs. The evidence from our published process evaluation is clear that probation staff and magistrates felt that the RAR was, in some cases, sentenced as a catch-all. I have been told by probation practitioners across the country, from Manchester to the Isle of Wight, that the way the RAR is applied currently, with sometimes an arbitrary number of RAR days being sentenced, restricts their ability to effectively rehabilitate offenders.
We are moving to a model that enables probation practitioners to use their professional expertise to ensure that rehabilitation is tailored to what works. This was a direct recommendation in David Gauke’s sentencing review report. The removal of court-specified maximum days will ensure that probation resources are directed to where they will have the most impact. Decisions will always be led by a thorough assessment of risk and need after sentencing. This does not change the fact that offenders are required to comply with the instructions of their probation officer. If they do not comply, they could face a return to court and receive tougher penalties.
I agree that it is important that we are clear on how the probation requirements will be applied. That is why clear guidance will be in place to support practitioners in their assessment, and on how to deliver the change. We should trust our valued practitioners to make informed decisions about rehabilitation activity in the same way they do with supervision. It is important that they have the flexibility to do so without placing an extra burden on them to justify each decision to the court. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, mentioned probation plans. On the first day of Committee last week, I mentioned that I am happy to present the plans for probation to noble Lords. I have already had one noble Lord take me up on the offer, and others are welcome.
Data is published annually on the completion of some community requirements, and it would not be proportionate to legislate at this time to publish further specific data on the probation requirement, as proposed by the noble Lords. We keep under regular review what data is collected and published, especially in the era of AI. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foster, that quality up-to-date information is important to inform management and policy. The way I have run my businesses in the past, and the way I am trying to do my job as a Minister in the Ministry of Justice, is by using data to hold people to account, because we need to keep improving performance so that we can improve public confidence in the justice system.
In light of this information and the reassurances I have provided on the intention of these clauses, I urge the noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I for one would really welcome a discussion with the noble Lord; I did not realise that we should use this occasion to accept the invitation. Perhaps at the same time, I should use an opportunity to talk to him more about what the organisation with which I am connected has succeeded in doing on healthy relationships.
Perhaps “mandatory” was misplaced in my amendment. It is more than education and more than having people sitting in a classroom being told. Nothing is a complete answer in this area—I think we are all aware of that—but I am talking about one-to-one connection and contact, which has to be built up over a long period before it can be effective. Therefore, it is really something more detailed and full than I dare say I was giving the impression of. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for supporting the amendment, but I beg leave to withdraw it.
Baroness Hamwee
“Availability of probation requirements and treatment requirementsThe Lord Chancellor shall lay a report before Parliament annually regarding—(a) the funding of activities and treatments for probation requirements, and(b) the availability of activities and treatments in each region of England and in Wales.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Lord Chancellor to make an annual report to Parliament on the availability of activities and treatments for probation requirements.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, rehabilitative activities, activities designed to reduce reoffending—whatever we call them; I do not disagree with my noble friend that what we call them is important—and treatments are often provided by the third sector. A lot of what is provided is excellent, but it is not enough, and it is not consistent across the country. The third sector’s role was acknowledged by David Gauke in his review.
We hear success stories, for instance of a middle-aged woman whose alcoholism was treated after she had been convicted several times for relatively low-level offences. She ceased offending when the alcoholism was treated and was able to lead an ordered life. I think too of a young man who, time after time, failed to connect with his probation officers. Then he found one—or she found him—whom he trusted. That enabled him to take proper advantage of the support that was available. Those are two examples of people the Justice and Home Affairs Committee met before my noble friend joined it.
I know the Minister knows all this, and he knows much more than I do, but I tabled this amendment because regional disparities are substantial and funding needs are acute. A friend of mine refers to some of these organisations as having something that is almost similar to an eating disorder—they simply do not have enough. That is not a very good way of putting it, but they are so hampered by lack of funding. It must be very difficult to work for one of these organisations, knowing that you can never do enough. I do not advocate that all services should be provided by the state, but it is a very sorry position that we are so reliant on voluntary charitable organisations, which are struggling to keep going—not always successfully.
As to Amendment 139B, my noble friend Lord Marks will say more about reporting on reoffending, giving comparative details between offenders who have completed community and custodial sentences. I would be surprised if that is not available to the MoJ now. Because one wants to see sentences that work and maintain the trust of the public in the operation of the justice system—we are becoming like a stuck record in mentioning the public’s trust—the more information in the public domain, the better.
I think Amendment 93A from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is in a similar vein, though I do not come to the same conclusion about an automatic sunset of the Act. I beg to move.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in my name in this group. The Committee will be delighted to know that I do not intend to go into detail on Amendment 86 as I think it is quite straightforward and others may wish to discuss it, including my noble friends on the Front Bench, but I do intend to elucidate on my Amendments 93A and 127.
The point of this group is transparency in the criminal justice system. The second of my amendments, Amendment 93A, is about the efficacy of reforms to community services. I tabled the amendment, which, incidentally—it goes without saying—is a probing amendment, because it is important to test, over a period of time, the efficacy of the quite substantial and radical policy changes that these clauses give rise to. It is a probing amendment that challenges the Government to account for the success or otherwise of these proposals.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough in general terms. In particular, I believe that we must assess the effectiveness of measures introduced—and, if they are not effective, we need to go back to the drawing board.
I also wish to speak to my Amendment 93B, which seeks to ensure participation by prison inmates in education and training or “other purposeful activity”. That was not my original description, although I find that the awful word “purposeful” was first used in 1598—but it also had a secondary meaning of “determined” or “resolute”, which makes me feel a lot better.
I have tabled this amendment because I am concerned about the state of education in prisons, both now and going forward. My wording is far from perfect, since to keep it in scope of this narrow Bill, it can apply only to custodial sentences from the day on which the Bill comes into force as an Act, whereas the problem is endemic across the prison estate. The amendment would provide for an annual review of progress, and the implementing regulations bringing it in would be subject to affirmative resolution, to make the amendment more palatable to the Minister and his officials.
As a fellow former retailer, I admire the Minister, his distinguished father and Timpson the company, the repair chain that they run, and their brilliant work on rehabilitation of offenders. However, I was sorry to hear that their workshop in Wandsworth Prison has not reopened. The truth is that the success of these and parallel efforts by other companies to get ex-convicts into long-term work requires offenders to be appropriately trained while inside.
The Government are hoping that the measures they are taking to free up prisons, some of which are hard for people to stomach, will provide more time and resource to supervise education, skills training and purposeful activity. However, on 15 October, Charlie Taylor, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, wrote a blog about the problems in adult prisons. He had been contacted by despairing governors and heads of education about the cuts in provision they are facing under new prison education contracts. The Prison Service has told him there will be an average reduction of some 25% of provision, but some prison leaders say they are losing as much as 60%. As he refers to, there are powerful reasons why we should
“ensure that an inmate does not spend day after day in blank inactivity”.
Why is there so little acknowledgement of the role of reduced reoffending as part of our goal of shrinking the prison population?
As few as 31% of prisoners are still employed six months after leaving prison. This is not surprising when 20 out of 38 prisons inspected in the last reporting year were rated poor or not sufficiently good for purposeful activity. It takes weeks to get prisoners into work and attendance at training courses is often shockingly low. The working day is short, often as little as five hours, particularly on Fridays, yet prisoners need to get into the job habit for their future success.
Another problem is the low literacy levels of many prisoners and, I suspect, poor English in many cases. We had a similar challenge at Tesco and, with the support of the trade unions, we arranged education that helped to keep employees in the firm, grateful for the lessons and the extra opportunities they opened up. With the widening of employment rights, it becomes even more important to use the many months that many spend in prison for remedial education and skills training, so that employers can take them on with confidence, without the fear of a long drawn-out industrial tribunal if they do not perform.
I know only too well that prisoners differ. There are career criminals who are very clever, entrepreneurial and risk-taking. They might have been captains of industry with a different background or ethical compass. They need something different and to be kept separate, but they need to be fully occupied so that they are not continuing their evil operations from inside prison. From time to time, some go straight, especially if they are inspired to change—for example, by taking a degree.
As the average sentence of those actually in prison becomes longer, the need for opportunities and for better education of the prison population becomes ever greater. Incentive schemes, early release and management of privileges are important. I hope that the Minister, in replying, will explain how the new sentencing laws can help with prison education by improving the incentive structure.
However, I believe that a more radical approach may be needed and that we should oblige prisoners who are still subject to custodial sentences to enter education, training, et cetera, as part of the prison regime, as is done in the military. Just providing adequate access to education, although important, is not enough. I have seen the failure of voluntary training in the Civil Service: the good and hard-working opt for the training and improve; those who really need it do not.
So I am looking for mandatory education or training for those who remain in prison after the Government’s reforms, all of whom will, in practice, be sentenced to 18 months or more. They will be serious criminals and badly in need of focused rehabilitation. That is why, to pick up a theme from discussion on day one, which I was sadly absent for, we cannot have a voluntary regime in prisons.
Our jails cost a fortune, and prisoners are bored, demotivated and wasting time as they serve their years. Education and the acquisition of skills, or helping out in the kitchens and gardens, can be transformational.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
I agree with almost everything my noble friend has said. I have been on a prisons monitoring board, so I am very familiar with the inside of prison. But it troubles me that, if there is a requirement that the prisoner, as part of his sentence, does A or B, but the prison does not provide the facility, is the prisoner not then in breach of the sentence and is that not going to be a problem when he seeks to get release or goes to a parole board?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question; it is a good one. However, in my amendment we are talking about future sentences, not existing ones, and we need to find a way of encouraging a radical change in prisons. This is Committee and this is a probing amendment. However, we do need to look at making an element of requirement for these long servers, or it just does not happen. I speak with my experience of the public sector and what happens if there are no requirements. I look forward to hearing how the Minister plans to take this agenda forward in the new world, and I hope that he will agree that a suitable amendment to the Bill could be extremely worthwhile.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this group of amendments covers a range of different issues, all under the heading of accountability and transparency. I say, generally, that we must concede that the public, for good reason, are pretty cynical about prison policy at the moment and are suspicious of changes in sentencing. There are all sorts of controversies that have arisen around both of those things. Many of us spoke to these issues at Second Reading. For the Bill to not simply become part of that cynicism, we need to ensure that the decisions made in relation to this legislation are as open to public scrutiny as possible.
In that spirit, I particularly support Amendment 93A from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, which calls for a report on the efficacy of reforms in relation to community sentences and suspended prison sentences. In some of the discussions we have had, it is as though we are saying that, if we increase the number of suspended sentences and community sentences, reoffending rates will simply go down, because people will be in the community and there will be rehabilitation everywhere. Somehow, prison is intrinsically blamed for making people in prison absolutely guaranteed to carry on offending when they leave prison. That is one description we heard from a number of noble Lords at Second Reading.
My concern is that we might fool ourselves sometimes about a rehabilitative utopia in the community. I used an analogy at Second Reading about mental health care. Of course, if you posit the situation of locking people up in psychiatric hospitals and then say, “How will they possibly get well?”, and that we should have much more community provision, I will often agree. The problem is that, if you release people from those hospitals into the community without provision, it is a disaster for everybody: both for innocent victims, in some instances, and for patients.
My worry is that the worthy aims associated with the Bill will not be able to be delivered because of a lack of resources in the community. I am also concerned that, despite the undoubtedly honourable, genuine and sincere intentions of the Minister in this House, the arguments used to justify this piece of legislation elsewhere by the rest of the Government have been much more pragmatic and utilitarian. Effectively, they are saying, “We have to review sentencing and do all these things because our jails are too full”. That is not the same as a principled commitment to improving things. So, at the very least, we owe it to the British public to check what happens once this Bill comes into action. Whether it delivers—its efficacy—is incredibly important because, if it does not work, people in the community will suffer. So Amendment 93A is crucial.
I absolutely support the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, in her Amendment 93B. One of the reasons why we say prison does not work and people argue there is a problem with it is precisely that the purposeful activity—or just using prison in a way that could be constructive and giving prisoners access to training, work, education and so on, while being a punishment—is just not being delivered at the moment. You can say that it is happening, but it is not.
The Minister knows that I am involved in a project called Debating Matters Beyond Bars, which runs debating competitions in prisons. The prisoners involved in these often say, “It’s really good to have the opportunity to have a bit of pugilism that is intellectual rather than fisticuffs”. Having something to think about, talk about, debate and discuss is education, too. But it is absolutely excruciating trying to get those kinds of projects off the ground in prisons, because there just are not the resources. The number of prisoners I have met over the years who have been enthusiastic about doing some kind of education or training but were unable to access it simply fuels this notion that prisons are not working and have become seething morasses of frustration. That cannot be good for anyone. So I would like to make this mandatory as well. It would be quite difficult, because that is not entirely to do with accountability—except that, if we could see accountability and transparency in what is happening with education and training in prison, it would inform the broader debate rather than just being mentioned.
Finally, I am absolutely not sure about Amendment 127 from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, which would enable public scrutiny of Parole Board proceedings. I watched every episode of the BBC series on parole—they were fascinating insights—and I think that parole hearings, the boards and what happens in relation to parole are crucial and key. The noble Lord has included reference to objections from victims, families and legal representatives, but my concern is about the notion that everything should always be open. I have argued for political transparency and accountability, which is fine, but the Parole Board does things that might require discretion and some privacy. For example, it has been drawn to my attention that members of staff might want to say off the record that the Parole Board should not let a prisoner out. I do not necessarily want that being made widely available. So it is more complicated than just saying, “Open up the Parole Board”. Those are my reservations.
The whole parole system requires careful scrutiny. The frustrations of prisoners, their families and victims often centre on what happens at parole hearings. Noble Lords will know about IPP prisoners, whose whole fate rests on what happens at Parole Board hearings. I understand people’s frustrations about feeling that they are not given a fair hearing and not being able to make public what happens, but it is not a black and white issue and I am therefore uncertain about that amendment.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, at the beginning of this second day in Committee, in which we have covered Amendments 51 and 52 and now this one, the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said that we can talk about doing all of this but it will all depend on whether there are resources to deliver real change.
In Yorkshire, I went to visit a pig farmer. He was very successful and the chair of governors of the local comprehensive school, where Ofsted was making a lot of demands, particularly about the testing of children. Everybody was into testing and examination, but the resources to deliver what was required were lacking. He said to me, “Come, and I will show you my pigs”. So we went to the farm and saw the pigs. He said, “Do you see them? Those are going to be sold in about six weeks’ time. What matters is not that every day I weigh the pigs to see whether they have arrived at the right weight. To fatten the pigs is not constantly to weigh them but to feed them”. That is what actually fattened the pigs, not the constant weighing. Transparency is important, but let us be very careful that we do not overburden the Probation Service by throwing at it a lot of things it needs to do and that we need to know whether it is doing them. What that did to the teachers, at the beginning of Ofsted, was to make them scapegoats to be blamed for a lack of proper resources and lack of constant training of teachers to be better teachers.
I hope that the Secretary of State will not be given so many burdens in things he has to produce before Parliament every year that our eye is taken off how we turn our Prison Service into a place where people really are rehabilitated, where those who want to learn are taught, and where reoffending begins to drop. We have to pay attention to that. I know that accountability and transparency are interesting, but we can become so obsessed that, in the end, people are given more and more burdens and take their eye off the job they are supposed to be doing. I urge a bit of caution, particularly about the Parole Board and what we mean by accountability and how we are going to get there.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that certain things need not all hang out. There are certain things which require confidentiality, and, if we are not careful, we will begin to distrust the entire criminal justice system, because the public will feel unsafe and feel that more should be put in. We are all very keen on it, but how much volunteering time have we ourselves given to helping prisoners and the Prison Service, so that they begin to deliver better?
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I will address briefly Amendment 58A in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee and my name. The amendment addresses the need for a report on the availability of activities and treatments for probation requirements. It goes hand in hand with Amendment 139B, in my name, which proposes reporting the levels of reoffending by offenders who have completed both custodial and community sentences.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I appreciate that anything to discourage populism is a popular call in this House for some people. I just ask the noble Lord what the danger is apart from encouraging populism. When I put my name to that amendment, even though I did not speak on it in the end, some of the controversies around sentencing, crime, law and order, prison, and so on have been a failure to provide information. The noble Lord mentioned the grooming gangs, but the more information there is, the better. What is there to be frightened of? One does not have to draw the conclusion that any negative things will come from having more information. As these kinds of details have been hidden for so long, having them made available for the British public so that they can make their own decisions is something we should trust the British public with. The noble Lord is keen that we trust probation officers. I am keen that we also trust the public.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I too am keen that we should, generally speaking, trust the public. But Amendment 86 requires
“all offenders convicted and sentenced in the Crown Court or Magistrates’ courts”
to have their
“country of birth … nationality … ethnicity … immigration status, and … the offence(s) for which they were sentenced”
recorded, published and laid before Parliament. That could encourage the drawing of entirely the wrong conclusions by the British public.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I seem to recollect that the noble Lord’s party supported, for instance, the Lammy Review, which looked at sentencing and led, by a circuitous route, to the decision of the Sentencing Council to fall out somewhat spectacularly with the former Lord Chancellor. His party has also supported the use of quite detailed empirical data around stop and search, which is looked at through the prism of race and ethnicity. What is so different? Is there a particular kind of empirical data that he does not think that the public should be made aware of, or is he just saying that this a poor amendment for the sake of it? It seems to me that the rationale is that you collect as much data as possible, you have an evidence-led approach to the policy and then you can design the legislation in the appropriate way.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
I entirely agree with the noble Lord and the noble Baroness about the collection of data. What I am concerned about is the mandatory publication of all data, which risks being misused.
The noble Lord is quite right to suggest that my party supported Lammy. Indeed, I spent some time in this Chamber in debates on the sentencing guidelines Bill reminding the House of the Lammy Review on the inequality of outcomes based on ethnicity. That is quite different from saying that every single offence needs to be reported on and published, which can lead to unfortunate reporting.
Turning to Amendment 93B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, like the noble Viscount, Lord Hogg, not only did I agree with almost every word she said, but I agreed with it profoundly in the sense of the benefits of participation in education, training and purposeful activity. I just have some concern about the use of the word “mandatory”.
In principle, all those things are sensible and beneficial for all the reasons that the noble Baroness gave. However, as we in this House know, many prisoners are struggling with addiction and mental health issues and some with problems of aging and illness. For those prisoners, the prospect of education, training, work and purposeful activity may be nugatory. I worry about too much use of “mandatory” in these contexts without consideration of all the effects. What is important, as it was in the last group when we considered probation, is flexibility and a personal approach so that offenders are dealt with having regard to their personal needs. That is an additional point to the one made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hogg, who talked about the availability of particular training opportunities—which were important as well.
On Amendment 127, I say yes to transparency of the Parole Board. Generally, the proceedings of the Parole Board should be public, should be heard and should be considered. Reporting of them is a good thing. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that there may be material that needs to be private. In these hearings, some discretion must be applied to enable the Parole Board to receive and take note of material that should not necessarily be made public. The hearing should make that decision. However, in general, the principle of transparency is one with which I and my party agree.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 86, in the names of my noble friend Lord Jackson and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and will respond briefly to some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, just made in opposing that amendment.
It might be relevant here to consider the interim guidance published by the National Police Chiefs’ Council on 13 August, following consultation with the Home Office and the Crown Prosecution Service, to encourage police forces to disclose the ethnicity and nationality, although not the immigration status, of suspects charged in high-profile cases. That interim guidance is currently the subject of a consultation being carried out by the College of Policing, which is trying to decide whether to make the guidance permanent or to withdraw it. The Runnymede Trust and other charities have written an open letter to the Home Secretary and the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council making many of the same arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, made, opposing the interim guidance that publishing the ethnicity and nationality of suspects in serious high-profile criminal cases is dangerous, that it can lead people to draw the wrong conclusions and that it can fuel the rise of populist parties and so forth.
However, the reason for the introduction of this interim guidance was the speculation and misinformation about the suspect in the Southport attacks in the summer of 2024. The object of advising the police to publish information about ethnicity and nationality of suspects in high-profile criminal cases is precisely to avoid people speculating in that way and drawing the wrong conclusion, giving them the information to fill the vacuum that would otherwise be filled by speculation. The same arguments can be made in favour of Amendment 86. If the courts—
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I invite him to clarify whether his objection to what I was saying is restricted to high-profile criminal cases, to which he has referred, or does he support the amendment in so far as it covers every case in the Crown Court and every case in the magistrates’ courts?
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
I support the amendment and do not think it is excessive to require the publication of this data in every case. Would the noble Lord approve Amendment 86 if it was amended, whereby it was just information about convictions in high profile cases that the amendment was asking to be published? Is the noble Lord’s objection just to the extent of the information required to be published, or does he object to any information being published?
