Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
As you are aware, Mr Speaker, the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office is at a funeral today and is therefore unable to attend this session, so he has asked me to reply on his behalf.
This Government are determined to deliver a closer relationship with the EU. As part of that, we are negotiating a bold SPS agreement, the potential benefits of which are huge: reducing unnecessary checks at the border, cutting costs for businesses of around £200 per shipment and, in the long run, boosting the UK economy by around £5 billion a year. We have started negotiations and hope to have them concluded by early 2027. This is just one example of this Government filling in the holes left by the Conservatives.
Mr Carmichael
I am sure we all understand the reasons for the Paymaster General’s absence today, although I am less clear on his reasons for being absent from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee next Tuesday; he has declined our invitation to attend. A bold deal is indeed something to be wished for, but only if it does not bring with it lots of unintended consequences for the farmers, food producers, chemical companies and others whose work will be impacted by it. If Ministers will not engage with the Committee, will the Minister give me some assurance that there will at least be engagement with those vital industry interests?
Chris Ward
I understand that the Minister for the Cabinet Office has offered to meet directly with the right hon. Gentleman, the Chair of the Committee, on this—he will get back to the Committee. We will obviously be engaging on this matter and showing scrutiny across Parliament as much as possible. This is an incredibly important part of the deal. As I say, the benefits of the agreement are potentially very important; it will be of real benefit to farmers and other communities.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
The Government’s social value model provides opportunities to reward suppliers that recognise a trade union or other forms of worker representation. We are looking at further reforms to procurement to ensure that the rules do everything possible to boost jobs and skills and reward good work. I am working with trade unions, businesses and other organisations on this matter.
Lorraine Beavers
I refer to my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Bidfood, which has public contracts with the Army, prisons and schools across the UK, has torn up a long-standing recognition deal with GMB and Unite, leaving workers open to fire and rehire. Does the Minister agree that public contracts should go only to businesses that recognise and work constructively with trade unions?
Chris Ward
I personally think all businesses should recognise and work with trade unions. Our social value model, which we are reforming and will shortly strengthen, allows contracting authorities to consider the economic and social impact and reputation of bidders. Of course, the Employment Rights Bill—the biggest upgrade in workers’ rights in a generation—will end the scandal of fire and rehire.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
On determining awards for public contracts, what steps are being taken to prioritise UK firms in public procurement, especially for the provision of vital equipment, like personal protective equipment, in our NHS?
Chris Ward
We are going to bring forward plans, hopefully in the next Session, to reform procurement rules. A big part of that, as the Chancellor has said many times, is to help people to buy British more, and to support local jobs and economies around the country. Despite all their other failings, the previous Government did make some progress on this matter through the Procurement Act 2023, and we will build on that in the next Session.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
Me again—it is not going to be all me, don’t worry!
I am delighted to say that we have held several rounds of negotiations with the EU about a youth experience scheme, which will be balanced, capped, time-limited and subject to a visa requirement, and will deliver huge benefits to young people. I have to say, one tragedy of the deal negotiated by the previous Government is that it reduced and narrowed opportunities for young people. This Government will change that.
Ben Coleman
The Chancellor said recently that an “ambitious” youth experience scheme with the EU would be good for growth and good for business. The Centre for European Reform has estimated that such an agreement could add nearly 0.5% to UK GDP over 10 years. Can the Minister reassure my constituents that the Government will maximise all the opportunities on offer for our young people from all backgrounds to work, study, do apprenticeships and volunteer in European Union countries in order to boost our economy and to rebuild cultural links after the damage of the Conservative party’s botched Brexit?
Chris Ward
Yes, I can. This agreement will make a real difference to jobs, maximising opportunities for young people and for cultural exchange. That is why we are working so hard on it, and it is why we are also working on an associate relationship with the Erasmus+ scheme. The exact parameters of that relationship are, of course, part of the negotiations, but we will update the House on it shortly.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
In October, more than 200 UK and EU cultural and creative organisations issued a joint statement calling for the UK to rejoin Creative Europe and take part in its proposed successor, AgoraEU, giving lots of young people access to grants and cultural exchanges. What assessment have the Government made of rejoining Creative Europe?