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
The noble Lord sits down expecting a reply from me, and he will get one. It is that there is and ought to be a discretion about this sort of publication. To have a mandatory requirement for the recording of all information in every case—and it may be that it also goes to some high-profile cases—is to tie the hands of what is published in an unreasonable way. It may be that, in a lot of cases, publication is plainly in the public interest and should happen. I accept and agree that there should be the fullest possible recording, and then publication is a matter for the department.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
The risk of requiring Crown Courts to publish information in only some cases, but not all cases, and to expect the Crown Courts to exercise discretion, is that it could lead to public suspicion that they are suppressing data for precisely the sorts of reasons that the noble Lord articulated earlier: that it might lead to the rise in support for populist parties.
If the concern is that the publication of data showing the number of serious offences committed by people according to country of birth, nationality, ethnicity or immigration status might fuel a rise in populism, then surely the cause would be the fact that a disproportionate number of criminal offences are being committed by members of certain groups, not the fact that that information is being published. The concealment of that information and the refusal to publish it, or the concealment of some of the information, would, I fear, lead to greater public suspicion, speculation and, indeed, misinformation.
The argument made by the chief constables is that the public need to know this information if we are to avoid the kind of speculation and misinformation that fuelled the disorder in the summer of 2024. The famous Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis, said the best remedy for false and misleading speech is “not enforced silence” but more and better speech. Sunlight in these cases is the best disinfectant.
Baroness Porter of Fulwood (Con)
My Lords, I also support Amendment 93B in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe.
It is well established that the literacy and numeracy rates for those who end up committing crime are much lower than those in the general population. A Ministry of Justice report into prison education found that 57% of adult prisoners taking initial assessments had literacy levels below those expected of an 11 year-old.
In his review, David Gauke explicitly references the use of purposeful activity in the Texan system and positive engagement with it as being linked to serving less time inside prison; yet under these reforms there is no such requirement. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has already referenced Charlie Taylor’s assessment of the current system. David Gauke also points out in his review just how much of a problem access to these services is in many of our prisons:
“His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons’ annual report for 2022-2023 found that standards of purposeful activity were rated poor or insufficiently good in all but one of the adult male prisons inspected”.
Despite the measures in the Bill, there will still be a growing prison population. This will make delivering these services even more challenging, but it has to be addressed. We need to make sure that people who are spending time in prison are spending it as constructively as they can. Focusing on this and prioritising resource to help reduce the chances of people reoffending is the best way of reducing crime over the longer term. I would argue accountability and mandatory requirements are what ultimately drive how we place resources.
Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)
My Lords, I was not intending to intervene at all in this group, but could I just try to inject an element of reality into Amendment 86A, which the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, proposes? It requires the courts service to record and retain, in respect of all offenders convicted and sentenced in the Crown Court and magistrates’ court, the details that have been referred to: country of birth, nationality, ethnicity, immigration status, and the offences themselves.
It is important to remind the Committee that, in the magistrates’ courts, hundreds of thousands of minor offences are dealt with every year. For example, there are hundreds of thousands of motoring offences such as speeding, careless driving, not having insurance and matters of that sort, as well as tens or hundreds of thousands of failures to pay a TV licence. The vast majority of those cases do not trouble a court in the normal sense, in that there is no hearing in a court. They are dealt with under the single justice procedure. Almost all of them, save those that are contested, are dealt with, essentially, on the papers.
The information identified in the proposed amendment is not available at the moment, and it is difficult to see how it might be made available. I cannot, for the moment, think of a way that it could be done without exponentially increasing the burden on the system generally and imposing huge burdens on those who have been prosecuted for speeding or not having a TV licence, and so forth. Unless there were compulsion of some sort for this information to be given, nothing could sensibly happen. I do not seek to express a view on the merits of collecting such information, or at least parts of it, for some cases; that already happens, as in the Crown Court, to some extent. However, the breadth of this amendment travels into the area of unreality, I regret to say.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have tabled amendments and spoken on the topic of transparency. It is an important aspect of the criminal justice system that it is accountable and instils trust in the public, who rely on it.
Beginning with Amendment 58A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, we on these Benches broadly support the aim of this measure. Knowing the affordability and accessibility of treatments and activities is an important part of ensuring that the probation system is working. Such matters are vital to persons on probation, and they can make a real contribution to those who complete their probation periods. Regional inequalities should be known and addressed, so that all who are subject to such orders have the same means with which to complete their sentence. That may be an ideal, but it is what we should be aiming for.
I offer support from these Benches for the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. There may indeed be real practical issues and objections, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, has reminded us of, with all his experience. He is right to draw our attention to the practical difficulties in identifying and recording ethnicity and other information—that may well be for another day. That is a fundamental objection; none the less, we would argue that the Government should certainly be looking at what information can be sensibly obtained in this area.
I was somewhat surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Marks, say “yes” to the collection of data in principle but “no” to its publication. That is what I think he said. Who will see it, then? Just civil servants and Ministers? Not Members of Parliament? Not Members of this House? If collected, it will certainly leak. Maybe I misunderstood him.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
I think the noble Lord did misunderstand me. I did not oppose publication in any broad way; I simply said it was a matter of discretion as to what should be published and what should be kept private. The issue of universal publication is the danger that I expressed. It is a matter of discretion, relevance and importance, and those are decisions to be taken by those who collect the information.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
I think there are problems with that as to how the discretion would be exercised and who would set what rules. I will not spend any longer on this, but I suggest that my noble friend Lord Young of Acton was right when he drew attention to the interim guidance supported by the National Police Chiefs’ Council. We really have to think about this. We need information—we need some sunlight—and if we do not have accurate information, the wrong information will be put out there, will be used by populists and will be dangerous.
We need accurate information. If it is limited to serious and Crown Court cases, that would at least be an important start. We do not need to know the ethnicity of every driving offender—that is clearly unnecessary—but why not for offences of violence and everything else in the Crown Court? If it can be done, let us just look at it.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, forgive me for interrupting the noble Lord. I am grateful to him for giving way. Why do we need to know anyone’s ethnicity? Why is that relevant at the stage that we are talking about? I am afraid I just do not get this argument. Why is ethnicity relevant and to whom is it relevant?
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
It is only one of the factors included. I did not mean to select just that. I was using it as shorthand for what is in my noble friend Lord Jackson’s amendment, which includes country of birth—which I suggest is relevant—and nationality.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I beg the indulgence of the Committee to specifically answer the reasonable point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. There is and has been for many years significant concern about the overpolicing of some communities. That has given rise to a number of key initiatives, including the police action plan, which the noble Lord with his great expertise is well aware of. That is based on the collection and collation of data around ethnicity. You cannot have one without the other, I am afraid.
Therefore, to keep the faith and trust that taxpayers have in the criminal justice system, one has to collect as much data as possible. If one collects it to prevent overpolicing, one should also collect it for other reasons, so that you have a clear, transparent system.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
There is quite a lot to cover in this group. My noble friend has made the point. We never suffer from having too much information. If it is collected in bits and pieces, there is the danger of distortion.
The report by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, exposed a decade-long data collapse and made it clear that this should not carry on any longer. This is an area in which we have dragged our feet for too long. The majority of OECD countries have mandatory reporting statutes. The fact is that the United Kingdom does not do the same, and that is no help to anyone other than the offenders.
We need to do something to implement the recommendations from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. The amendment would give forces the necessary data to record, analyse and respond to different dynamics in different communities. Publishing data would prove to the public that the Government are not concerned with accusations of bigotry but focused on outcomes. These are clear benefits in this amendment for noble Lords’ efforts to tackle crime and reduce reoffending. I hope the Minister has considered it carefully.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords and noble Baronesses for the opportunity to discuss these important amendments as part of a fascinating debate; they have certainly covered a lot of ground. Transparency in the criminal justice system is vital. We must strike a balance between promoting understanding and accountability without compromising the integrity of our public services or creating unnecessary burdens for those working in them.
I turn first to Amendment 58A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but, before I begin, I must acknowledge noble Lords’ important questions on funding for the Probation Service—a crucial part of delivering the reforms in this Bill. As noble Lords know, we are investing up to £700 million in the final year of the spending review, which is an increase of 45%. As I said at Second Reading, although detailed allocations are yet to be finalised, my priorities are clear: more people in post; digital investment that saves time; and tools for probation to use. These will all make the jobs of our hard-working probation staff more manageable and rewarding. I repeat my offer to noble Lords to arrange a session in the coming weeks to take them through this in more detail.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for raising important points regarding the availability of activities and treatments for probation requirements. I assure the noble Baroness and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, that we are enabling probation practitioners to use their professional expertise to ensure that rehabilitation is tailored to what works. To do this, we will have guidance and training in place to ensure that they are clear on how decisions should be made and how to deliver them. This includes what interventions are needed and when to refer an offender to a specialist support service; so, if an offender whose offending is driven by addiction is sentenced to a probation requirement, their probation officer will be pointed to the right interventions to address any factors that could lead to that behaviour.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Porter, Lady Fox and Lady Hamwee, rightly mentioned the availability of treatments. It is critical that offenders have access to the right activities and treatments to support their rehabilitation. That is why the Ministry of Justice works closely with NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that all offenders who need it have access to high-quality mental health, alcohol and drug treatment. DHSC has made a targeted investment to support those referred by the criminal justice system, including funding 575 drug and alcohol workers with criminal justice specialisms. They work closely with prisons and probation services and in courts, as well as with the police, to improve access to, and the quality of, treatment.
Our ongoing partnership with NHS England has achieved an increase in the number of mental health treatment requirements. The number sentenced now is more than five times higher than it was a decade ago: it is up from 960 in 2014 to 4,880 in 2024. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, knows that I am always available to speak to the House about how we are ensuring that these treatments are accessible and funded. Given that, I hope that she agrees with me that a statutory requirement to publish an annual report is unnecessary.
Amendment 139B would require the Secretary of State to lay an annual report before Parliament on levels of reoffending by offenders who have completed a community or custodial sentence. Reducing levels of reoffending to cut crime and ensure fewer victims is at the very heart of both this Bill’s purpose and why I took this job. The evidence is clear, and we are following it. Offenders given a community order or suspended sentence order reoffend less than similar offenders given a short prison sentence. We are exploring how we can evaluate the impact of the Bill’s provisions on key outcomes, including levels of reoffending. In the meantime, I can confirm that we already publish on a quarterly basis data on levels of reoffending by disposal type, including custodial sentences, community orders and suspended sentence orders.
I hope that my answer assures the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, of our commitment to following the evidence, regarding his Amendment 93A. However, as I am sure he will appreciate, many factors go into whether someone reoffends, and creating artificial targets will not support hard-working front-line staff in trying to improve the system.
I thank the noble Lord for Amendment 127 but, although we share the aim of improving transparency in the parole system, the Government believe that this proposal is unnecessary. Public hearings were introduced in 2022, allowing any hearing to be held in public where the chair considers it in the interests of justice. This amendment would reverse the current position, making public hearings the default and requiring the Parole Board to seek the agreement of the Secretary of State to hear a case in private. This would undermine the board’s quasi-judicial independence and create significant administrative burdens. It would also require victims’ views about the prospect of a public hearing to be sought in every case. This risks retraumatising victims and burdening them with an additional and unnecessary decision about their case. There is no evidence that a demand for all hearings to be public exists, so the amendment would not offer any meaningful benefits over the current process. The board holds more than 8,000 oral hearings annually, yet its website reports just 55 decisions on applications for a public hearing since 2022.
On Amendment 86, this Government remain committed to improving the collection and publication of data on foreign national offenders. We are working closely with colleagues in the Home Office to enable the early identification of foreign national offenders, which will support earlier removals. This may require a new mechanism to verify the information provided. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, set out, this must be cost effective and must prevent placing additional pressure on operational staff; that is why we are exploring both operational and technological solutions. For this reason, we cannot accept a statutory duty to publish this information before the necessary infrastructure is in place to support it.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for her kind words and for raising the important issue of participation in rehabilitative activities such as work or training; I am pleased that we have had an opportunity to debate this today and to learn more about the history of “purposeful”. We fully share the ambition behind this amendment, which is to ensure that time in custody is used productively both to support rehabilitation and to reduce reoffending. Prison should not simply be where criminals stay between crimes. I want to make it clear that this Government are of course committed to improving regimes across the prison estate, but making participation a mandatory condition across every custodial sentence would be impractical and, in some cases, counterproductive. Prison regimes vary widely to meet the needs of different populations, and imposing a blanket statutory requirement risks creating obligations that cannot be met.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, referred to me as his erstwhile sparring partner; I am going to have to up my game.
Amendment 58A was intended as a mechanism to introduce the issues. I am sure that the Minister will understand that one has to find devices in order to introduce subjects, and one of those most often used is laying a report. I take his point about an annual report, but this measure was intended—to use his words—to be tailored to what works. I was particularly keen to stress the reliance on the third sector and the need for its services to be available; this is particularly relevant to women offenders, but not only them.
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. This is an issue that is hard to leave alone. I noticed that, when the Minister was talking about the available treatments, he understandably referred to the Department of Health and Social Care. It is not only that, though. Let me take this moment—I am aware that we are spending a very long time on this group—to refer to the purposeful amendment, in every sense, of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I support it, but only so far; I hope that supporting it “so far” might give us something on which we can work after this stage in order to inject an element of reality.
In the report of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, chaired by my noble friend Lord Foster—it is titled Better Prisons: Less Crime—I found it quite shocking to read of the difficulties and the failures to provide education and skills training, particularly when one thinks of the functional innumeracy and illiteracy mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Porter. Having to impose a mandatory requirement would be a great pity and would set up too many prisons and prison governors to fail.
This issue remains important, and it is very good that we have had this opportunity to discuss it. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Sandhurst
“(3A) Where a court imposes a driving prohibition requirement under subsection (3) the court must be satisfied that suitable arrangements exist for the practical monitoring of compliance with the requirement.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would add a general practicability condition to the imposition of driving prohibition requirement, ensuring they may only be imposed where compliance can realistically be monitored.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie. We on these Benches welcome the underlying principle of Clauses 13 to 16, which relate to new community order requirements that can be imposed on offenders as part of their suspended sentences and community orders that can be imposed on offenders as part of their sentences. However, as I asked at Second Reading, the big question is: how are these going to be made a practical reality?
There is a commendable aim here: to equip the courts with additional tools that will both enhance public protection and steer offenders towards genuine rehabilitation. It may surprise noble Lords to hear that we on these Benches do not oppose suspended sentences as a concept or in application. It has been abundantly clear, I hope, that we take issue with Clauses 1 and 2 as they are currently drafted because we believe that there should not be such an indiscriminate provision for criminals to serve their sentences in the community. However, for those offenders who should serve their sentences on a suspended basis, these clauses are a welcome measure. They will improve the regime—or, at least, they have the potential to improve the regime, if properly drafted.
Many noble Lords have spoken of their support for suspended sentences in favour of short-term custodial ones, arguing that the short-term benefits of serving such sentences in prison are largely outweighed, if not entirely negated, by the effects of custody. Although we recognise this argument and, in many cases, agree with it, I would respectfully point out that this is just one side of the coin. Of course, the outcomes for prisoners themselves are an important consideration in this debate—because, if successful, the Bill will prevent or reduce the rate of recidivism—but we must recognise the wider public. They also have an interest in recidivism—namely, that it does not occur—as well as a legitimate interest in seeing the right people be positively punished.
If we are to give support to the broader aim of this Bill, it will hinge entirely on the Government’s ability to ensure—in fact, to guarantee—that those on suspended sentences will be managed in a manner that drives towards public safety, not just the term of the sentence. If it cannot be shown that those being released into the community cannot be managed in a safe and effective way, we will fail the public by allowing this Bill to pass into statute. Noble Lords may wish to point to statistics that claim that reoffending rates are lower for those on suspended sentences, but the reality is that the statistic is not nothing. If we are to allow offenders on to the streets, we must do so in a way that does not increase the danger to citizens going about their lives and does not increase the crime rate.
A higher number will receive suspended sentences than do at the moment. It must be common sense that, when imposing suspended sentences, judges have striven, at least to date, to impose them on those for whom they think there is a lower risk of breach. But if it is to be, in effect, for everybody, inevitably there will be those for whom there is a higher risk of breach.
On day one in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, spoke in opposition to exemptions we suggested from the suspended sentence provision in Clause 1. She said she had thought:
“If there is a real danger to the general public, we probably wouldn’t be looking at a sentence of less than 12 months”.—[Official Report, 26/11/25; col. 1342.]
The reality is that there is a range of crimes for which offenders are routinely sentenced to immediate custodial terms of 12 months or less. It is a matter of fact that certain sex offenders come within that category. The noble Baroness may not consider such people a real danger to the public, but we on these Benches do. Further, the Minister has confirmed that, in reality, this presumption will extend to sentences up to 18 months once guilty pleas are accounted for; in other words, 18 months discounted to 12 because of a prompt and early guilty plea, and then suspended.
We must be very clear about this: sentences of up to 18 months’ imprisonment apply to categories of people who are certainly violent and certainly dangerous. They may not be dangerous to a particular identified individual, meaning that the exemptions in the statute will not apply. Instead, we are at the mercy of court orders to keep the public safe.
The amendment proposed on day one to exempt those involved in terrorist or associated offences from the suspended sentence provision was also met with resistance. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked:
“If an offender commits a terrorist act, is he looking at 12 months or less?”.—[Official Report, 26/11/25; col. 1350.]
Under the Terrorism Act 2000, a person who wears an item of clothing or displays an article related to a proscribed organisation will be sentenced to a term of imprisonment “not exceeding six months”. This means that an offender wishing to fly an al-Qaeda or a Nazi flag on the street will, in this case, now receive a suspended sentence. They are not putting a particular individual at significant risk of harm, but I am sure noble Lords will agree that they are a risk to the public and the behaviour of the public generally. Such behaviour winds people up. Yet will they not be exempt from this presumption, as currently drafted?
We will never support this measure, but if we must resign ourselves to the possibility that this will soon be the reality, we on these Benches will strive to do everything we can to lessen the risk to the public. That is why the amendments in this group have been tabled, and I will now briefly outline the practical aims of each.
Amendments 59, 64, 69 and 72 would add a general practicality condition to the imposition of the new community order requirements. This has been suggested to ensure that they may be imposed only where compliance with such requirements can realistically be monitored. Imposing these new orders will be meaningless if we cannot ensure that they can and will be enforced in practice. It is of no practical benefit to ban an offender from a particular type of public event if there is no meaningful way of ensuring that he or she will in fact not attend such events when released into the community. Likewise, there is little value in placing a driving prohibition on an offender who feels no deterrent from getting back on the road as a result of an order that he knows is fruitless in practice.
These amendments touch on a point of the utmost importance. If the Government oppose them, they are saying that they are willing to allow the courts to impose orders which they know will not be upheld in practice. This was the exact justification for the removal of the rehabilitative activity days in Clause 12; namely, that the maximum thresholds are rarely upheld in practice and so they needed reform. Will the Government follow the same logic for the new powers they are giving the courts, or will they allow conditions of suspended sentence to be given out in the full knowledge that they are just token gestures?
We make this point not only to expose the inconsistent arguments that the Government have set out in the Bill. This is not simply a matter of an ineffective law that is likely to waste the already stretched resources of our judiciary; failure to get this right will lead to more crime. It will result in more sexual offences, assaults, thefts and knives on our streets. If offenders cannot be practically managed under the new community requirement conditions, they should not be allowed to return straight to society.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I have been struggling to find the amendments that I was speaking to, to which the noble Lord referred when he talked about my opposition. I remember querying terms such as “associated offences” and offences which have “a connection to terrorism”, but I think that the context was a little more nuanced than the noble Lord suggests.
I agree with the noble Lord about enforceability, but to have a particular officer responsible for enforcing each prohibition does not seem to me practicable—if I have understood the proposal properly. I have points to make about enforceability in the next group; the answer may well be electronic monitoring.
I wish to raise a point that comes a bit from left field. I am sure that I am not the only Member to have received an email invitation today to a meeting to be told about “alcolocks”, which are, apparently, programmed mechanisms installed in cars, which can detect whether the driver has been drinking. The Minister is nodding. I thought that I would use this opportunity to see whether he knows anything about this. How does the car know whether you have had six brandies or half a pint of shandy? I do not know—but it seems quite intriguing. I shall not hold him to it if he does not know.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, I have more qualms about these particular prohibitions, broadly from a civil liberties point of view. The problem with the idea of bringing in endless surveillance and state bodies to keep their eye on people, banning people and prohibiting people on the basis that this is necessary because it will allow people to avoid prison is that it turns the community into something with prison-like conditions. I do not feel easy with that in terms of there being a ban on public events and entering drinking establishments, with new restriction zones and so on.
Where I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, is on how on earth it will work, practically. How will probation cope with monitoring these prohibitions? I cannot understand how it would be feasible. We keep discussing the problem of probation not having enough resources and we are then assured that more resources will be made available; we are now asking probation to do even more than they were doing before. Resources always implies money, but this is about a lot more than money. I would have thought that a lot of the new things that this Bill is asking probation officers to do will require a lot more training.
The Minister will know that, for example, because of the huge case loads that probation officers have, the last thing that they want to be dealing with are IPP prisoners, who are at the very least challenging. We know that, in many instances, in order to get them off the books, they adopt a risk-averse attitude, which means that anyone who even just technically breaks a licence condition—maybe they are a late for a meeting, or something like that—suddenly gets recalled into prison. So there are all sorts of complications around saying simply that probation will do it.
I know that when I raise problems with probation, immediately there is a rush with people saying how brilliant probation officers are; this is not a slight on them as individuals but a problem with the service. In fact, if anything, it is probation officers themselves who feel frustrated and are tearing their hair out because they are expected to do so much with so little. There is a real reason why there is a difficulty in recruiting new trainee probation officers and where there are insufficient staff numbers.
What I do not understand is how we would monitor this. Let us say that there is, for example, a prohibition on going to the pub or a drinking establishment—I cannot remember what they are called now. Are probation officers going to be standing outside the pub? How will they know whether someone is entering a pub or not? That is why I think that the amendments in this group are quite useful. Is this just a box-ticking exercise? If it is a practical thing, someone will have to let the drinking establishments know and monitor whether anyone goes into them. I also think that there is a whole paraphernalia, and there are potentially quite difficult issues when restriction zones are put in place. Who decides where they are and what they are based on, and who is going to monitor them?
There is a wide range of new restrictions and prohibitions that are only being put in place because of the move to remove people from prison. Community probation officers do not have the resources; this will be not just technically bureaucratic to enact, but it will not keep the public safe or enable them to keep an eye on efficacy. Consequently, I would like to tighten up the whole notion of these orders via amendments such as these, but I am not even convinced that they are the way to go or that they are anything other than a problematic example of why there is a prior problem of letting everybody out of prison too early when you do not have the resources in the community.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, one of the three key principles behind David Gauke’s Independent Sentencing Review was to expand and make greater use of punishments outside prison. The new community requirements introduced by Clauses 13 to 16 are designed to implement that principle. They are intended to give the courts a wider range of options to punish offenders in the community, from stopping them from going to watch their favourite football team to imposing a restriction zone that requires them to stay within a particular area.
The amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, has quite rightly raised questions about how these are to be enforced and monitored. Their amendments would prevent the court from imposing these requirements if there are not arrangements for enforcement in place or the court did not believe they can be enforced, and they seek to ensure that the relevant authority supervises requirements imposed by the court.
I hope that it will help noble Lords if I begin by explaining how these orders will be monitored and enforced. It is very important to remember that community and suspended sentence orders are already a well-established part of the justice system. This Bill simply expands the range of options available to judges when they pass a sentence.
As with all current community requirements, probation staff will monitor an offender’s compliance with their order; they use a range of tools to do that, such as intelligence from partners, including the police. This includes electronic monitoring, where appropriate, and probation staff are already skilled in using these tools to enforce community orders. If probation staff learn about non-compliance, they have a range of options. They can return the offender to court, which can result in even more onerous requirements; they can impose a fine; and, in more serious cases, they can even send the offender to custody.
I hope that an example will help to illustrate this. Let us imagine that Harry, an ardent supporter of Sheffield United Football Club, is banned from attending football matches under one of the new community requirements. To enforce this order, the court has ordered that he must wear an electronic tag. Harry breaches his community order by going to a game. His probation officer learns about this from the data from his tag. In other circumstances, a breach may be identified through intelligence sharing between agencies. They decide that the breach is serious enough to return Harry to court, where he receives a further fine.
In short, these new requirements will be enforced by probation staff who are skilled and experienced in enforcing similar requirements. This Government are making sure that the Probation Service has the capacity to do this vital job and keep the public safe through recruitment, increased funding and investing in technology, including even more alcohol tags. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to a new sort of alcohol test, which I am unaware of but sounds interesting. I also emphasise that the Bill does not require the courts to use these requirements. Critically, the court must determine that any requirements imposed are the most suitable for achieving the purposes of sentencing. For all the reasons I have set out, the Government’s view is that these amendments are not necessary.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Before the noble Lord sits down, he mentioned alcolocks. It is a system of measuring one’s breath, and if one is deemed to have drunk it stops the car ignition. It has worked very successfully in other countries.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness. That is very interesting, and I will take it back to the department.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the explanation given by the Minister, but the issues at stake here are not theoretical; they are practical questions about how these conditions will actually work. Will they be real, meaningful and enforceable? The Government have repeatedly asserted confidence in suspended sentences and the expanded use of community-based requirements. If that confidence is well placed, these amendments should be entirely uncontroversial; they do nothing more than ensure that what is ordered by a judge can be delivered in reality.
We are not seeking to impose obligations to enforce on the licensee of a public house, for example, but they should know so that they are then free to pass the information on to the police or the Probation Service, because they will not want someone there who is the subject of an order. It will be a public house order, for example, because the offender has a particular issue with behaviour in such places—so too with football grounds or other specified events. The host, if that is the right word, should be informed and should know that a particular individual, if recognised, should not be on his premises and can be turned away.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, with her usual acuity, pointed to the civil liberty aspects of this as well. I will not embark on those, but she also identified practical and policy issues underlying these provisions in Clauses 13 to 16. We on these Benches suggest that these amendments insert a simple and reasonable test. They do not impose a condition unless compliance can realistically be monitored in practice by the Probation Service, and the Probation Service will need help from the hosts. It is not radical to say that orders issued by a court should carry weight. A prohibition that in practice cannot and will not be checked is not a deterrent. A restriction that cannot and will not be enforced is not a restriction. Without these safeguards, we will create orders that are performative rather than protective. They will offer only the illusion of safety to communities and to victims.
The Government themselves use this precise standard when justifying reforms elsewhere in the Bill—for example, removing rehabilitative activity days because the system “did not operate effectively in practice”. The provisions in Clauses 13 to 16, if they are to be enforced, must be enforceable in practice and must be effective. If a condition is imposed but nobody has a duty to enforce it, it is not a condition at all. The Probation Service is not going to have time to run around the pubs, football grounds and so on; it is going to have to rely on information from other people.
These amendments would simply ensure that the supervising authority has responsibility for enforcement and is given the means to do so, rather than the vague hope that somebody may intervene if they happen to notice a breach. Without this duty, we repeat here that the failures seen with criminal behaviour orders and football banning orders, where thousands of breaches each year go unpursued and offenders learn that compliance is optional, will be repeated. Public confidence will not be restored by rhetoric; in fact, it will be damaged. It will be damaged by visible consequences, namely failures to enforce.
The Government propose to release more offenders into the community under suspended and community-based regimes. That is a political choice. Having chosen that path, they must choose the responsibility to ensure that it works and that it is safe. We should not be asking the British Government to accept greater risk while refusing the safeguards that would mitigate that risk. Ministers who believe that this strategy will reduce reoffending should have no objection to tests of practicability, enforcement duties and notification requirements. To oppose these amendments, they must be justified as to why they will be unenforceable, unmonitored, unaccountable conditions. That is a hard case to make to the victims, to police officers on the street or to the public whose safety is being traded away.
The amendments we put forward are not obstructive but supportive. They would help, indeed allow, the Government’s policy to function in the real world, not just on the printed page. If we are to put offenders back in the community who might not otherwise have been there—indeed, probably would not have been—the very least we owe the public is confidence that these conditions will be monitored and enforced, so I urge the Government to look again at these amendments and to reflect. For now, I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Hamwee
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe the enforceability of a public event attendance prohibition requirement.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I too am intrigued and concerned as to how these conditions will be monitored and enforced. I did not support the amendments that are aimed at the same question in the previous group, because I do not think we should make, for instance, the licensee of a pub or the operator of a sports ground the enforcer of conditions. Many of us have been critical enough, in the area of immigration, about making landlords and so on enforcers of government legislation. But I think there is still a lot to explore in this.
I said that I assumed the answer was going to be electronic monitoring, but how is that to be done, unless we are requiring the offender to be confined to a particular place—to home, for instance? They are not as strict as that; they exclude certain events. So does somebody need to know where events—an Oasis concert, a Premier League match or a fringe theatre with a tiny capacity—are taking place? How is this actually checked? The Minister said that the probation officer will get the data from a tag. I do not know enough about how these work to know whether the probation officer can easily find out whether somebody has attended a Sheffield United match. How is that actually done in practice on a day-to-day basis? Does the probation officer have the GPS co-ordinates for everything that might be an issue? It would be helpful if we could understand more about this.
I am concerned about live facial recognition—if it is being used; I do not know whether it will be. It works on the basis of a watch list, which is created for a particular occasion but then, as I understand it, will be deleted; it is not something which would go on for several months. I had thought that live facial recognition was only for the period of surveillance. I am asking for much more briefing on this, which we would then want to be in the public domain, but we need to understand it first.
My noble friend Lord Marks will be speaking to our Amendment 106, but I cannot overemphasise the importance of this amendment, or something like it. The objective is reducing reoffending, so one must enable employment, education, rehabilitation programmes and so on. We know from the experience of other orders that, for instance, the requirement to report to a police station can be imposed with absolutely no regard to the demands on an individual, who is then forced to take a day off work. I am interested to hear how enforcement works with the support for the offender, which is implicit in the activities.
My noble friend Lord Foster of Bath, in making the overarching point about necessity and proportionality, has hit on what is, to my mind, a very important point. I wish I had thought of it, but I support him in this. I beg to move Amendment 60.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 61, 66, 102 and 104, standing in my name. I find myself in the unusual position of broadly agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on Amendment 60.
This is an example of what I suppose could be called legislative drag, where time has elapsed between the publication of legislation—in this case, Second Reading in the Commons was at the beginning of September—and real-life events today. I want to talk about the broader context of how these proposals and policies may have an impact, in particular on the hospitality sector.
In principle, we do not oppose the creation of new tools to protect the public or manage offenders, but their success, as other noble Lords have said, depends significantly on enforceability. Clauses 14 and 15 lack any operational detail on how the bans on pub or event attendance organisations will be implemented or enforced, making them currently unworkable in practice. It is unrealistic and unfair to expect pubs, bars, off-licences and event venues to police court-ordered bans without a clear enforcement structure. The hospitality sector is already in severe financial distress, and I will return to that shortly. If enforcement is not intended to fall on venues, the Government must explain how probation and policing will manage compliance, given existing resources and the staffing crises that we discussed on day one of Committee.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords. I shall express my scepticism about Amendments 60, 61 and 66. They seem to be, in each respect, impractical.
In Amendment 60, I find myself looking at the phrase,
“if enforcement of the requirement is not reasonably practicable”.
That, in one sense, is perfectly sensible, but who is going to determine that? Is it going to be a justiciable issue? Is the Probation Service going to hop up and say: “I’m afraid we can’t do that”? What if the defendant says: “Oh yes, you can”? We would get ourselves into an extraordinary situation. There would be some adverse consequences too, because a judge might be ill-inclined to make such an order, which in principle is highly desirable but there is some doubt as to the possibility of it being enforced. This seems to me to be a tricky road down which to go.
In Amendment 61, I find that the supervising authority must notify all public events within a radius of 20 miles. I suppose the supervising authority for these purposes is the Probation Service, but is the Probation Service to be expected to know about all public events? If it is, it could be quite a burden on it to circulate to all public events. What if others come into play after the order is made? It seems to me, again, that this is rather an impractical suggestion.
Another rather impractical suggestion is to be seen in Amendment 66, where we find that
“the relevant supervising authority must notify all licensed drinking establishments within a radius of 20 miles”.
That implies quite a lot of knowledge on the part of the supervising authority. Perhaps it will have that knowledge, but this will be a tremendous burden on it. These amendments may well have a good purpose behind them, but one asks whether they are really deliverable. Are these the sort of things we should load on to a hard-pressed supervising authority? I think they are manifestly not.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 101A. This Bill introduces a provision to restrict offenders to a certain geographical area when released on licence, without a requirement for judicial oversight or due process. This amendment would introduce a requirement for the Parole Board to have oversight of new restriction zones for offenders on licence. Such oversight would guard against unintended consequences and provide due process both for victims and for offenders. It would afford victims and offenders an opportunity to make representations to an independent judicial body both before licence conditions are imposed and subsequently, should changes in circumstances arise. For example, a victim may want to live in or enter the restricted area and seek a variation to enable them to do so without fear.
A restriction zone is highly onerous, restricting almost every aspect of a person’s life, including their ability to work, receive specialised medical care and see family. Any application to leave the zone places a huge administrative burden on the authorities. The proposed new restriction is a significant step akin to control orders, now replaced by terrorism prevention and investigation measures, but without any requirement for judicial oversight. Those assessed as a terrorism risk currently benefit from initial oversight from the High Court to allow for an evaluative judgment as to the necessity and proportionality of such conditions and have ongoing opportunities for review.
This amendment seeks to introduce judicial review by the Parole Board of the extension of restriction zones. Its oversight of such conditions would be an important safeguard before such restrictions are imposed on offenders and provide an opportunity for victims to voice any potential impact on them before an independent body. The significant point is that there should be judicial oversight. The Parole Board, in my view, is an appropriate body as it has the expertise and capacity. The High Court would be more expensive and onerous. I appreciate that the Parole Board does not have oversight of licence conditions set for standard determinate sentence prisoners, whereas a restriction could technically be imposed on them. However, there is no reason why standard determinate sentence prisoners could not be referred to the Parole Board if they were being considered for restrictive zone conditions. My principal point is to try to ensure that there is official oversight of these onerous conditions.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, on 20 September there were 26,647 people subject to electronic monitoring, with various types of tags and for a range of different purposes. It has been estimated that this Bill will increase the number of people being tagged by an additional 20,000. In other words, it will more or less double the number of people being tagged.
In our deliberations, we have already heard the Minister make it clear that his understanding is that the vast majority of people who leave prison will be among those 20,000 people. Although it is true that there is guidance which says:
“Offenders released from prison will enter a period of ‘intensive supervision’ tailored to their risk and the type of crime”,
it acknowledges that probation officers will be allowed some discretion as to whether all prisoners leaving will be tagged. My real concern is that probation officers who have heard the Minister say that the vast majority of prisoners will be tagged are going to end up tagging the vast majority of prisoners. That is why I have tabled Amendment 110ZA, the purpose of which is to require
“the relevant authority, when considering whether to include an electronic monitoring requirement as part of a relevant order, to have regard to whether the requirement is necessary to ensure compliance with the order and whether the requirement is proportionate considering the individual’s circumstances”.
The Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee did an investigation into tagging as it currently stands and looked ahead at what might be coming down the track. We heard a number of worrying bits of evidence. For instance, we heard about a 77 year-old woman recalled to prison simply because there was not a tag small enough to fit her. We heard from many people about the stigma attached while they are wearing a tag, even to the point that people who see the tag—which is pretty obvious in many cases—are frightened and believe they are dangerous. None of this helps them re-establish themselves in their local communities.
We also discovered a number of serious ethical issues. For instance, we found evidence that black people are almost twice as likely to be subjected to electronic monitoring as their white counterparts. Even the Home Office acknowledged this in a 2023 equality impact assessment which acknowledged that GPS tagging may disproportionately affect some nationalities. The MoJ told our committee that it, too, accepted that electronic monitoring might not be suitable for all individuals and addressed issues such as work, childcare commitments and so on.
There are also other measures that are rarely taken into account. One very good example is a prisoner I spoke to who had gone into prison because of his gambling addiction—he had stolen money and gone into prison as a result—and then on release had a curfew order. When he said he wanted to go to a meeting at Gamblers Anonymous, he was told he could not because that took place in the evening when the curfew applied. That seems fairly nonsensical to me.
We concluded as a committee that the MoJ, alongside the judiciary and the Probation Service, should conduct regular reviews to ensure electronic monitoring is being used proportionately across all groups, as well as appropriately among vulnerable groups, in which we highlighted women in particular. In tabling this amendment, I wanted to draw attention to the committee’s concern about the blanket assumption that the vast majority of prisoners would be tagged.
We think this is really important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, has said. We will also hear similar arguments from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, who has an amendment on this issue in the next group. In group 7, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will raise the important issue of allowing offenders to have a say in this so that they can point out the impact that a tag of one sort or another may have on their lives—not being able to go to work, childcare issues or whatever. My noble friend on the Front Bench has amendments later on whether driving bans and exclusion zones could impact somebody’s ability to reduce reoffending.
This is simply an opportunity for the Minister to explain that he does not really believe that the vast majority of prisoners will be tagged and that probation officers, with the expertise which he points out they have, will be able to have due discretion over whether tagging or electronic monitoring is appropriate.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I very briefly beg the indulgence of the Committee just to respond to my noble friend Lord Hailsham. It seems that he wishes to will the ends but not the means as regards my Amendments 61 and 66. I am rather surprised he did not know where every pub was in his constituency, because when I was in the other place I knew where every pub was in my constituency. That said, I say to him respectfully that it is perfectly reasonable in terms of data management to utilise the regulatory and the licensing regimes of local authorities to reach every pub and drinking establishment in a geographical area, and certainly within 20 miles. That is not something that is beyond the wit of the Probation Service to work with local authorities so to do.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
Amendment 60 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee would make it clear that a public event attendance prohibition requirement would not be available if its enforcement was not reasonably practicable. I share the doubts of my noble friend on practicability. Indeed, the widest orders in this category—that is, prohibiting attendance at any public event rather than particular events—may generally be too wide in any case, because it is going to be very difficult to define a “public event”.
Moving to a more general point, one of the difficulties with the restrictions in this group is the difficulty not just with practicability but with enforcement, spoken to in the last group by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, foresaw difficulties in determining practicability, which he thought might be fatal to these conditions. I can see his point that there are difficulties. The question for the Committee in considering whether these conditions ought to be permitted is to see how far they would in practice be imposed if not practicable, and then to consider the question of practicability.
I suggest that the answer to the difficulties is a combination of the justification points relating to community orders, if I can put it that way, and the enforcement possibilities offered by new technology and intelligence. As far as intelligence is concerned, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that it is pretty easy to find out where the pubs are. But there are other difficulties of intelligence which new technology and intelligence-gathering techniques might be needed to address.
However, when I talk about justification, it is right that we should remind ourselves that the conditions are intended to augment community orders and suspended sentences, and those sentences are intended to be, in part at least, punishment, no differently from a curfew order or a residence requirement. They are in part, therefore, punitive. However, the alternative may be custody, which is a far more serious punishment, and one that with the best will in the world offers a substantially reduced chance of the offender having the opportunity to undertake any rehabilitative activity at all.
The other point is new technology and intelligence techniques. Noble Lords have mentioned electronic monitoring, as well as alcohol monitoring and other devices, but electronic monitoring using tagging is a considerable part of the answer. Although I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on the civil liberties implications of these conditions, monitoring by tagging is no different from monitoring by curfew or by a residence requirement, which we have had for a very great deal of time, but the new technology enables a more flexible and wider approach to conditions. However, I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that civil liberties are restricted at their very worst by imposing sentences of immediate imprisonment where people are in custody.
Amendment 106 in my name would allow exemptions or variations by probation officers to allow a person to attend employment, education or rehabilitation programmes, but those exemptions or variations would be exceptions to the imposition of the restriction zone condition. The amendment also requires a report on the operation of restriction zone conditions.
The purpose of this amendment in each of its sub-clauses is to enable both the courts when imposing conditions and probation professionals to weigh in the balance, on the one hand, the extra security and the protection of victims or potential victims which may be offered by the imposition of a restriction zone condition, against on the other the desirability of encouraging offenders to benefit from opportunities of employment, education or rehabilitative activity. It is a classic balancing exercise of a type that is undertaken every day by members of the public and professionals in daily life when they consider questions of risk against opportunity, and that is really what we are talking about here. The point is that our amendment does not come down exclusively on one side or the other. The idea of it is to enable the imposition of these restriction zone conditions, not to conflict with the provision of educational or other opportunities. So, the condition could still be made, but subject to those exemptions or restrictions, which will permit the desirable activity.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, supporting my noble friend Lady Hamwee in her amendment, said that it was unfair to oblige venues and others to police these conditions, and of course I see that. But these conditions are not perfect, they will not be perfectly enforceable, and they will not be completely practicable in the sense that they will always prevent the restricted activity. However, for the most part, in practice, offenders are likely to observe these conditions simply because they are there, and for fear of being caught and punished for their breach.
Questions of affordability were raised, and of course more resources are going to be needed to police and enforce these conditions, but those costs have to be measured against the costs of custody.
The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, raised an interesting point with her amendment when she suggested that the Parole Board should have oversight of restriction zones. For my part, I am not quite sure how that will work—it seems an onerous obligation on the Parole Board—but I take her point that there should be some oversight of restriction zones. In a general sense, that could be undertaken by the Sentencing Council in considering sentencing guidelines to judges on how they are to be imposed, and by training of probation officers in how they are to be implemented.
On electronic monitoring, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, spoke, if it is proportionate and appropriate and is subject to restrictions that are decided upon to ensure that it is, then, broadly speaking, I agree with her points.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I will begin by speaking to the probing amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. In doing so, I am sure I will reflect the concerns already expressed in other parts of the Committee about these provisions in the Bill.
It has already been made clear that we on these Benches do not in principle oppose the idea of giving courts new tools to protect the public. These are tools that might, if properly designed and enforced, help to manage some offenders in the community rather than defaulting to custody, and we support that aim. But Clauses 14 and 15 do little more than say that courts now have these powers. The Government have provided little, if any, detail as to how these powers will be enforced. A ban that cannot be enforced is a false promise and, indeed, as a consequence, a danger to public confidence.
The Government want this House to support the expansion of suspended sentences and community-based orders. Yet to support them in this effort, they are asking us to sign off on a national regime of pub, club, concert and public event bans, without explaining how these will function on the ground. There is no credible enforcement plan. Are we seriously proposing that every pub, bar, off-licence and concert venue across the country becomes a mini probation checkpoint? Do we expect landlords, doormen, waiters and bar staff to act as de facto probation officers, verifying the identity of every customer against confidential court orders? The result would be unacceptable. If such pub bans become unenforceable and are reduced to a tick-box exercise in sentencing documents while nothing on the ground actually changes, the sanction will become meaningless. That would not be an improvement in justice.
The burden that such a regime would place on the hospitality and nightlife sector would be considerable. Pubs and nightlife venues are already under severe financial and structural pressure, as we know from various reports from the Night Time Industries Association. As a consequence of the national insurance increases, further tax pressures and red tape imposed on these venues by the Government, some 209 pubs—an average of eight a week—have closed permanently and many more continue to struggle. It is simply unrealistic, never mind unfair, to add to this burden by requiring them to police court-imposed bans on individuals under threat of legal liability.
The Government may argue that the burden of enforcement will not lie on public events or drinking establishments, but, in that case, they must lay out in detail how they plan on enforcing these orders with a Probation Service that, as everyone would accept, is already under severe strain. Simply saying that they have additional funding is not enough. We require specifics if we are to trust that the Government can cope with the pressures of managing offenders in the community. If the Government cannot explain clearly how these bans will be notified, enforced or policed, how can this House responsibly vote for this provision? We on these Benches must ask: on what basis are we expected to vote to expand suspended sentences for a broad group of offenders, if we cannot be satisfied that community supervision will actually work and without the most basic detail on banning access to pubs or events?
The amendments offer a simple test. They would require the Government, before we hand out sweeping powers to courts, to set out a clear, practical enforcement regime. They demand a reasonable amount of certainty. Who will be notified: pubs, events, promoters, the police? What will happen when an offender is banned from public events or drinking establishments? How will these bans be communicated? How will they be recorded? How will they be checked? What enforcement mechanisms will be used if an offender breaches the ban? Who will bear the cost and responsibility of monitoring: the state, the Probation Service or venues? If the Government cannot provide that clarity, these provisions risk being no more than symbolic restrictions. They will simply result in theatrical sentencing with no real-world effect, and that, in turn, will undermine public confidence and public safety.
The choice is not between doing nothing and embracing these sweeping new powers; it is between legislation grounded in operational reality and legislation built on aspiration and illusion. These amendments do not oppose the idea of community-based orders; they demand that, if we are to entrust courts and probation with greater powers, those powers must be backed by a robust, enforceable system and not simply by faith. We owe that to the victims of crime, to the public, and to the men and women who work in establishments such as pubs and other public venues.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, moved her Amendment 60, which is intended to probe the enforceability of public event attendance prohibition requirements, which points to another important question that is central to the debate on these orders. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, spoke to his Amendment 106, which would allow for exemptions to restriction zone conditions, such as to allow a person to attend employment, education or rehabilitation programmes. I would have thought that these would be included in the specified restriction zone, but I look forward to the Government’s response on these points.
On the part of the amendment that requires an annual report on the orders’ use and effectiveness, we on these Benches support the underlying sentiment. Without the requisite evidence, we cannot be sure that the provisions in the Bill are working or will work. We therefore fully support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these important probing amendments.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, before the Minister responds, I will make two apologies. The first is to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham; my noble friend Lady Hamwee tells me that I referred to him twice as the “noble Viscount, Lord Hogg”. The second is to my noble friend Lord Foster, because I referred to the points that he made on electronic monitoring as having been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. I apologise to them both.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I will join the trend. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for calling him “Lord Sanderson” in my enthusiasm to agree with him. Misnaming is almost as bad as misgendering, but I hope he will let me off. I was glad to take credit for the very important points made by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, about electronic tagging, because I agree with him.
I want to query the Minister now, rather than interrupting him later, about this group. There is something I do not understand. The group is focused largely on enforceability, yet in the previous group, the Minister claimed that these kinds of prohibitions were part of the punishment. He is right to suggest that these are punishments for those people—they are not in prison, but they are still being punished. But I do not find it easy to understand how these orders punish the individuals. Are they related to the crimes they committed? The example that the Minister gave earlier was that, as part of the punishment, someone will be prevented from going to a particular football match. I understand that, if someone supports Liverpool, it might be a punishment to watch them at the moment, never mind anything else.
How do the punishments get decided? There was the example that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, gave of the potential downside of saying that we will have a curfew and someone cannot attend their Gamblers Anonymous meeting. Also, if we are going to say that, as part of the punishment, someone cannot go to public gatherings, who decides which public gatherings are included? Some public gatherings are obviously morally good for people. Do we not want them to go to a political public gathering?
Can the Minister just clarify how it is decided which person in the community gets one of these orders and who makes a decision about who should be banned from a pub, football match, public gathering, political gathering or what have you?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Prashar, and the noble Lords, Lord Marks, Lord Foster and Lord Jackson, for tabling these amendments.
Amendments 60, 61 and 66 refer to the enforcement of the new community requirements. I hope that the noble Baroness and noble Lord will be satisfied with a summary of the answer I gave in the previous group: responsibility for enforcement sits with the Probation Service, which has a range of options available to respond to non-compliance. This includes returning the offender to court, where they may face further penalties. This can include being sent to custody.
The noble Baroness asked how this works in practice, and I hope I can assist. Where electronic monitoring is imposed, the electronic monitoring service provider will receive an automatic breach notification if the offender breaches a licence condition predetermined by a court or probation officer. They will then provide information on the breach to the individual’s probation officer by 10 o’clock the following morning, for them then to take the appropriate action. If the noble Baroness would like further clarification and to speak to the experts whom I work alongside, I would be very happy to arrange that.
Amendments 102 and 104, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, concern the enforcement of new licence conditions. As with the new community order requirements, the enforcement of licence conditions will mirror current practice. Where it is supervising offenders, the Probation Service will monitor offenders’ behaviour and any potential breach of licence conditions. It will have available to it a suite of options to respond to the breaches, including issuing a warning and increasing supervision; where needed, it also includes recall to custody.
Again, I hope that an example will assist your Lordships. Lucy has recently been released from prison after serving a custodial sentence after seriously assaulting someone in a pub. Her licence condition includes a ban on entering any drinking establishment. After several weeks, Lucy admits to her probation officer that she has frequently been going to pubs and clubs. Even though she has not been arrested, her probation officer decides that more intensive supervision is needed to manage her risk, and puts this in place.
As with community orders, where an offender is on licence, there is no expectation for businesses or venues to manage these conditions. As the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, rightly pointed out, imagine a probation officer, already under pressure, having to notify every pub, bar and venue within 20 miles that certain offenders cannot go there. Imagine businesses having to store securely, monitor and update this information and, by implication, having to be responsible for enforcing these conditions. This is not for venues or people in the community to manage, and it will not help offenders integrate back into their communities. The Probation Service will continue its management and supervision of these offenders; it is best placed to respond to any breaches, including recalling offenders to prison if necessary.
However, we must be clear: we cannot monitor every offender in every moment of every day, and nor should we. Complying with licence conditions is an important way in which offenders can show a reduction in their risk as they reintegrate into their communities. It is how they can rebuild the trust they have lost by committing crimes. The punishment correlates to offending behaviour and the decision of the sentencer who takes into account the nature of the offence.
I hope that this reassures noble Lords and noble Baronesses that these measures will provide our Probation Service with a full suite of options to support it in managing offenders in the community—a task it is best equipped to do. Of course, we are also supporting the Probation Service with more funding, more recruitment and better tools to help it do what it does best: keeping the public safe. We therefore believe that these amendments are unnecessary, and I urge noble Lords to withdraw or not press them.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
With all due respect to the Minister, that is not a great example, because the example he gives is that Lucy has volunteered the information that she is in breach of her licence conditions. Given that the licence conditions are a de facto replacement for potential custodial centres, had she not told the probation officer, she would still have been in breach of the licence conditions as she was still going to the pub. I do not really think that that is a great example, with all due respect to the Minister.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I am happy to provide further examples if that would be helpful but it may be that the tag, if Lucy had had one on, would have been used by the monitoring team to identify where she had or had not been.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for Amendment 106, which would allow for exemptions to restriction zone conditions. I am proud to be a Minister in the Government who introduced this measure. These zones will pin certain offenders down to a specific geographical area to ensure that victims can move freely everywhere else. I must pay tribute to those who campaigned tirelessly for this crucial change, including Diana Parkes and Hetti Barkworth-Nanton.
I hope that it will help your Lordships if I explain in a little more detail how the process of drawing a restriction zone will work. Where a restriction zone is deemed necessary and proportionate to manage risk, probation officers will conduct a detailed risk assessment. They will work closely with victim liaison officers, to ensure that victims have been given the chance to make representations where appropriate, but they must also ensure that offenders can access all necessary services, including employment, with consideration of public protection and risk. They must not be a barrier to employment or prevent rehabilitation; as someone who has championed the employment of ex-offenders for years, noble Lords will know that this is the last thing I would want to happen.
On a recent visit to the Serco office in Warrington, I saw at first hand how exclusion zones are designed. I saw the detailed consideration and care that is given when developing them; I will ensure that the same level of attention is given to restriction zones when those are being drawn, with due consideration given to the needs of both the victim and the offender. Let us be clear: these considerations are inextricably linked. Supporting offenders to rehabilitate and stopping the cycling of reoffending are vital parts of ensuring that restriction zones protect victims. Restriction zones, like all restrictive measures, must accommodate rehabilitative aims, such as employment; that way, we will better protect not just a single victim but all victims.
Amendment 101A from the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, would give the Parole Board oversight of restriction zones. Although I thank the noble Baroness for raising this matter, my firm view is that, as I have set out throughout this speech, the Probation Service is best placed to monitor and request licence conditions; and that the judiciary is best placed to hand out orders.
The Parole Board is best placed to develop risk management plans on release for indeterminate sentence offenders and more serious determinate sentence offenders whose release it directs. It is not for it to do so in cases where offenders are subject to automatic release. If an offender is released automatically without any involvement of the Parole Board, it would be inappropriate for the board then to be asked to approve a restriction zone for an offender whose release it did not direct; it would have no knowledge of the individual and their case. As with current provisions, it is right that the Probation Service will manage the licence for these cases. It is the one who know the offender and the risk they pose best.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for his Amendment 110ZA. I agree that it is important to ensure that electronic monitoring is imposed where it is proportionate and necessary to do so. When an electronic monitoring condition is being considered following an individual’s release from custody, the Probation Service will carry out an extensive assessment of that individual’s circumstances to ensure that electronic monitoring is used appropriately as part of its wider supervision. Conducting these assessments via the professional judgment of our Probation Service remains a core principle to ensuring that electronic monitoring is used only where it is proportionate and necessary. I have full confidence in the checks and decisions taken by the Probation Service, and I have confidence in the technology that is used to enforce any electronic monitoring requirement. I can assure the noble Lord that the electronic monitoring suitability checks currently in place and carried out by the Probation Service are robust; they ensure that the imposition of electronic monitoring will not result in harm to victims or perpetrators.
We are confident that probation officers will continue to impose electronic monitoring where it is proportionate and necessary to do so. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, this is one of those occasions when scrutiny is important to both the proponents and opponents of a proposition. Some of us want to make sure that it works; others want to show that it will not. I hope that the Minister will understand that, certainly from these Benches, we are seeking not to oppose what he is planning but to understand how it will work. To me, identifying where there is a breach is the big question mark. I enthusiastically accept his suggestion that we can have further briefings; although I never like doing things in private, those are a necessary step.
The noble Viscount criticised my drafting rather than the substance—at least, I hope that was the case. I know of the case of the lady whose wrists were too slim to take a tag. It was worse than that. She kept being told that she was in breach because it was understood that she was refusing to wear a tag, whereas she could not. There are a lot of situations that one cannot quite imagine until one discovers that they have actually happened.
I am sure that we will come back to this subject of enforcement. Having had a look at the relevant clause just now, I am relieved that these are not among the provisions that will commence immediately on the passing of the Act. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie
“Public event attendance prohibition statistics: duty to publish(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, direct His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service to record and publish, in relation to all offenders recorded who have breached a public event attendance prohibition requirement—(a) the total number of breaches;(b) a breakdown of the prior or associated offence or offences for which those offenders were given a public event attendance prohibition requirement;(c) the number of offenders who have breached the public event attendance prohibition requirement on more than one occasion, recorded by number of repeat breaches.(2) The data recorded under subsection (1) must be compiled and published separately in respect of each of the following kinds of public event attendance prohibition requirement—(a) a requirement prohibiting attendance at a specified public event, (b) a requirement prohibiting attendance at public events of a specified description, and(c) a requirement prohibiting attendance at any public event.(3) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for the data recorded under subsection (1) to be published and laid before Parliament—(a) within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, and(b) annually thereafter.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require HMPPS to publish the number of offenders who breach public attendance prohibition requirements and to log what their associated offences were.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, these amendments were tabled by me and my noble friend Lord Sandhurst.
As we have already seen, the Bill introduces new prohibition powers: prohibitions on attending public events, restrictions on entering drinking establishments, restriction zones limiting movement and electronic monitoring to enforce compliance. In principle this all sounds very sensible, but we must again ask the critical question: how will these powers work on the ground?
On the prohibitions with respect to drinking establishments, legally the offender must comply but enforcement is then shared. Probation must monitor and the police must act. In practice, this is far from straightforward. How will breaches be reliably detected? GPS or electronic monitoring may indicate proximity but cannot confirm entry. Reporting from licensees or police may be inconsistent. Once a breach is detected, how quickly can probation services respond and are resources sufficient to manage multiple offenders across wide areas? Without clarity, we cannot be confident that these powers will work.
That is precisely why Amendments 71 and 76 are tabled. They would require the Probation Service to record and publish breaches, repeat breaches and underlying offences. They also probe the reliability of electronic monitoring. Can GPS monitoring operate reliably in towns, cities and rural areas? Will probation teams receive training to know how and when to respond? As I have said before, we know that probation services are already stretched. Surely new powers that add a substantial responsibility to their workload have to be considered with care. We simply seek clarity as to how these services will be managed in these circumstances.
These amendments come from a place of reality, not of opposition. They affirm the Government’s policy while probing whether it can be delivered reliably. I look forward to the Minister’s response on how these powers will operate in practice. I beg to move.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for their amendments. The new community requirements in Clauses 13 to 16 are vital reforms. I am glad that I have had the opportunity to speak to them in some detail today. Amendments 65, 71 and 75 seek to require HMPPS to publish the number of offenders who breach these requirements and to log what their associated offences were. While I am sympathetic to the intent behind this, we do not agree that it is necessary. The Ministry of Justice already publishes detailed sentence outcome statistics. These include the type of disposals handed out at court and are split by detailed offences and offender characteristic. We regularly assess the effectiveness of all community requirements.
Furthermore, HMPPS publishes a range of staffing and case load data on a quarterly basis. We must be conscious of adding more work into the service. We also place great value on the independent oversight and assurance provided by HM Inspectorate of Probation. It already inspects the service and provides insight into how it is performing. Given the information that is already available, we do not agree that adding a statutory requirement to publish this information is necessary or proportionate. But I assure the noble and learned Lord that I will keep an open mind. I will continue to review regularly what data is published, what can be stopped and what can be added.
Amendments 74 and 76 probe the use of electronic monitoring to enforce restriction zones as part of a community or suspended sentence order. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for tabling these amendments. With regard to Amendment 74, I can assure him that electronic monitoring will be imposed alongside these orders in the vast majority of cases. However, electronic monitoring is not appropriate in all cases. Some offenders have no fixed abode. They may live complex and chaotic lifestyles. Imposing an electronic monitoring requirement would likely set up these individuals to fail, instead of helping them to improve outcomes for victims, the public and the offender themselves. A court will be able to impose a restriction zone without electronic monitoring when it cannot obtain the consent of someone whose co-operation is required, such as the home owner, where the appropriate local arrangements are not in place to enable electronic monitoring, or where it would be inappropriate. It is right that the decision about what requirements to include as part of the sentence sits with the judiciary hearing the individual case.
If a court does not believe that a restriction zone will be effective without electronic monitoring, it has a range of other requirements at its disposal. When a requirement is not electronically monitored, the Probation Service will monitor offenders’ behaviour for any potential breach. It will have a suite of options available to respond to breaches if it identifies that they have not complied—for example, from police intelligence or victim concerns.
I will end by briefly turning to the question of how these are to be monitored in practice and the reliability of the technology that allows the Probation Service to do so. The use of electronic monitoring to enforce these requirements will mean that we receive retrospective data that provides clear evidence of an individual’s whereabouts. This ensures that those receiving a restriction zone are robustly monitored. GPS is a reliable technology that has been part of electronic monitoring since 2018. This will allow the Probation Service to assess whether someone has breached their restriction zone. As I have said before, if this happens, probation staff have a range of enforcement options at their disposal.
I thank the noble and learned Lord for the constructive discussions on these matters and hope that I have provided sufficient reassurance on the points raised. I therefore urge him to withdraw Amendment 65.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, we have already discussed why transparency, reporting and practical assurances are essential.
First, enforcement is only as good as the system that is supporting it. It is not enough to create restrictions in law if those tasked with monitoring them lack the resources and capacity to act effectively. Secondly, repeat offenders are a particular concern. If data on repeated breaches is not recorded and published, the restrictions risk being meaningless for those most likely to violate them. Thirdly, public confidence is at stake here. To create a law that cannot be implemented correctly is unwise. Restrictions that are not transparent, not measurable and not enforceable will undermine trust in the entire system.
These amendments are not intended as a challenge to the principles in the Bill. They are seeking operational clarity. Therefore, while at this time I am willing not to press them, I indicate to the Minister that we will return to them at a later stage.
Lord Foster of Bath
“Gambling premises entry prohibition requirement(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.(2) In section 201 (community order requirements table), in the table, after the entry relating to the restriction zone requirement (inserted by section 16(2)), insert—
“gambling premises entry prohibition requirement | Part 4E | section 207(E1)”. |
(E1) A gambling premises entry prohibition requirement is not an available requirement if the offence was committed before the day on which subsection (3) of section (Gambling premises entry prohibition requirement) of the Sentencing Act 2025 came into force.”.(4) In section 287 (community requirements table), in the table, after the entry relating to the restriction zone requirement (inserted by section 16(5)), insert—
“gambling premises entry prohibition requirement | Part 4E | section 291(E1)”. |
(E1) A gambling premises entry prohibition requirement is not an available requirement if the offence was committed before the day on which subsection (5) of section (Gambling premises entry prohibition requirement) of the Sentencing Act 2025 came into force.”.(6) In Schedule 9 (community orders and suspended sentence orders: requirements), after Part 4D (inserted by section 16(8)(a)) insert—“Part 4EGambling premises entry prohibition requirement8E (1) In this Code “gambling premises entry prohibition requirement”, in relation to a relevant order, means a requirement prohibiting the offender from entering gambling premises.(2) A gambling premises entry prohibition requirement may prohibit the offender from entering gambling premises at any time in a particular period or at particular times in a particular period.(3) A gambling premises entry prohibition requirement may prohibit the offender from entering—(a) particular gambling premises,(b) gambling premises of a particular kind,(c) gambling premises in a particular area or areas, or(d) any gambling premises.(4) Where the court makes a relevant order imposing a gambling premises entry prohibition requirement, the following must be specified in the order—(a) the period for which the requirement has effect; (b) if the order prohibits the offender from entering gambling premises at particular times, those times;(c) if the order prohibits the offender from entering particular gambling premises, those premises;(d) if the order prohibits the offender from entering gambling premises of a particular kind, that kind of gambling premises;(e) if the order prohibits the offender from entering gambling premises in a particular area or areas, the limits of that area or those areas.(5) In this paragraph “gambling premises” means premises used for any of the activities specified in section 150(1) (a) to (e) of the Gambling Act 2005.”.”
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 70 I will also talk to the other amendments in my name. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and Lord Gold, for their support. I have indicated my support for the amendment in this group from the noble Lord, Lord Bach. With one caveat, which I will come to, I am also attracted by the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe. I declare my interest as the chairman of Peers for Gambling Reform because the thrust of this group of amendments is about the lack of reference to tackling gambling disorder in the criminal justice system and the need to do something about it.
Anyone who was looking at the BBC News headlines only today may have noticed the headline, “Skipton gambling addict fuelled habit with company funds”. The article goes on to point out:
“A web developer has been jailed for fraud after siphoning more than £500,000 from the company he worked for to fuel his gambling addiction”.
Disorders caused by drug and alcohol addiction are frequently referred to in all the legislation, procedures and processes, and in all the support, help and guidance that is given about how the Probation Service, the Prison Service and the judiciary should handle various stages when a suspect or offender engages with the criminal justice system. Gambling disorder is not; I believe it should be, and these amendments offer a way forward.
Part of the role of sentencing is to consider how best to reduce the likelihood of an offender reoffending. Where, for example, it has been identified that a person is a drug addict or that he or she committed crime to raise funds to pay for the habit, that is frequently taken into account, for example by adding a treatment condition or giving a non-custodial sentence rather than a custodial one, so that more effective treatment can be provided to reduce the likelihood of reoffending. Since screening for gambling disorder rarely happens, it is not taken into account in the sentencing process, or in any subsequent stages during either a custodial or a non-custodial sentence. Indeed, judges, for example, do not routinely consider gambling disorder as a mitigating factor in the same way that they do for drugs and alcohol disorders.
In the other place, when a similar concern was raised, Ministers argued that gambling is a mental health issue, and since mental health forms part of the screening and sentencing decision, therefore gambling is covered and there is no need to take any further action. To some extent, that is actually true. Both the World Health Organization and the internationally recognised Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders put alcohol and drugs and gambling disorders under the umbrella of mental health disorders. But critically, all three are then linked under a sub-category, “Substance-Related and Addictive Disorders”. It is clear that the WHO and the diagnostic manual treat drug, alcohol and gambling as a separate group in which all three need to be considered. For quite a long time, however, we have referred in all the documentation to mental health and drug and alcohol issues only, separating out drug and alcohol from other forms of mental health issues since they require a separate approach—gambling is not mentioned.
This is actually borne out in the official documents that are currently used in the main offender assessment system, OASys, which is used by both prison and probation staff. Guides on OASys say it is used by prison and probation officers to assess the needs and risks of offenders, specifically the risk of reoffending and the risk of harm. The resulting assessment then helps formulate plans designed to reduce those risks. Chapter 3 of the latest OASys guide lists “factors linked to offending” under section 3.2.1, “Likelihood of Reoffending Assessment”. The list covers things like accommodation, education, training, employability and relationships. Drug misuse and alcohol misuse also appear, but there is no reference to gambling despite the very clear evidence, as we heard from that quote, of the links between gambling disorder and crime.
Currently, the system fails in multiple interrelated ways. First, identification is inconsistent and unreliable. Many individuals enter court or prison without any assessment of whether gambling disorder contributed to their offence. Secondly, courts rarely have access to gambling-specific psychological reports, leaving judges without the evidence needed to make informed decisions about sentencing. Thirdly, there is no statutory gambling treatment requirement, leaving courts without structured, clinically guided alternatives to custodial sentences. Fourthly, within prisons, treatment and peer support are largely absent and gambling culture remains pervasive. Fifthly, upon release, continuity of care is inconsistent: individuals are discharged without referral to community gambling services, without peer support and without family support frameworks, leaving them highly vulnerable to relapse and to reoffend.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for not having spoken at Second Reading; I was not present due to domestic circumstances. Had I been present, I would have spoken on the importance—following on from the remarks of noble Lord, Lord Foster—of addressing the problems that we have with those who are sentenced with addiction problems. Here, I have written down “whether it be drink, drugs, gambling, sex, sugar, smoking”, and so on—we find new addictions coming along all the time these days.
In this group, I speak to Amendments 97 and 107. The purpose behind these probing amendments is fairly simple: to ensure that, for addicted prisoners who are released before they can be classed as well on the way to sobriety—this can cover gambling as well as drink and drugs—the Ministry of Justice will be prepared to provide funding, maybe from the prison education budget, to fund the admission of these prisoners into residential recovery and rehabilitation centres so that they can continue with their recovery.
We saw with the recent early release programme that a number of prisoners released then who were in prison undertaking recovery courses—in particular, 12-step recovery courses—were then just simply released, and there was little follow-up in the maintenance of their recovery afterwards. Some of those prisoners, however, did find their way into some residential centres; it was only a small number, and they were funded mainly by charities or by the generosity of the centres that took them in.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned in the earlier debate, many of these centres are struggling. We have seen a reduction in the number of rehabs around the country by a half over the last 10 years; we have far fewer than we ever used to have. Many of the problems that they are encountering are, obviously, financial. Many of the patients they now take in are funded primarily by the major insurance companies; alternatively, they get support from charities. This really means that, increasingly, we are finding that those who are at the bottom end, who are not working and do not have insurance, or who have little funds themselves or do not have contact with charities, including prisoners, are finding it so difficult these days to get into residential recovery.
What I am suggesting with these rather modest little amendments is that, when prisoners are released, if they are in recovery and have not completed their course, they should be permitted to go into residential centres if they are able to find those that are willing to take them, and that, in turn, the cost of their residential accommodation and treatment would be met out of a budget to be provided by the Ministry of Justice—I would suggest it should come out of its education fund as a way of finding the means. This would be money well invested. Hopefully, it would ensure people found sobriety and would break the cycle that we see so often of people going into prison due to their addiction, coming out, getting back in old company, drinking and drugging and gambling again, going around the circle and going back into prison again, which is extraordinarily costly to society.
There is an opportunity, if we get people into a residential recovery, that not only do the prisoners benefit, but it benefits their family and the wider community in the best possible way. I hope the Minister is prepared to give some favourable consideration to these ideas.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I spoke at Second Reading and declared my interests. I cannot start my short amendment without saying how personally delighted I am with the Minister’s department today for having raised legal aid rates in a number of very important areas such as crime, immigration and housing.
My amendment would introduce an express right for those being made subject to licence conditions to make representations about the necessity or the proportionality of the conditions. This amendment has the support of the Prison Reform Trust, which has been very helpful in its advice.
Of course, those of us who enthusiastically support the Bill agree that, in order for prisons not to be overused, tough new measures are sensibly proposed to restrain the behaviour and activities of offenders on release from prison—a suite of new and tough licence conditions. I think the Committee will agree that licence conditions must, as a matter of law, be both necessary and proportionate.
This amendment gives offenders an express opportunity to make representations without disturbing—this is the important part of the amendment—the Secretary of State’s, or, in reality, the probation officer’s ultimate decision as to which conditions to impose. There is no question of overriding the probation officer because you do not like it; the request is that the offender should be able to make some representation about the suitability or otherwise as far as their individual case is concerned.
This can be a safeguard against disproportionate and inappropriate use of conditions, which can, of course, lead to increased recalls if the conditions are wrong or not suitable, and thus increased pressure, leading to even more pressure on our prison system, which is under a lot of pressure already.
An unintended consequence would be where conditions might impact on, for example, resettlement or other matters such as employment and health care.
The idea behind this amendment is, of course, to prevent unnecessary recalls to prison. There is a slight irony at present: only for the most serious offences, where releasing is the decision of the Parole Board, is there a formal avenue for the offender to make representations, but there is not one for offenders who do not have to go through the Parole Board process.
This is a quick and a modest amendment, and an attempt to find a way of ensuring that all offenders who may be subject to these measures—whether they are the new, tough measures or not—can at least make representations before they are imposed.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, in the amendments they have spoken to in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, was quite right to draw attention to gambling and how that can be an addiction, like other addictions which are so prevalent within the prisons. My noble friend Lord Bach made a very interesting point on the right to representations about the proportionality of licence conditions when prisoners leave the custodial bit of their sentence.
I really want to concentrate my comments on what my noble friend Lord Brooke said about the addiction of many people in our prisons—to drink, gambling and drugs, as we all know. He talked very persuasively about the continuity of care that needs to happen within the prison and as prisoners leave prison. With the previous Government, it was called a through-the-gate approach. Although the aspiration was clearly there, it has not been managed very well.
I want to talk about my own experience on the street I live on in Wandsworth, where we have a residential centre and I occasionally, not infrequently, come across men—usually—who attend the community events I go to in my immediate vicinity. Invariably, they tell me about the importance of the various programmes they are going on, whether they are able to be directed to them from within prison or from the residential centre they attend.
I reinforce the points my noble friend made. I was glad that he said he has had ongoing discussions with our noble friends on the Front Bench. I look forward to hearing what they will have to say about his amendments.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for moving his amendment. Providing care for individuals with addictions, gambling in particular, should be a fundamental role of a national health service, and we support his aims.
As the noble Lord explained, gambling addiction is a chronic issue across this country. Roughly 2.8% of all adults are engaged in at-risk or problem gambling—a huge number of people either in need of, or at risk of needing, support services. His amendments highlight this issue and the need for our services properly to address gambling addiction.
We support the sentiment behind the approach to general addiction recovery services of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe. Often, individuals with addiction either cannot or do not want to accept recovery services. To introduce a requirement to engage with services would serve those people. This is particularly the case in prisons. Last year, there were almost 50,000 adults in recovery in alcohol and drug treatment centres in prison and secure settings. Almost 60% of those individuals were undergoing treatment for crack or opiates. That 60% comprises vulnerable individuals being treated for misuse of the hardest substances.
The principle behind Amendments 131 to 133, from the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, clearly reflects the reality of the situation. We heard an interesting proposal from the noble Lord, which merits consideration. We also heard an interesting speech from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, who of course has great experience as a Minister in this field. We remain, however, not fully convinced that this group of amendments would have the desired effect.
There is a large question mark hovering over the whole Bill: the general enforceability of the new orders it introduces. We have explained that we do not agree with the decision to suspend sentences under 18 months—that is, 18 months because the Government have opposed our guilty plea amendment—but if the Government are to make this all work, the new orders they impose have to be effective. As I have said before, we are not convinced that they will be.
As I have already argued, the Government’s new drinking establishment entry prohibition requirement realistically is unenforceable. Public event attendance is too vague and too broad. The Government’s approach to new orders is largely deficient. We do not think they should be taking on new responsibilities, even if there is a need for them, as is the case with gambling addiction, when they have demonstrated an incapacity to plan for the existing responsibilities that are being imposed.
The onus, therefore, is on the Government to demonstrate that the noble Lord’s well-intentioned amendments can be accepted, if possible, and then implemented. We would like this to be the case, but only if possible. Gambling addiction and addiction in general require attention from our state, but the state must first prove itself competent. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for sharing their views and tabling these amendments, which raise important issues around tackling gambling harms and the harms caused by other addictions. Just last week I met a prisoner at HMP Wormwood Scrubs whose life have been devastated by gambling harm. Although the data on gambling is limited, I understand that this is an important issue impacting the lives of offenders and their families.
Amendments 70 and 78 would introduce new community order requirements: one prohibiting an offender from entering a gambling establishment, and one introducing a mandatory treatment requirement. I wholeheartedly share the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, to supporting offenders whose lives are impacted by gambling. I assure noble Lords that courts already have the power to prohibit offenders serving a community or suspended sentence from entering gambling premises. They can do this through a prohibited activity requirement.
However, I reassure the noble Lord that we will continue to keep the menu of community requirements under close review. Clause 17 introduces a power to add or amend community requirements using secondary legislation. This will provide further flexibility to ensure that the framework is kept relevant to the offending behaviour.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and my noble friend Lord Brooke, and supported by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, speak to the wider issue of how the criminal justice system can support and treat those whose offending is driven by addiction or mental health needs. I know this issue is close to noble Lords’ hearts and I agree completely that alongside effective punishment we have a duty to rehabilitate offenders with gambling addictions and other needs. We must provide them with the right support throughout the criminal justice system to rebuild their lives. I hope it will help your Lordships for me to set out the ways in which we are already doing so.
Pre-sentence reports help the court identify underlying issues such as harmful gambling, mental ill-health and addiction, which may influence offending behaviour. Mental health conditions and addictions can be considered at sentencing where they are relevant to the offence or the offender’s culpability. Courts are encouraged to take an individualised approach, particularly where the condition contributes to someone’s offending. Where appropriate, courts may consider mental health treatment requirements, funded by NHS England as part of a community or suspended sentence order, where mental health has been identified as an underlying factor. The use of these requirements has increased significantly in recent years.
Alongside this, HMPPS delivers a broad range of rehabilitative interventions through probation, which can help address wider gambling-related harms. This includes support with thinking and behaviour, homelessness or unemployment. We also work closely with health partners to ensure that pathways to treatment and recovery services are accessible for offenders and aligned with prison and probation services. This includes increasing the use and effectiveness of mental health, alcohol and drug treatment requirements as part of community and suspended sentences.
For those in prison, there is already a statutory duty for prison governors to provide health services in custody, with our approach guided by the principle of equivalence of care to patients in the community. We are ensuring that prison leavers remain in treatment on release by strengthening links to prison, probation and treatment providers.
Finally, support for those with gambling-related harms in the criminal justice system will be bolstered by funding from the statutory gambling levy. The Government have committed to publishing an annual report on the progress of this. I will also reach out to representatives in the gambling industry and will look to host a round table with them next year to better understand the impacts of gambling harm and what more we can do.
The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, also tabled Amendment 108, which would give new powers to set licence conditions prohibiting offenders from entering a gambling establishment. I want to be clear that the provisions in Clause 24 will support our aim to give practitioners a full range of tools to manage and support offenders. Existing powers enable probation to set additional licence conditions related to gambling, including prohibiting offenders on licence from gambling or making payments for other games of chance.
Probation also has an existing power to request an additional licence condition, directing offenders to undertake activities to address their gambling activities, where necessary and proportionate to their risk. HMPPS delivers a broad range of rehabilitative interventions through probation, which can help address wider gambling-related harms. We will be looking at issuing operational guidance to practitioners on effective usage of gambling-related licence conditions, alongside implementation of the new conditions set out in Clause 24. I would very much like to harness the considerable expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, on this topic. I hope that he will be keen to work with me and my officials as this work develop0s.
Finally, I thank my noble friend Lord Bach for his Amendment 101. I reassure him that probation practitioners carefully consider what licence conditions to recommend as part of their supervision and management of an offender. They can tailor conditions to the specific needs of the offender, in line with managing public protection.
Although there is no formal process for representations, this is not considered to be necessary. Probation practitioners draw on a range of information when applying licence conditions and discuss conditions with offenders as part of release planning. They must ensure that licence conditions are necessary and proportionate, and they can grant necessary exemptions to licence conditions for rehabilitative purposes. This will be the same for the new conditions.
I repeat my thanks to noble Lords for allowing the Committee to debate these important subjects, but I hope I have explained why the Government do not agree that these amendments are necessary. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for agreeing, in principle at least, with the amendments and rightly saying that he wants them accepted and implemented, but only when he can be convinced that they can be enforced. In so doing, he draws attention to the well-known problem of the shortage of support, even at present. For example, of those who are identified as having a mental health problem when they enter prison, only 1.8% actually even start treatment. He is quite right that we have to do much more. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, also pointed that out. We must do much more about the provision of support.
The Minister also described this as a serious problem. He is quite right, because the percentage of people in prison who suffer from a gambling disorder is many times greater than in the population at large. The amount of gambling that goes on in prison is now very well documented and, sadly, on occasion involves prison officers.
The one disappointing thing in the Minister’s response is that he seemed to believe that it is still perfectly all right to separate out from mental health the two issues of drugs and alcohol but not even to include the words “gambling disorder” in the list, the assessment procedure and so on. I hope I can persuade him, in the discussions he is obviously keen to have—I am keen to have them as well—that we can find a way forward. I am very keen indeed to ensure that those words are included in the relevant documentation. Having said that, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
OBR Forecasts
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement on the OBR forecasting process made in the other place earlier today by my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement to the House on two separate but related matters. The first is regarding communication with the public in the lead-up to the Budget. I understand that this is a topic that has held much interest and speculation over the weekend and I would like to take this opportunity to give a formal Statement to the House on the Government’s position. However, the Government have also today received the results of the OBR’s investigation into the early release of the Economic and Fiscal Outlook at the Budget last week. I know that the House will be concerned to understand those findings, so the majority of my Statement will be concerned with this latter point.
On the former point, the Chancellor has been entirely consistent and honest with the public about her considerations in the lead-up to the Budget last week. First, she was clear on her priorities for the Budget on 4 November: cutting NHS waiting lists, cutting the cost of living, and cutting our debt and borrowing. The Budget she delivered last week delivered on all three of those priorities. Secondly, she was clear on 4 November that a lower productivity forecast would mean lower tax receipts. The OBR confirmed at the Budget that tax receipts are £16 billion lower as a result of its reduced productivity forecast.
Thirdly, the Chancellor was clear on 4 November that she intended to build more headroom. She has done that, with headroom against the stability rule of £21.7 billion. Fourthly, she was clear in the summer that the policy decisions we took on welfare would need to be paid for at the Budget, and the Budget document shows those decisions costing £6.9 billion in 2029-30. Finally, the OBR has now confirmed that the Chancellor knew on 4 November that she had only £4.2 billion of headroom against her fiscal rules, meaning that once the cost of those policy decisions was accounted for, there would be a deficit of £2.7 billion against the stability rule.
The combined effect of this information is this: on 4 November, the Chancellor knew that the Government would be in deficit against the stability rule before any of this Government’s priorities for the Budget had been delivered or any additional headroom had been built. In the light of this information, and in the knowledge of the OBR’s productivity downgrade, the Chancellor knew on 4 November that challenging decisions would be required on tax and spend. The subsequent decision to freeze personal tax thresholds for a further three years shows that this was completely correct.
The Chancellor took the unique step of delivering that scene-setter speech before the Budget, precisely so that she could be honest about the circumstances that she was facing and the decisions she would need to take. The Chancellor has been completely honest and consistent with the public in everything that she has said.
I turn now to my second topic. Last Wednesday, before the Chancellor had begun to give her Budget speech, the Office for Budget Responsibility published its entire Economic and Fiscal Outlook November 2025 online. Let me be clear: this is a very serious breach of highly sensitive information. It is a fundamental breach of the OBR’s responsibility, it is a discourtesy to this House, and it should never have happened. The OBR rightly took full responsibility and issued an apology to the Chancellor later that day. It has now conducted an investigation into how the report was published prematurely, and it sent its report, including its findings, to the Treasury and the Treasury Select Committee today at 12.30 pm.
The report states:
‘We are in no doubt that this failure to protect information prior to publication has inflicted heavy damage on the OBR’s reputation. It is the worst failure in the 15-year history of the OBR’.
It adds:
‘The ultimate responsibility for the circumstances in which this vulnerability occurred and was then exposed rests, over the years, with the leadership of the OBR’.
The report notes that this has
‘inflicted heavy damage on the OBR’s reputation’,
and caused significant disruption on Budget Day ‘to the Chancellor’s disadvantage’. I can confirm to the House that the report goes on to make it clear that this is a significant and long-standing issue that has allowed external users to gain early access to the OBR’s publication, which contains full details of its forecasts and the Chancellor’s Budget.
In the days since the Budget, there has been speculation about the kind of error that led to the Economic and Fiscal Outlook November 2025 being published early. The report today confirms that the cause was not
‘simply a matter of pressing the publication button on a locally managed website too early’.
The report concludes that the cause of the OBR’s error was ‘systemic issues’, and that the investigation has made it clear that
‘the problem exposed last week was not a new one’.
Indeed, I can confirm to the House that the report reveals that the OBR’s EFO in March was accessed before the Chancellor delivered the Spring Statement to the House. That underlines just how serious a situation this is. Let me underline just how seriously we as a Government take it to ensure the OBR never allows this to happen again.
The report notes that common and fairly basic protections to prevent early access, including passwords and random character URLs, were not used. It further notes that two configuration errors, which were not understood by the OBR’s online publishing function, prevented the safeguards in its online publishing software being effective.
However, I am very concerned to share that the report also notes that
‘it is very likely that the weaknesses that caused the premature accessing of the November 2025 EFO were pre-existing. Indeed, it appears that the March 2025 EFO was accessed prematurely’.
These findings are very serious indeed. That market-sensitive information was prematurely accessible to a small group of market participants is extremely concerning; that it might have been the case on more than one occasion is even more severe. We do not at this stage know the extent to which market behaviour may have been affected on this or other occasions as a result of information being available early.
I want to share one further piece of information from the report with the House today. On the morning of the Budget, the first IP address to successfully access the economic and fiscal outlook had made 32 prior attempts on the day, starting around 5 am. Such a volume of requests implies that the person attempting to access the document had every confidence that persistence would lead to success at some point. This unfortunately leads us to consider whether the reason they tried so persistently to access the economic and fiscal outlook is because they had been successful at a previous fiscal event. At this time, we do not have answers to all these questions, but I can confirm that the Treasury will make contact with previous Chancellors to make them aware of developments that relate to previous fiscal events. The OBR has rightly conducted its initial investigation as quickly as possible, and it is right that both the Government and the Treasury Select Committee now take time to consider the report and its findings. The Treasury Committee will have the opportunity to carefully question the OBR tomorrow at its post-Budget hearing.
Furthermore, in response to the recommendation in paragraph 3.4 that the problem exposed last week was not a new one, I can confirm to the House that the Government will work in conjunction with the National Cyber Security Centre to take forward the recommendation that a forensic examination of other fiscal events is carried out, although let me specifically note to the House that the report finds no evidence of hostile cyber activity. In addition, the report says that the OBR
‘could not, in the time available, carry out deeper forensic examination of other recent EFO events and we recommend that such an exercise is, with expert support, now urgently carried out’.
We will make sure that work is carried out urgently. We will look at wider questions of the systemic risk that this incident has uncovered, including the report’s conclusion that the OBR’s information security arrangements
‘should have been regularly re-examined and assured by the management of the OBR’.
This Government are committed to the independence of the Office for Budget Responsibility and its role at the heart of economic and fiscal policy-making. The strength of that institution is a vital pillar in the Government’s economic and fiscal policy-making, and we will respond to this matter with the seriousness it demands”.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by noting the resignation of Richard Hughes from his position as chair of the OBR and thank him for his service in that role, which he has occupied since 2020. We in the Opposition will carefully study the contents of the report that has been issued today into the highly regrettable early release of the economic and fiscal outlook. We welcome the seriousness with which the OBR has treated this matter.
We expect those in positions of power to act with transparency, openness and integrity. The only person who has shown any integrity in this process has demonstrated it by resigning. Perhaps the Chancellor might want to follow his example.
We must not let today’s report be a convenient distraction from the matter we are discussing, namely the accusations that the Chancellor misled the Cabinet, the markets and the public in the run-up to the Budget. On 4 November, three weeks before the Budget, the Chancellor held an extraordinary press conference to warn that a downgrade in the public finances meant that taxes would have to rise. She pointed to a supposed collapse in productivity and said this had consequences for working people and for the public finances too. No one compelled her to make that announcement. She chose to do so. She signalled openly that she was preparing to break the Labour manifesto by raising the basic rate of income tax, presenting this as unavoidable.
Yet we know that the picture she painted was not the full truth. There was a sin of omission. What she did not tell the public, Parliament or even her own Cabinet was that the public finances had actually improved. Higher than expected tax receipts had offset most of the productivity downgrade. By 31 October, four days before her press conference, the OBR had informed her that she in fact had a £4.2 billion surplus against the main fiscal rule and not a black hole. The omission of material fiscal information during the most sensitive period of the economic calendar is extraordinarily serious. The OBR was so concerned by the misconceptions circulating before Budget day that its chair took the highly unusual step of writing publicly to the Treasury Select Committee to correct the record. He confirmed that the Chancellor had been informed as early as 17 September that improved tax revenues largely wiped out the productivity downgrade. Yet on 4 November she chose to speak only of gloom, and working families, savers and businesses all made decisions as a result. People judged their financial futures based on those statements. The markets reacted; journalists reported. Those words and the briefings and selective leaks that followed came from the Chancellor, her officials and her Government, and they were incomplete, confusing and misleading. They came on top of weeks of U-turns, backtracking, redrafting and contradictory briefings. I think I have recalled this chaos in earlier debates.
What makes the whole saga even more inexplicable is this: if the Chancellor genuinely wanted more fiscal headroom, if she wanted to raise taxes in the name of prudence, then why on earth did she not simply say so? Instead, we had misreporting, mixed messages and false presentations of the facts, and for what? There is no obvious strategy, no coherent political rationale and no fiscal logic. It simply looks like serious, consequential incompetence at the very top of the Treasury. Let us be clear: this would be unacceptable at any time, but in the run-up to a Budget, when the markets are watching with greater intensity than at any other point, when households and businesses make real decisions based on what they believe the Government are telling them, when the entire country waits to hear how their taxes will be collected and their money will be spent, this is unforgivable.
In the light of the chaos the Government have created around this Budget, can the Minister answer three simple questions? Can he confirm that the Chancellor was aware of a £4.2 billion surplus against the main fiscal rule on 31 October? Can he tell the House, if the Chancellor wanted to increase tax to improve headroom and fund extra spending on welfare, as he suggested, why she did not simply say so in her scene-setting speech? Finally, will the Government finally subject themselves to an investigation by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury into possible market abuse by all those in No. 10 and at the Treasury who would have had access to relevant confidential information? If the Government have nothing to hide, they will have nothing to fear from such an investigation.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, this really has been a bit of an omnishambles with announcements, scene-setting musings, U-turns, misstatements and leaks—speculation that, for a time at least, spooked the markets, raising interest rates on government debt and causing such uncertainty that businesses and individuals delayed or abandoned decisions. We in this House have felt for the Minister, who has tried to hold the line by refusing to speculate despite being inveigled by pretty much all of us to try to make him do so. Frankly, all around him, others were simply flying kites.
On the issue of the OBR, Richard Hughes has taken the honourable step of resigning. Like others, I agree that he is very much the embodiment of a dedicated civil servant and has contributed much to the economic welfare of this country. Can the Government tell us, now that they recognise the seriousness of the breach, whether it is possible that attempts to access this information actually rise to the level of criminality? Are we looking at a possible issue around that? Also, is the security review being extended to other entities at arm’s length from the Government that might also have significant information but not the security that is necessary?
On the Chancellor, we need to understand much better why statements about tax receipts were omitted from the discussion on 4 November. This sits within the context of the omnishambles that I described. I am very concerned, for the future, that this form of extreme kite-flying—not just on this Budget; we have certainly seen it on earlier Budgets—has become so normalised that it has, in effect, killed off purdah. I am not sure that that is good for either the economy or how the markets behave.
In that case, will the Government recognise that they need to overhaul the whole Budget process? In the Swedish example, the Parliament gets to debate the Government’s Budget before it is set in stone, to propose alternatives and to make amendments; that is then followed by a period of scrutiny and accountability. Will the Government now bring forward a new approach to this process—one that enhances accuracy and transparency and properly restores both public trust and the role of Parliament?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very grateful to both noble Baronesses for their contributions and questions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, began by paying tribute to Richard Hughes, his actions today and his record of public service. I was very fortunate to work with him while I was a special adviser in the Treasury; he was my private secretary while I was a special adviser. I absolutely know what the noble Baroness said about his commitment to public service, so I join her in those words. The Chancellor said earlier today:
“I want to thank Richard Hughes for his public service and for leading the Office for Budget Responsibility over the past five years and for his many years of public service”.
This Government are committed to protecting the independence of the OBR and the integrity of our fiscal frameworks and institutions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke about misleading. I fundamentally reject that. The Chancellor has been completely honest and consistent with the public in everything she has said. On 4 November, the Chancellor said that her priorities were cutting the cost of living, NHS waiting lists, debt and borrowing. The Budget delivered precisely on those priorities. The Chancellor was clear that, if there were a productivity downgrade, that would mean lower tax receipts. The OBR confirmed that tax receipts are £16 billion lower than they otherwise would have been. The Chancellor said that she intended to build more headroom, and she did—to £21.7 billion. The Chancellor was clear that policy choices would need to be paid for; the Budget shows that those cost £6.9 billion. The Chancellor was clear that challenging decisions would need to be taken on taxation and spending, and she froze thresholds for a further three years. So, as I say, the Chancellor was completely honest and consistent with the public in everything she said.
I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke of a “supposed” productivity collapse, as if she were trying to make light of the fact that the OBR looked back at the past 14 years and revised its view of what the previous Government had done to the economy downwards. It looked at the chronic lack of investment, Brexit, the mini-Budget and all of the other things the previous Government had done, and it was forced to downgrade productivity—the performance of the economy—as a result. It put that forward and said that that did lasting damage to the economy. The noble Baroness described that as “supposed”, so I would like her to acknowledge that that was real and has real, lasting consequences.
The noble Baroness also said that public finances had “improved”. I do not understand how going from a headroom of £9.9 billion at the Spring Statement to a headroom of £4.2 billion before any measures were taken into account is an improvement in the public finances. It is important to point that out.
The noble Baroness said that there is no “fiscal logic” to this Budget. Is she saying, therefore, that she thinks that the headroom of £4.2 billion is sufficient? Is she saying that, if the Chancellor had come before Parliament and announced £4.2 billion of headroom, that would have been an acceptable level of headroom, given the global uncertainty that we face? So, no—there was very clear fiscal logic to this Budget.
The noble Baroness asked me three specific questions. Did the Chancellor know that there was a £4.2 billion surplus on 4 November? Yes, she did. On 4 November, the Chancellor had £4.2 billion of headroom before those policy choices were accounted for, meaning that, once those policy choices were accounted for, there would be a deficit of £2.7 billion before any additional headroom was built. The Chancellor was extremely clear that she intended to build more headroom. The noble Baroness also asked: if the Chancellor wanted more headroom, why did she not say so? I suggest that the noble Baroness goes back and reads her speech from 4 November, because she specifically said that she wanted to build more headroom to create a greater margin against events. The noble Baroness also asked me about the FCA but, frankly, that is a matter for the FCA to decide.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for her comments. She said that this Budget process had perhaps been dominated by more process questions than normal. I totally agree with her; it has been dominated by process before, during and after the Budget speech. I have some sympathy with her pleas for a return to purdah; it would certainly make my life more easy, and would have made life easier for me in the run-up to the Budget. She also praised Richard Hughes for his record of public service; I entirely agree with her.
The noble Baroness asked whether the contents of this review rise to the level of criminality. As the Statement that my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary gave in the other place says, we have only just received this report; we and the Treasury Committee should take time to consider it.
The noble Baroness gave some suggestions about how other countries run Budget processes. I am not sure that we will be reforming the process to quite that extent, but I have full sympathy with what she says. It is important that we take the Budget process and Budget secrecy extremely seriously—and we do.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, this is the second fantasy black hole of this Government. The first did not actually matter because absolutely nobody believed it. No credible economist believed it; I challenge noble Lords to name one who did. However, the second fantasy black hole does matter, because we were all sucked into it to the point where people like me—and, indeed, including me—took financial actions and decisions based on that speech of 4 November. These were irreversible financial decisions based on the words of the British Chancellor. Frankly, like Chris Mason of the BBC, no less, we feel misled. The Chancellor knew that tax receipts were higher than the rest of us knew. This means that people can no longer trust this Chancellor. We cannot believe any of her future statements. If that is the case, does the Minister, who has our confidence and credibility, not agree with me that she surely cannot remain as Chancellor?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his kind words about me, and I am grateful that I have his full confidence. Do I agree with what he says about the Chancellor? It will not surprise him to hear that, no, I do not. The Chancellor has been completely honest and consistent with the public in everything she has said.
The noble Lord says that no one believed the £22 billion black hole. It may be living rent-free in his head, because he has mentioned it probably more times than anyone other than me in this House, so, on that measure alone, it has been extremely successful.
The noble Lord said that he feels misled. I am sorry about that, but the Chancellor said absolutely nothing misleading. As I say, she has been completely honest and consistent. She set out in advance what her priorities were, and she delivered on those priorities. She set out in advance that a productivity downgrade would mean lower tax receipts, and it did mean £16 billion lower tax receipts. She said that she intended to build more headroom, and she built more headroom—to £21.7 billion. She was clear in the summer that policy choices would need to be paid for, and the Budget shows that those policy choices cost £6.9 billion. She said that challenging decisions would be needed on tax and spending, and she froze thresholds for a further three years, among other taxation decisions. So, as I say, she was entirely consistent in what she said before and what she did in the Budget.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, the Opposition suggested that markets were misled. Does the Minister agree that, if markets had been misled by the Chancellor’s speech on 4 November, there would have been a sharp market reaction when the truth was revealed in the Budget? But quite contrary to the erroneous statement by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, there was no sharp reaction. Indeed, the markets after the Budget displayed a similar rate of return on 10-year bonds as they did immediately after the speech on 4 November. There was no significant change because they were not misled. The fiscal balance in both cases was roughly the same. Do these erroneous statements not suggest that the Chancellor’s critics have a lamentable lack of understanding of how the financial markets actually work?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for what he said. Obviously, I cannot comment on any specific market movements or lack thereof, but he is absolutely correct that no one at any point was misled. The Chancellor was honest and consistent with the public in everything that she said. My noble friend is absolutely right about the positive market reception to this Budget because we have put fiscal responsibility at the heart of it. We have reduced borrowing every single year of the forecast. We are reducing borrowing further than any other G7 country and net financial liabilities are lower at the end of this forecast period than the beginning. As I said, this is completely consistent with what the Chancellor set out at the start of this process—that she wanted to see debt and borrowing fall as a result of the Budget.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister agree that the real flaw in all this debate is putting such importance on such tiny movements in forecasts? The OBR itself admits that its forecasts tend to overestimate GDP growth and productivity. The reliance on these figures on such short-term movements is utterly crazy when something such as the student loan book stands at nearly £300 billion. Could the Minister tell us what sort of a shortfall he expects to come out of that in the end?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I have some sympathy for the premise behind the noble Baroness’s question. That is why it is important that in this Budget we rebuilt headroom. The Chancellor said at the start of this process, in her speech on 4 November, that she wanted to build greater resilience against global shocks and the kinds of events we are seeing around the world. That is why she built more headroom in the Budget, to £21.7 billion. That provides a greater cushion, for the exact reasons the noble Baroness is saying. The noble Baroness said that the OBR tends to overestimate GDP growth. Obviously, this year it underestimated it, because we beat the forecast for this year. It estimated that growth would be 1% but it turned out to be 1.5%. We were the fastest growing economy in the G7 for the first half of this year and we are on course to be the second fastest for the year as a whole. That is an achievement. She spoke about overestimating productivity, and she is absolutely correct on that. Productivity was downgraded because of the abysmal record of the party opposite over 14 years.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, I take very much on board what the Minister has said about the Chancellor’s announcement that she wanted to increase and improve the headroom. I have been thinking about why the one thing she did not disclose at the time was the extra tax receipts. I suspect the Minister will say he is not prepared to answer this, but I will ask him. Would he accept that it is quite difficult for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase headroom when the pressures come? If you are a Tory Chancellor, they come from everybody sitting over there who wants to reduce taxes; if you are a Labour Chancellor, they come from everybody over there who wants to improve public services. Would he accept the possibility that the reason the Chancellor kept this to herself was in order to be able to increase the headroom without those pressures?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I definitely agree with the middle part of the noble Lord’s question on the importance of fiscal responsibility to securing the objectives that we want to see. The best way to provide more money for public services is to reduce the amount we are paying on debt interest; fiscal responsibility is vital to that. As I have said, we are cutting borrowing in every year of this forecast. We are cutting borrowing faster than any other G7 country and we have doubled the amount of headroom. That all helps to support the amount that we pay on debt interest coming down. That gives us more money to spend on the priorities that we all want to see: improving living standards, cutting NHS waiting lists and having more money to fund the public services. Fiscal responsibility is completely consistent with the objectives of this party in funding public services and improving living standards.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, please allow me to quote the former chair of the OBR on the black hole that the Minister has now referenced over 50 times at the Dispatch Box:
“Nothing in our review was a legitimisation of that £22 billion”.
Last week, the OBR said that:
“At no point in our pre-measures forecast process were either of the Government’s fiscal targets missed by more than £2.5bn”.
Why are the Government saying something completely different from the OBR?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Earl for pointing out my message discipline at this Dispatch Box. I am proud to have mentioned that £22 billion black hole over 50 times. The two noble Lords sitting next to each other are the other two Members of this House who have mentioned it almost as many times as I have. I think every time the noble Earl has made reference to the £22 billion black hole, I have pointed out to him that the OBR review ran up to six months before the end of the previous Government’s time in office. It identified a black hole and then the party opposite had another six months to continue adding to that hole and to continue to conceal it from the OBR. The OBR says in terms that it was concealed from it. That is a very serious charge.
Regarding what the OBR says about headroom, as I said, on 4 November, the Chancellor had £4.2 billion of headroom before any policy choices we had already announced were accounted for. Once those policy choices were accounted for, she would have a deficit of £2.7 billion. I do not think that anyone on the opposite side of the House thinks that going to the country with a £2.7 billion deficit rather than any headroom would be a fiscally responsible thing to do, given how uncertain the world around us is. It is absolutely right that we increased headroom to £21.7 billion.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, I add my praise for Richard Hughes and his outstanding public service, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, the Minister and others. I have two questions for the Minister about the Treasury-OBR relationship going forward, learning the lessons from what has happened.
First, the Treasury was clearly very annoyed by the OBR’s letter to the Treasury Select Committee, detailing the timeline of discussions. Is it the Minister’s understanding that there is a strong Treasury preference that the OBR does not do that in future? I think I know the answer, but how important is that to the Treasury-OBR relationship? Secondly, the Minister has rightly talked about defending the independence and continued existence of the OBR, but is there now discussion about changing its remit and role in the process, in the light of what has happened in the past few weeks?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for the points and questions he raises. I had the great privilege of working with him in the Treasury at a time when Richard Hughes was working for us, so we both know the commitment that Richard Hughes has to public service.
My noble friend asked about the relationship with the OBR. I start by saying how strongly we support the Office for Budget Responsibility and its ongoing independence. The first piece of legislation passed by this Government after winning the election was to strengthen the role of the Office for Budget Responsibility, because we had seen, during the Liz Truss mini-Budget, what happens when it is cut out of the process. We saw how damaging that is to the living standards of working people and we are determined that that never happens again. We have absolute commitment to the ongoing independence of the Office for Budget Responsibility.
My noble friend asked about the letter from the OBR to the Treasury Select Committee. We put the utmost weight on Budget security. The OBR chose to publish some further information, which is set out fully in Richard Hughes’s letter to the Treasury Committee. The Treasury agreed in advance to its publication. However, it is important to maintain a private space between the Treasury and the OBR for the exchange of forecast information and Budget policy development, so we welcome the OBR’s statement that this is not intended to become usual practice.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to get a copy of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s Statement. He paints a chronology of events and how they happened, regardless of any speculation about this. For me, what is important is that he says that the Chancellor
“was clear on 4 November that a lower productivity forecast would mean lower tax receipts. The OBR confirmed at the Budget that tax receipts are £16 billion lower as a result of the reduced productivity forecast”,
and that the Chancellor said at the last Budget that the decisions the Government took on welfare would have to be paid for in this Budget, which she has done, although that will not happen until 2029-30. What will the Government do not to be bounced into the decisions they took on welfare, which then created difficulties for the Chancellor?
Secondly, the OBR’s report has revealed that it is quite possible that other Chancellors faced the same kind of leakage. The OBR has been in place for 15 years, during which all those Chancellors faced the same, especially Kwasi Kwarteng.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful for that question. The noble and right reverend Lord quite rightly says that the Chancellor was very clear that the productivity review would mean lower tax receipts, and the OBR confirmed that they are £16 billion lower. The OBR’s productivity review lays bare the economic consequences of the past 14 years. The OBR looked back at the productivity performance of the previous decade and concluded that austerity, Brexit and the pandemic have weakened the economy by far more than previously thought. That has an impact on the public finances and growth for the remainder of the forecast period.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House why the increase to forecast tax receipts as a result of higher forecast inflation and greater taxes on employment was the only information not made public in advance of the Budget?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The Chancellor was not going to set out the entire Budget in advance. She set out the Budget on Budget Day. As I have said before, what she did before the Budget and at the time of the Budget were entirely consistent. She set out her priorities and then delivered on them. She said that if the productivity review were to lead to a downgrade in productivity, it would mean lower tax receipts, and it did. The Chancellor said that she intended to build more headroom, and she did. She said in the summer that policy choices would need to be paid for, and she paid for them. The Chancellor was also clear that challenging decisions would need to be taken on tax, and she took several challenging decisions on tax, including freezing thresholds for a further three years.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for coming to the House and repeating this Statement, which is in two parts. On the first part, some of the comments and exchanges so far have had an element of artificial outrage about them—but we can leave that to the debate on the Budget on Thursday. My question is about the second part of this Statement, which relates to the leak and the information that we have been given about how it seems to have occurred. This is not 1947—for those who understand the reference—but nevertheless it is a very serious matter indeed. If it is not too technical a question, I was wondering whether the IP address that started at 5 am to access this information 32 times has yet been identified, and whether we will be told about what happened, because that is the type of serious breach that we need to avoid in future.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend, and I agree with him that this was a very serious breach of highly sensitive information—a fundamental breach of the OBR’s responsibility—and it should never have happened. On the IP address, I do not believe that it has yet been discovered, but ongoing investigations may well yield that information. My noble friend is right: we are absolutely determined to ensure that this never happens again and we have set out next steps to make sure that that is the case.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
On 31 October, the OBR told the Chancellor of the £4.2 billion. When the Ministers met that same day, neither the Prime Minister nor the Chancellor saw fit to share with Ministers the news from the OBR. One Cabinet Minister is quoted as saying:
“Had we been told, we might have been in a position to advise against setting hares running on income tax and giving the public the impression we are casual about our manifesto commitments”.
Was the Minister told of the £4.2 billion, or when did he know of it?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Baroness seems to know very well what went on behind closed doors and what the Prime Minister and Chancellor said to Ministers in various private meetings. I am afraid that I do not think that she does know what went on behind closed doors. As I have said already, on 4 November the Chancellor had £4.2 billion of headroom before those policy choices were accounted for, meaning that she would have a deficit of £2.7 billion before any additional headroom was built.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
My Lords, we have had much discussion of the process in these questions so far, but can my noble friend the Minister remind the House that it is the substance of the Budget that matters much more for families and businesses throughout this country? The doubling of the headroom in the OBR has allowed the Government to provide for financial resilience in the country, which has been welcomed by the markets, because they understand that that is a vital ingredient for a stable and strong economy.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very grateful to my noble friend for reminding us that, at the end of the day, it is the substance of the Budget that matters. It is worth reminding ourselves what the Budget and the Chancellor achieved. She cut energy bills by £150, cut NHS waiting lists, cut child poverty, cut inflation and cut borrowing every year, faster than any other G7 economy. She more than doubled the headroom and protected record investment, and she supported faster cuts in interest rates.
Sentencing Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Barber of Ainsdale
“Unpaid work requirements: community work(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 9 (restriction on imposing unpaid work requirement), after sub-paragraph (1)(b), insert—“(c) that the unpaid work is work undertaken for a non-profit organisation, social enterprise, voluntary organisation or local authority.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would prohibit private sector involvement in unpaid work as part of a community sentence.
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Woodley, who is a little unwell today. Amendments 77 and 135 are in his name.
As a lifelong trade unionist, I have seen too often the damaging impact that privatisation can have on public services; in pursuit of maximising profit, costs are too often cut to the bone, often starting with workers’ pay, terms and conditions. The quality of service goes down, while the cost to the taxpayer goes up, and we are left with the worst of both worlds.
Privatisation has failed especially badly when it comes to the justice system. Probation is the classic example: it was part-privatised by the last Government, who had to renationalise it five years later because the service was close to collapse. Take prisons: private prisons are on average 47% more violent than public prisons, according to research published by the Guardian. Yet still we build more of them, with, of the three new prisons announced by the Government, two to be run for profit. Quite apart from the practical problems that come with outsourcing, it seems to me to be morally wrong for private companies to profit from prisons or probation, or indeed any part of our precious justice system. With this in mind, Amendment 77 seeks to address concerns that the Ministry of Justice is preparing to let private companies profit from unpaid work orders, also known as community service.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Barber, for introducing the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley. He will probably not be surprised to learn that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition cannot support Amendment 77. I note the noble Lord’s commitments, but it would simply be a foolish burden to impose more administrative obligations on the public sector. It cannot be right to bar the use of a private enterprise where appropriate; the emphasis must be on “appropriate”. That should be for the Probation Service, as the commissioning body, to determine, with the Ministry of Justice having oversight.
Of course, our justice system should not be privatised, but the single issue here is delivery. This does not mean there are not benefits to be gained from working together with the private sector, especially as the current system is hugely overburdened. We should be welcoming prudent collaboration with private companies that specialise in supplying such services to community sentences, but only where it is right to do so because they are the right people and they pass the test of competition. We should not be needlessly blocking off an avenue that helps ease this strain.
This amendment is not necessary. The Probation Service is currently in the process of regaining control of community sentences. Private community rehabilitation companies had their contracts terminated and their responsibilities transferred to the Probation Service by the last Conservative Government. Community sentence oversight and management is already in the hands of the public sector, while private and volunteer suppliers provide support services. That is how it should continue.
We are in a situation where the public sector has responsibility for running and delivering the community sentences and, at the same time, can make use of the efficiencies of the private sector for supply on the ground where appropriate. Banning public sector involvement is an attempt to fix a problem that does not exist. It would come at the cost of placing undue strain on the Probation Service. If the ministry determines that prison officers should fit tags—here, I move from one topic to the other—because it is operationally sensible, then that should be done. If it deems that it is not appropriate in one prison for one reason, it can divide it up, but let us leave it as it is.
We cannot support either of these amendments. We agree that there is merit in demarcating the Probation Service’s remit and ensuring that it remains a public service, but prisons are not in the state to be taking on board more responsibilities at this time. Rather than attempting to legislate powers into the public sector, we should allow services to be dynamic. We should allow the Probation Service and the Prison Service to make their own decisions on the most appropriate basis. They are the ones who must react to changing duties and capacities. Sometimes this will require contracting out to the private sector; sometimes it will not. Merely attempting to close off an option for ideological reasons will not help best delivery of the services we need.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Woodley for tabling these amendments and my noble friend Lord Barber for introducing them in his absence, giving me the opportunity to clarify the Government’s position on the issues they have raised.
I appreciate that my noble friend’s Amendment 77 is founded on concerns that unpaid work will be privatised. To be completely clear, and for the avoidance of any doubt, I assure him that the privatisation of unpaid work is absolutely not being considered. The Government are clear that unpaid work must be robust and continue to pay back where it matters most: in our communities. The Government remain open to a full range of potential projects that help our communities. Were any of those to have any private sector involvement, it would be within the realms of the current requirement for the Probation Service to retain ultimate control and supervision. This requirement is unchanged and, as I say, we have no plans to change it.
For example, it is already possible for a private company to influence the type of projects offenders may complete through nominating suitable projects, such as graffiti removal in a local community. In these scenarios, the unpaid work would always be overseen by the Probation Service and the work undertaken would always serve a community purpose—I stress that point. We do not intend to privatise the delivery of unpaid work, but we should encourage joining up with local businesses and charities to determine how best to expand projects further and to deliver work that has the greatest community benefit. We believe that there is sufficient operational guidance already in place to support delivery in a way that benefits charitable, state or not-for-profit organisations and guards against exploiting any offenders for private profit.
Turning to Amendment 135, I will address the concerns that my noble friend raised. It is important to be clear that it is the responsibility of the electronic monitoring field and monitoring service provider, Serco, to perform the duty of installing and monitoring the output of electronic monitoring devices. I note the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, about the commitment to probation being seen as a public service. He also noted that this community rehabilitation company was brought back into the public sector by the last Government; of course, it was also the Conservative Government who put it in the private sector, where it failed, in the first place.
I recognise and deeply appreciate the vital role that the Prison and Probation Service performs. I stress that, as my noble friend Lord Timpson said, we see it as crucial to the success of these reforms. We want it to be able to focus on recovering from the challenges it faces and on becoming genuinely world-class.
The Ministry of Justice has recently launched a pilot to test the fitting of electronic monitoring devices before offenders leave the prison gates, instead of at a home visit. This goes to my noble friend Lord Barber’s third point. We are doing this so that we can begin monitoring them immediately, in the crucial period just after leaving custody. The approach is initially being tested in six prisons. I therefore reaffirm to my noble friend and the Committee that it absolutely remains the responsibilities of Serco to install tags at these pilot sites and of Probation Service staff to manage the prison leavers to whom they are applied. The pilot will be subject to proper evaluation so that we can take forward the operational learning and evidence it generates to inform future practice.
I hope that that reassures my noble friend that the changes we are making do not change the responsibilities for applying the tags. With those reassurances in mind, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response. On Amendment 77, I noticed that he placed proper emphasis on payback to our communities from the unpaid work we are discussing, but I would hope that proper consideration is also given to payback to prisoners who face this form of punishment during their terms.
This is comparable to other community work schemes in many ways, and in previous job creation programmes there have been strong emphases on the quality of training provided and the safeguards against displacement and substitution of paid jobs. Those are important considerations that need to be taken into account in considering the programmes we are discussing in respect of prisoners.
On Amendment 135, I note and am pleased to hear what the Minister says about Serco continuing to have that key responsibility. In the light of the response on both these amendments, I am prepared to withdraw Amendment 77 and not press Amendment 135.
“Sentencing CouncilThe Sentencing Council of England and Wales is abolished.”
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I will also oppose Clauses 18 and 19 standing part of the Bill, and I oppose Amendments 81, 82 and 83 in the names of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Burnett of Maldon and Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for reasons which I will allude to and develop later.
As your Lordships’ Committee will know, the Sentencing Council exceeded its powers earlier this year when it issued the Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences guidelines, to come into effect on 1 April 2025, in respect of pre-sentence reports, which gave rise to complaints of two-tier justice. This was in respect of individuals from “ethnic, faith and cultural minority groups”. Of course, what we eventually had as a result of the dispute between the late chair of the Sentencing Council and the then Lord Chancellor was the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Act 2025.
I do not propose to relitigate the issues around that legislation because it was primary legislation and there were comprehensive debates in both Houses about it, but it is important to remember that that is context for the debate and discussion on the efficacy and long-term future of the Sentencing Council. Noble Lords will know that that Act got Royal Assent on 20 June this year.
The background was that the Sentencing Council wilfully refused to amend its guidelines, despite being asked to do so by, effectively, this House and the other place, and the Executive and Parliament through the Lord Chancellor. As your Lordships will know, magistrates and the judiciary must follow such guidelines under Section 59 of the Sentencing Act 2020 and Section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The then Lord Chancellor correctly argued that the newly imposed guidelines represented differential treatment and two-tier justice.
The Sentencing Council is an independent non-departmental body sponsored by the Ministry of Justice, and it was created in 2009 and commenced its work in April 2010. As such, it is in the great scheme of things quite a new body—a successor respectively to the Sentencing Advisory Panel and the Sentencing Guidelines Council, both since abolished. The important point is that it is entirely the product of legislation, and that legislation could be repealed as easily as it was created. It was described by Professor Richard Bellamy in 2007 as an example of “political constitutionalism”, whereby the protection of minority rights undermines the protection of majority opinion, leading to its neglect.
The imbroglio over pre-sentence reports illustrates the fundamental issues at the heart of my amendment: judicial independence, and the role of Ministers and Parliament in sentencing policy. While the ability of the judiciary to set, and its role in setting, individual sentences—certainly prior to 1998—has been wide and permissive, Parliament has always had, and should have, a pre-eminent role, the upper limits when sentencing offenders being set through statute, such as Section 1 of the Sentencing Act 2020. That is something Parliament has always been jealous of in terms of its role in the sentencing framework.
Parliament should not involve itself in individual sentencing decisions—that is for trial judges, magistrates and appellate courts—but, quite rightly, it should and does, through Ministers, determine a broad sentencing policy framework. That is the delicate balance between democratic accountability and judicial independence, which the Sentencing Council upset and, frankly, transgressed. In supporting the new guidelines, the Sentencing Council violated the historic and fundamental principle at the heart of our judicial system: equality before the law. Commendably, and to her credit, the then Lord Chancellor—now the Home Secretary—made that point very strongly in the other place and throughout the passage of the legislation there.
The dispute last year pointed to another broader and wider phenomenon leading to a democratic deficit: the decisions of non-departmental public bodies and arm’s-length bodies lack legitimacy and proper accountability to elected Ministers and their electors and taxpayers. To quote the Times leader, which was cited in the other place by my honourable friend Sir Christopher Chope in March 2010,
“arm’s-length bodies … have often been favoured by ministers as a way of distancing themselves from contentious issues … Free of the need to answer to voters, ALBs can go rogue … in the face of public opposition”.
My honourable friend added:
“The Sentencing Council is not unique in being able to ignore the wishes of Ministers and Parliament”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/3/25; col. 1452.]
I do not suppose that the Government will support this amendment, but they should certainly commit to ensuring that all further sentencing guidelines produced by the Sentencing Council be confirmed via order in Parliament prior to coming into effect. It should put beyond doubt that ethnicity, race, religion and membership of a “cultural minority” is no longer a factor in determining either a court sentence or pre-sentence reports.
Finally, the amendment focuses on not just the concerns of two-tier justice but democratic accountability, judicial activism, and the proper constitutional balance between the legislative and judicial branches. Fundamentally, we do not need the Sentencing Council. The Court of Appeal, prior to 1998, created judgments and authorities that established a body of case law refining some of the principles of sentencing, to give sentencing judges the ability to make those decisions. There was little or no evidence of sentencing inconsistency or lack of uniformity, of judicial independence being compromised, or of a lack of public support for or understanding of how sentencing works. For those reasons, I beg to move.
Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)
My Lords, perhaps rather surprisingly, I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, in seeking to remove Clause 18—but for polar opposite reasons. The noble Lord seeks to abolish the Sentencing Council; I wish to protect it from interference.
Abolition would be a retrograde step, which would undermine consistency in sentencing and destroy a structure that has evolved over 25 years. It has ensured that both sentences imposed and the impact of those sentences are properly informed by evidence, research and consultation, so I oppose the abolition of the Sentencing Council.
I shall explain why Clause 18, which requires the Sentencing Council to publish a business plan, over which the Lord Chancellor appears to be given control, should not stand part of the Bill. I shall also speak to Amendments 81 to 83 standing in my name, which seek to remove the veto that the Bill puts in the hands of the Lord Chancellor over the publication and introduction of sentencing guidelines.
First, I will spend a couple of minutes outlining the background to the Sentencing Council, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has made some reference already. The Sentencing Council was established by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The Act makes provision for 14 members, eight of whom are judicial, ranging from at least one Lord Justice to a magistrate, and six non-judicial, who must be drawn from those with experience of criminal cases in the courts, from policy, from those familiar with sentencing and the interests of victims, and from those who understand statistics and are involved in the academic study of sentencing and rehabilitation of offenders. The DPP, a senior police officer and a victims’ representative are members.
The Sentencing Council produces guidelines or amendments to guidelines in draft, having conducted extensive research. Those drafts are then consulted upon widely and, in particular, both the Justice Committee of the House of Commons and the Lord Chancellor are statutory consultees. Moreover, and importantly, the Lord Chancellor has a representative, who attends all meetings of the Sentencing Council and may speak at such meetings.
The Sentencing Council is, by statute, charged with monitoring the effect of guidelines in promoting consistency in sentencing and on public confidence. It must report on the effect of its guidelines on prison places and resources for probation. As the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has noted, courts must follow guidelines unless it is in the interests of justice not to do so.
The Sentencing Council did not spring from nowhere; it was preceded by the Sentencing Guidelines Council, a creature of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. That produced guidelines to which the courts were required to have regard, but it was a much less sophisticated and less well-informed body than the Sentencing Council. Before that, the Sentencing Advisory Panel began work in 1999, and its function was to advise the Court of Appeal when it was considering producing a guideline case.
Before that, the Court of Appeal had no structured help from anywhere. The responsibility for producing guideline cases rested entirely with the Court of Appeal. In fact, they were relatively few and far between, so those who were sentencing offenders had to delve through a four-volume, loose-leaf work, which, from memory, was updated a couple of times a year. What followed was much better.
Clause 18 requires the Sentencing Council to submit a business plan to the Lord Chancellor for approval after the beginning of a financial year, setting out what guidelines it proposes to prepare and identifying its other activities. If the Lord Chancellor approves, the Sentencing Council would be required to publish the business case. At Second Reading I asked what this was all about—what its purpose was and what the consequences would be of a failure of the Lord Chancellor to approve. With respect to the Minister, there was no explanation forthcoming in his response at the end of the debate.
This provision, Clause 18, is, frankly, pointless. Failure to approve would not prevent the Sentencing Council doing what it planned to do. It looks like an attempt at a control mechanism of some sort—or at least a stick to wave over the Sentencing Council. The Sentencing Council is already under a statutory duty to publish an annual report on all its activities at the end of the financial year, with detailed statutory provisions of what must be contained within that report. With the greatest respect to the Government, if they are unable to come up with a coherent explanation, indeed any explanation, of what mischief this clause is designed to remedy and what its intended effect is, it really should not be in the Bill.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Burnett of Maldon and the proposition in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, that Clause 18 should not stand part of the Bill. I have done so because it is important that we see this as a constitutional issue.
It is necessary to go back to the achievement of the last Labour Government. Some still mourn the loss of the position of Lord Chancellor, and tonight is not a time to go into why there had to be change. It is important to go back to those times to see what the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor entailed. In many respects, he—and it was a he, save in the case of Matilda the Queen—acted as the linchpin, a person who could bring together the judiciary, Parliament and the Executive. When that linchpin was taken away, it became necessary to look for a mechanism through which the three separate branches of the state, each with their own independent position, could act and work together reflecting what is inevitable in a state—their interdependence.
Out of the change that was made—which was somewhat hurried, if I recall correctly—there was born a series of mechanisms to balance the constitution. There was the concordat agreed, which dealt with problems such as the appointment of leadership judges, which was a joint and shared responsibility of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. There was then the need to look again at the way the rule committees worked, because sometimes one forgets how vitally important it is that the rules work well, that Parliament has its input and that the judiciary and all those other interested parties have their input in producing rules of procedure that work. When you talk to people in other countries, you see what a huge advantage we have here. I mention these examples—and there are many other instances, which I will not weary your Lordships with at this hour of the night—that reflect what is, I feel, the spirit that was created by the previous Labour Government, which endured very well under the Conservative Government, but which is now being undermined by the particular changes being made here.
My noble and learned friend Lord Burnett and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, have both explained how the Sentencing Council evolved, and I do not think it is necessary to go over that ground again. But it is necessary to say that the Sentencing Council was born in the spirit of needing to create the interdependent relationships between the three branches of government. The great thing about all the reforms that were made is that, by and large, they have worked. Of course, when you have three different bodies, there are bound to be hiccups, and there was a hiccup earlier this year. But one has to look and see what the achievement was and how it worked.
What the Sentencing Council did was to bring together the respective responsibilities. Parliament’s responsibility is setting the framework. Generally speaking, until we had the clauses that we discussed examples of earlier in Committee and which are of a completely unnecessary complexity, Parliament’s function normally was to set the broad brush of sentencing policy; unfortunately, it has gone away from that, much to everyone’s cost. The judiciary then pass the sentences, though they previously had, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and my noble and learned friend Lord Burnett explained, issued guideline cases to achieve consistency. Then the Executive are involved because after all, they have to find the money to deal with the punishments, and they have to administer the system. So, it is necessary to have the input of all three if the sentencing framework is to be set by Parliament, the judges are to do their job and the prisons and penal system are to work as intended. In balancing those three interests, it was essential to have an independent council that could bring everyone together.
The great success of this is that it has worked. Now, why did it work? Why was it successful? Well, I recall, it must have been in 2009 that the then Lord Chancellor, Mr Straw, and the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, working no doubt at about this hour of the night, if I recall it correctly, in their shirt sleeves, were looking at the detailed clauses and agreeing the composition of the council—it went to that level of detail at the highest level. The compromise was made, and a successful institution was created; and successful it has been because it had virtually completed producing the guidelines by the time of the row that occurred earlier this year.
I would simply say that the idea of a constitutional settlement, carefully worked out in the spirit that was born in our renewed constitution in 2005 and in the actions taken in 2009, is the way in which we should do things if they are to result in success. Now, there was the hiccup earlier this year—I do think it is probably right to call it a hiccup, as it really was not much more than that if one looks at it and stands back. It is a pity it could not have been resolved there and then, but it cannot be any excuse for altering the delicate mechanism created by the previous Labour Government. There is no justification for it whatsoever.
It seems to me that there are two points. First, Clause 18 ought not to stand part of the Bill: it seems an absurd thing to say that the plan of an independent body has to be decided by one of the three parties that is involved. It would be a good idea, maybe, if all three were involved in looking at the plan, but why one of them? It makes no sense, and it tears up the carefully agreed compromise that was struck. Secondly, it would be much better if Clause 19 did not stand part of the Bill, because that is another aspect of this Government’s desire to tear up, for wholly unnecessary reasons, a proper compromise made by their predecessors in 2009.
However, I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Burnett that we should go along in the spirit of compromise, but I regard that as a compromise, and it is one that I would hope the Government would accede to, and not pursue the destruction—because that is what it is—of the careful balance worked out by the late Lord Judge and by Mr Straw.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I oppose Clause 18 and Clause 19, and my preference is, quite definitely, for both clauses to be removed from the Bill. I have not signed the opposition by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, to Clause 18 standing part, because his reasoning is rather different from mine, but Clause 18 is, frankly, very strange. It is certainly pointless, just as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, said, but it is also, with the greatest of respect to the Government and the drafters of the clause, legislatively illiterate.
I can see no reason in practice for the Sentencing Council to submit a business plan to the Lord Chancellor for approval as soon as possible after the beginning of the year—one wonders when that is supposed to be. But if there is to be a business plan, it is a strange imposition of a new duty on the Sentencing Council that it must declare in advance what it proposes to study, research and support during the course of the coming year without knowing what is coming down the track during the course of the coming year.
In any event, a business plan is pre-eminently a document for the body that is responsible for it and producing it itself to decide in its own discretion and to determine what it puts into it. Clause 18 demonstrates a serious lack of trust in the Sentencing Council to manage its business. Why should the Sentencing Council submit any business plan for approval by the Lord Chancellor, a member of the Government—with, certainly, an input into the Sentencing Council, but not a decisive or determining input?
Is it suggested that the Sentencing Council would not be entitled to consider other matters in the year, unforeseen at the beginning of the year, if they were not in the business plan? If that is not so suggested, what is the point of the business plan? It does not delineate the responsibilities that the Sentencing Council will carry out.
The clause represents an attack on the independence of the Sentencing Council. We have heard from both noble and learned Lords that it was set up by statute to be an independent body tasked with advising sentencing judges on the principles they should apply to sentencing—within the terms of the law as provided by Parliament in statute and the common law, of course, but independent in its advice to judges.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I must confess that as I read the provisions of this Bill, it triggered a childhood memory. The late Dr Dolittle curated a number of very strange and unusual animals, which included the pushmi-pullyu: a gazelle with two heads, which faced in opposite directions at the same time.
Why would I be prone to such a memory on reading the provisions of this Bill? Let me begin with some quotations from the Government. First,
“sentencing in individual cases is a matter for our independent judiciary”.—[Official Report, Commons, Crime and Policing Bill Committee, 3/4/25; col. 211.]
Secondly,
“it is at the discretion of the independent judiciary whether to impose a suspended sentence”.—[Official Report, 26/11/25; col. 1369.]
Thirdly,
“the decision on which requirements to include in an order is a matter for the judge sentencing the case”.—[Official Report, 26/11/25; col. 1378.]
Finally:
“It is right for the judiciary to retain discretion to consider this and make the sentencing decision”.—[Official Report, 26/11/25; col. 1344.]
Yet Clause 1, in opening the Bill, says that the judiciary must apply a presumption, other than in very narrowly prescribed circumstances, so that even if a judge wished to impose a custodial sentence of a certain length, they would be unable to do so if it did not fall under a specified exemption or exceptional circumstances.
How did the Minister endeavour to bring this together in the first day of Committee? He said that
“it is at the discretion of the independent judiciary whether to impose a suspended sentence”,—[Official Report, 26/11/25; col. 1369.]
following the “appropriate guidance” of the Sentencing Council. But this guidance is now to be in the control of the Government, by virtue of the Lord Chancellor’s veto, thereby potentially eliminating any sense of “independence”.
So I ask the Minister: in which direction is this two-headed Bill going to proceed? It cannot walk in two different and diametrically opposed directions at the same time. Is it towards the goal of judicial independence, or towards the goal of executive control? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, concluded by saying that these provisions were wrong-headed. I think they are even worse: they are double-headed, and that has to be resolved.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Burnett of Maldon and Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for tabling these amendments. I am very grateful for their continued and constructive engagement on the Bill.
Amendment 80, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, proposes to abolish the Sentencing Council for England and Wales. The noble Lord’s prediction is correct: I put on record that we strongly believe that it is right to retain the council, in view of the continued importance of its work in developing sentencing guidelines. He does not look completely surprised.
Over time, the council has developed offence-specific guidelines covering hundreds of offences, alongside a series of overarching guidelines. These guidelines have helped bring greater consistency, transparency and public understanding to the sentencing process. We welcome that.
The council also holds an important constitutional position, as mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, within the firmament of our justice system. It bridges the interests and responsibilities of Parliament, the Executive and the judiciary on sentencing policy and practice, while protecting the important responsibility of judges and magistrates to make individual sentencing decisions—I think I am reflecting what the noble and learned Lord said. For these reasons, I am afraid we do not support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. I urge him to withdraw it.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Burnett and Lord Thomas. They have indicated quite clearly their opposition to Clause 18 and propose an alternative approach to Clause 19. I am grateful for their careful consideration of this. Their concerns are shared by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. I know that they were experts in this field and their opinions therefore carry a great deal of weight with the Government. As the Minister made clear at Second Reading, in bringing forward these clauses we are aiming to maintain public confidence in the guidelines that the council produces, particularly in view of the sustained public scrutiny that the council has been under of late, which is partly reflected in these debates.
Events surrounding the imposition guideline, on which I do not propose to dwell but which obviously I need to reference, earlier this year highlighted an example of the issues that can arise where guidelines cover areas of policy that should properly be for Ministers and Parliament to determine. We are keen to avoid a similar scenario arising in future, and that is why Clauses 18 and 19 have been drafted to introduce approval measures that provide greater democratic and judicial oversight of the council’s work.
I recognise that noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Marks, are keen for more information about the intention of Clause 18. Put briefly, this clause will allow the Lord Chancellor to have a greater say over the guidelines that the council intends to develop across the year, ensuring that any plans are properly reflective of wider priorities across government and Parliament and with the wider public. As no noble Lord has so far mentioned this, I should stress that in preparing this clause we have had regard to similar provision that exists for comparable bodies across the justice system, such as the Law Commission.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
Will the Minister explain why the Law Commission, which is a body that looks at law reform for the Government, is to be equated with the independent Sentencing Council, which constitutionally balances the three interests? It would be very helpful to have that explanation. A second explanation it would be helpful to have is: is it intended that the business plan sets out in detail what is going to be in the guidelines so that the Lord Chancellor can look through it to see whether there is likely to be the kind of short sentence or two that occurred in this guideline that is unacceptable? It would be very interesting to know the Government’s thinking on both these points.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I take the point that the noble and learned Lord makes that the Law Commission is different. That is why I said that we have had regard to that. On the second question that the noble and learned Lord raises, perhaps I can come to that in just a moment.
Clause 19 provides that the council can issue definitive guidelines only if the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice each individually approve them. The amendments from the noble and learned Lords propose instead that the council should be free to issue definitive guidance unless both the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice indicate that they do not consent. While I appreciate the sentiment and the spirit of compromise behind these amendments—which the noble and learned Lords, Lord Burnett and Lord Thomas, also referred to— I am afraid that we are not convinced that they would be the best way of securing the public confidence in sentencing guidelines that we seek. This is because they run the risk of definitive guidelines being published and implemented for use by the courts, even if the Lord Chancellor or, indeed, the Lady Chief Justice had indicated their discontent with them. We consider the current drafting of Clause 19 to be a practical and effective means of achieving our policy objective because it provides that the consent of the Lord Chancellor and the Lady Chief Justice must first be obtained before a definitive guideline can be published and implemented.
I emphasise that, in developing our current drafting, we have sought to reflect the distinct roles and responsibilities that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to between Parliament, the Executive and the judiciary, as well as the careful balance that has been established for sentencing policy and practice. In particular, we are clear that these approval measures do not interfere—I hope that this is obvious, but I will emphasise it anyway—with the judiciary’s responsibility for setting sentences in individual cases.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I may have missed it, but I am still unclear about what happens under Clause 18 and new Section 118A. If there is no approval of the business plan from the Lord Chancellor, does the Sentencing Council continue with its work as if there were a business plan and make it up as it goes along? I am sure that it does not quite do that, but the clause does leave the position hanging.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
That is precisely why we want to engage in further discussion to try to take some of that forward.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I assume that the Minister is indicating that I should withdraw my amendment. This has been a fascinating, fluent and well-argued debate. Obviously, I have been beset by a surfeit of eminent jurists this evening; they certainly gave the lie to the saying that lawyers are the only people in whom ignorance of the law is not punished.
The interesting thing is that, although I agree with the noble and learned Lords on the Clause 18 and Clause 19 stand part notices, that is a logical corollary of the fact that I wish to see the abolition of the Sentencing Council and therefore do not find myself coming from the same position. So I am an example of a “push-me pull-me”: I find myself agreeing with their objective but vehemently disagreeing with their rationale and reasoning.
I will quickly say two things. I slightly take issue with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, because it was not just a slightly irrelevant mix-up at the beginning of the year; it was quite a constitutional tempest. It is very unusual for the Government to bring forward emergency legislation, in effect, very quickly as a result of the behaviour or conduct of an arm’s-length body. Serious constitutional ramifications arose from those decisions. Obviously, the Government solved that matter with cross-party support.
I totally agree with the very astute point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie. There is a dichotomy at the heart of this Bill around the interference or otherwise of the Government and the imperatives they are giving to the judiciary. That needs to be resolved by the time this Bill gets Royal Assent.
With all those caveats being ventilated, and bearing in mind, as I predicted, that the Minister was very unlikely to agree with me, I will seek to withdraw my amendment.
I should also say that I of course meant the Times leader of March 2025 and not 2010, for the benefit of the official record; that was an error on my part. With that being said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Burnett of Maldon
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Burnett of Maldon to Clause 19 seek to (1) remove the proposed veto of either the Lord Chancellor of the Lord Chief Justice acting alone of the publication of new or amended guidelines, and (2) enable the Sentencing Council to publish guidelines unless both do not consent.
Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)
I record, if I may, my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, and to the Minister, in the broader conduct of this Bill, for offering to continue discussions. We have had useful discussions so far, even if they have not led very far. In those circumstances, I am content not to move the amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie
“Court transcripts of sentencing remarks(1) All transcripts of sentencing remarks made in the Crown Court must be published within two sitting days of being delivered.(2) All published sentencing remarks must be made freely available, including online.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require all sentencing remarks made in the Crown Court to be published and made available to all.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 84, 85 and 148A in my name. These amendments concern the publication of sentencing remarks, the collection and publication of sentencing data, and the review of the effect of this Bill on community and voluntary sectors once it comes into force.
The Government are, of course, of the opinion that the near blanket presumption of suspended sentences will lead to less crime in the long run. Reports have suggested, however, that it will increase offences by almost 400,000 per year. I certainly hope that the Government are right in their assessment because, clearly, safer streets is a goal which would unite all noble Lords.
If we are to assess whether this Bill is anything of a success, we need the data to support it. We on these Benches do not and will not simply accept reform based on blind faith. Reform has to be backed by accountability, visibility and evidence. Amendment 84 concerns sentencing remarks. We propose that all transcripts of sentencing remarks from the Crown Court be published and be made freely available online for the public to access.
Sentencing is not just a technical exercise. It is a moment of public judgment. A judge’s remarks concern the reasoning behind both why a particular sentence was imposed and why it was for a particular duration. That reasoning is essential for victims, families, communities and the public at large to understand what justice looks like in practice. Without that transparency, justice is done behind a veil, and that is liable to undermine confidence. In a sense, the Government agree with that principle—at least they did when their manifesto was written.
In their manifesto, they observed of criminals that
“the sentences they receive often do not make sense either to victims or the wider public”.
I suggest that the publication of sentencing remarks is key to rebuilding public confidence and holding the judicial system to account. It is trite that open justice is an essential foundation of our democracy. If sentencing is to become more complex and discretionary under the Bill, especially with the expanded use of suspended sentences and community orders, public understanding and scrutiny will become even more important.
Research by the International Association for Court Administration has shown a clear link between transparency in sentencing and public confidence in the justice system. Yet, even now, our current system remains opaque. Though sentencing remarks may be broadcast in a limited number of high-profile cases, many judgments remain inaccessible. Of course, transcripts are available, but only at cost and if requested. For many victims and their families, as well as third parties such as researchers, that is a prohibitive barrier. We must replace selective access with universal and consistent transparency, especially in the wake of this Bill.
Amendment 85 would require the courts to report key sentencing data and the Government to publish aggregate statistics at certain periods. That would provide the public with information on how many sentences are given for which offences, their length and offender demographics. If we are to place thousands more offenders under community supervision and expand the use of suspended sentences, we must be able to monitor the consequences: who is being sentenced, for what and with what impact on reoffending or public safety. Without such data, the Bill becomes a blind experiment, and we will not know whether it is achieving its objectives. We must not shy away from accountability or reject the principles that underpin democracy.
Amendment 148A addresses the impact of the Bill on the community and voluntary sectors. I am sure we all recognise that these organisations provide vital support to those most affected by crime, whether they are victims or offenders, and often they are the backbone of effective rehabilitation in the community. The Bill’s provisions will place new and substantial demands on those services, and without proper oversight we risk overwhelming the charities, community groups and voluntary agencies tasked with delivering critical interventions. Many of the arguments made in support of Amendments 84 and 85 apply to this amendment too. It would require the Government, within 12 months of commencement, to publish an assessment of the Bill’s impact on the sector. Again, that is not some bureaucratic nicety but a matter of transparency and fairness.
We cannot turn a blind eye to the practical realities on the ground. To accept this amendment is to place evidence and accountability at the forefront of this information. We owe that to this sector and the wider public. Therefore, I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I want to say a word about Amendment 84 on sentencing remarks. I was proposing to leave it until the Victims and Courts Bill, but this gives me an initial run at it, as it were. I am glad to have the opportunity to ask the Minister for an update on the MoJ’s work on this. At a 3 September meeting of the Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, I asked the then Lord Chancellor about progress in this area. She said:
“I do not believe we are far from having a tech solution that meets the test of accuracy … we are testing market solutions for speed and accuracy. Then we will need to take a view on operational viability and how quickly it could be rolled out”.
She said:
“It is a long process, and it has a cost attached to it”,
but went on to emphasise that
“accuracy … is the problem at the moment”.
If the Minister could update the Committee, that would be very welcome. The point in general is not only about sentencing remarks. My honourable friend for Richmond Park has been pursuing the matter of transcripts. She realises that this is important not only with sentencing remarks but with full transcripts of trials—victims, if that is a word I can use, when there has been a not guilty finding, need help to understand what has happened. As the noble Lord has said, access after the event, to go back and look to see what was said, is very important. None of us relies on our memory—we all look at Hansard, for instance. The publication within two sitting days may be overambitious, when I look at what the Lord Chancellor said—but then she has perhaps not met our Hansard writers, who do it in much less than two days.
Baroness Porter of Fulwood (Con)
My Lords, I welcome Amendment 148A. The Bill will shape the ecosystems of support that underpin and surround our entire justice system. A recurring theme through Second Reading and Committee so far has been the question of resourcing. While the focus of these discussions has been largely around the Probation Service itself, we cannot ignore the 1,700 community and voluntary organisations that work in this area, both inside and outside prisons.
We know that there are many aspects where community and voluntary organisations excel. There are some dimensions, the evidence shows, where they provide better than private companies or the public sector. They build social capital, enable trust and often have an understanding of vital contextual points related to specific communities or issues. I am sure any of us who have spent any substantial time volunteering and working closely with people in very vulnerable situations understand this dynamic.
In general, this sector in the UK is facing challenges on many fronts. The rise in national insurance, corporate giving stalling and increasing overheads across the board, combined with growing demand, are all contributing to what the National Council for Voluntary Organisations refers to as the year of the “big squeeze”. Clinks’ State of the Sector 2024 report makes for sobering reading, and that is the situation as things stand. If the vision that sits behind the Bill is to stand any chance of success, not only do we need to find a way to support and shore up the existing voluntary and community sector but we need to prioritise expanding its capacity and growing it.
That is more straightforward than it sounds. There is a remarkable level of agreement across organisations such as the Charities Aid Foundation, the Centre for Social Justice, Clinks and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, to name a few, about the kinds of policies that are needed. A lot of these are to do with processes: simplifying, contracting, commissioning locally and more collaboratively, introducing contract indexation and protecting local specialist funding. Others are about finding ways of attracting more private and corporate donations into the sector; for example, making changes to gift aid and introducing matched funding. Others, as the Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee report Better Prisons: Less Crime highlighted, are practical points about how HMPPS and individual prisons can co-ordinate better with the third sector.
This amendment by itself is not an answer, but it is a prerequisite for bringing the level of transparency and accountability that is needed into this system. This provides a powerful opportunity, if used correctly. We need to understand in more detail the plan for addressing the impact of the Bill by requiring a formal report on its impact and on the capacity of the voluntary and community sector to meet any increased demand. This amendment will build accountability into the system.
If we fail to monitor the effects of this legislation on the very organisations that underpin rehabilitation and community safety, we risk creating new pressures in the system. By amending the Bill to provide for this assessment, the Government have the opportunity to send a clear signal here, demonstrating that they believe that policy should be informed by data and that the community and voluntary sector is a valued partner. This amendment would strengthen oversight, support the sector and ensure that the promises of the Bill are matched by the capacity of the community to deliver them.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord for the opportunity to discuss these important issues. I appreciate that these amendments seek to improve transparency and public understanding of the criminal justice system, and this Government agree wholeheartedly on the importance of open justice. However, we do not consider that these amendments are necessary to achieve that aim.
I turn first to Amendment 84. I reassure noble Lords that the Government are taking action to increase the openness and transparency of the system. In certain cases of high public interest, sentencing remarks are already published online, and sentencing remarks can also be filmed by broadcasters, subject to the agreement of the judge. The sentencing of Thomas Cashman for the appalling murder of Olivia Pratt-Korbel was one such example. The Government have recently extended provision of free transcripts of sentencing remarks to victims of rape and other sexual offences whose cases are heard in the Crown Court, and it remains the case that bereaved families of victims of murder, manslaughter and fatal road offences can request judges’ sentencing remarks for free. We are also actively exploring opportunities offered by AI to reduce the costs of producing transcripts in future and to make transcripts across the system more accessible. But this amendment introducing this additional provision of court transcripts would place a significant financial burden on the courts and divert resources away from where they are needed most in the wider system.
The release of any court transcript requires judicial oversight to ensure accuracy and adherence to any reporting restrictions and to make sure that other public interest factors have been considered. This amendment would therefore have significant operational and resource implications for HMCTS and the judiciary. It would place extra demands on judicial capacity in the Crown Court and on HMCTS at a time when the system is under immense pressure, so while we agree entirely on the importance of transparency within the justice system, we cannot accept the amendment at this time. However, I reassure noble Lords that we will continue to consider this closely. In particular, I want to explore what opportunities AI presents to improve transcriptions and data. I am sure that noble Lords agree that the potential is there and that we need to find the best way to harness it. I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on the point around data and accuracy.
I turn to Amendment 85. Again, we agree with the principle of improving transparency but not with the necessity of the amendment itself. This Government are committed to improving the collection and publication of data on foreign national offenders. The Ministry of Justice has already taken action to increase transparency on the data published. Notably, in July, for the first time the offender management statistics included a breakdown of foreign national offenders in prison by sex and offence group. We are also working closely with colleagues in the Home Office to establish earlier identification of foreign national offenders. Being able to verify the nationality of offenders ahead of sentencing will facilitate more timely removals and may also provide an opportunity for enhanced data collection. We will keep this under review as part of our ongoing work to strengthen the data collection and publication system that we inherited from the previous Government.
Implementation of these measures may require a new mechanism to verify the information provided, which must be cost effective and prevent placing additional pressure on operational staff. For this reason, we cannot accept a statutory duty to publish this information before the necessary infrastructure is in place to support it. Our measured approach will continue to support the return of more foreign national offenders while ensuring maximum transparency for the public.
I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord for Amendment 148A concerning measuring the impact of the Bill on the voluntary and community sectors. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Porter of Fulwood, who has championed this subject during the Bill’s passage. She made a thoughtful and impassioned contribution at Second Reading and in today’s debate. The voluntary and community sector plays a vital role in developing and delivering services to people in our care. The sector supports HMPPS and the MoJ by bridging gaps and providing continuity that reduces reoffending and drives rehabilitation through targeted specialist support. Many of the services we provide would not be possible without the vital contribution of the voluntary sector, including charities such as Women in Prison, the St Giles Trust, PACT and many others. The Independent Sentencing Review made recommendations for where the third sector can be utilised to support the Probation Service and offenders on community sentences or on licence.
We already work closely with third-sector organisations to deliver better outcomes in the criminal justice system. For example, we work in partnership with the charity Clinks through the HMPPS and MoJ infrastructure grant to engage a network of around 1,500 organisations. In collaboration with Clinks, we have convened a series of roundtables with voluntary and community sector representatives and policy colleagues to explore the review’s recommendations and how the sector can make the greatest contribution to probation capacity.
I have carefully considered Amendment 148A. However, it will not be possible to fully understand the impact within 12 months, nor based just on data from the first six months of the Act being in force. Implementation of the Bill’s provisions will be phased over time and closely linked to the outcomes of the Leveson review and its implementation. In addition, the sector’s experience will be influenced by the introduction of new commissioned rehabilitative services contracts. Measuring the impact within such a short timeframe amid these overlapping and confounding factors would be highly complex. But again, I want to explore the opportunities that AI presents to collect and use better data in future. I can assure noble Lords that we will continue to work closely with the sector to ensure that it is considered and utilised in the implementation of this Bill.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this group. Their contributions have underscored the wide recognition across this Committee that transparency, accountability and evidence must underpin any credible approach to sentencing reform. These amendments do not seek to frustrate the Bill in any way; they seek to ensure that its objectives can be properly understood, monitored and delivered. Regarding Amendment 84, we have heard throughout this debate the importance of public confidence in the criminal justice system, and confidence cannot exist without visibility.
On Amendment 85, I once again make the simple point that you cannot manage what you do not measure. With respect to Amendment 148A, I too acknowledge the contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Porter; her thoughtful and insightful contribution reflected her long-standing experience and interest in this issue. At this time, I withdraw the amendment, but I give notice to the Minister that we will return to this issue at a later point in the process of the Bill.