Chris Ward
As I said, one of the tragedies of the deal the last Government did was that it excluded opportunities for cultural exchange, particularly for young people. We are going to change that—it is part of the negotiations. I will ask my colleague the Minister for the Cabinet Office to come back to the hon. Lady on her specific point on the cultural bit, but in general, our aim is to get as close as we can to that agreement as quickly as we can.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Josh Simons)
Mr Speaker—[Hon. Members: “Bring back Chris.”] Sorry to disappoint!
Over the past few months, I have begun to stand up a high-calibre team, working at pace to develop proposals for a free new digital credential for all UK citizens. This credential will be inclusive, secure and useful, learning from the best schemes around the world, and in the new year we will invite the public to have their say through a major public consultation. I will be travelling up and down the country, engaging in new ways as we develop this vital new public good for our country.
Mr Perkins
Britain has a proud track record of providing refuge for people fleeing persecution and war, but when tens of thousands of people are travelling across many safe countries to get here, it is clear that the criminal gangs’ sales pitch—that Britain is an easy place to find illegal work—is working. Can my hon. Friend tell me how digital ID will help us smash those criminal gangs and tackle the scourge of illegal work?
Josh Simons
Around the world and across Europe, countries use digital checks to evaluate whether someone has a legal right to work, but we do not. While we have brilliant digital verification tools, millions of checks use unreliable paper-based systems based on passports, birth certificates and other forms of evidence. This leaves too much room for fraud and, crucially, creates the perception that our country has weaker regimes for combating illegal working. Digitising checks will enable digital auditing of employers and more enforcement, bringing our illegal working regime in line with international peers and helping to deliver on one of our top priorities: reducing illegal migration.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
In October, the Prime Minister called a Downing Street press conference rather than come to this House so that he could tell the nation that digital ID will not be mandatory; it is just that people will not be able to get a job without one. What else will they not be able to do without this apparently voluntary digital ID? If people will not be allowed to get a job without digital ID, can the Minister confirm that they will also be unable to receive any benefits without it?
Josh Simons
Building a new digital credential for UK systems is a major public good that we need to do carefully and take our time over. That is why, as I said, we will launch a major public consultation in the new year. That consultation will include a whole series of questions about the use cases for digital ID. I look forward to working with the shadow Minister and Members across this House on what the new digital credential should do for our citizens.
Mike Wood
The Minister’s answer makes it clear that this announcement was not a policy—it was a late party conference stunt. The Government obviously have not thought it through; it is clear that the Prime Minister lacks the backbone to push back against officials who have taken this awful idea off the shelf once again. The truth is that this is a £1.8 billion solution in search of a problem. The Minister talks about illegal migration, but there is already a legal responsibility to carry out these checks, and the Home Office offers a reliable service. Can he tell us how many people who have passed the Home Office right-to-work check are later found to not have the right to work?
Josh Simons
To be very clear about right-to-work checks: the current system is not fit for purpose. The United Kingdom is out of whack with international peers, and that creates the perception that we have a weak, illegal labour market regime. I am sure that the shadow Minister would not be against toughening up enforcement against illegal working. On the broader benefits of digital ID, in the future economy and state that we need to build, a free digital credential to which every citizen has access is a vital foundational public good for everything that we want our Government and our state to do in the 15 to 20 years ahead. I am proud that this Government are taking on the task of building it.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Dan Jarvis)
The decision to call in the planning application for the proposed Chinese embassy was made by the former Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), in line with the current policy on call-in. The decision is subject to a quasi-judicial process and independent from the rest of Government. No private assurances have been given to the Chinese Government regarding the embassy application.
Sir Edward Leigh
Will the prayers of long-dead medieval monks save us from this hideous mega-embassy, right next to the most totemic building in the United Kingdom, the Tower of London? On 14 January, the then Secretaries of State for the Home Office and the Foreign Office wrote a letter insisting that a condition be made that there should be a wall and public access to the Cistercian medieval monastery on the site. The Chinese, in their arrogant way, are ignoring that. Will the Government stand firm and insist on public access—which, by the way, would be a good way of stopping this awful project?
Dan Jarvis
I can say to the Father of the House that national security is the first duty of this Government, and has been a core priority throughout this process. We have considered the breadth of national security considerations and have publicly outlined the necessary security mitigations that we need in order to support an application. Should the planning decision be approved, the new embassy will replace the seven different sites that currently comprise China’s diplomatic estate.
Gregory Stafford
On Tuesday, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) raised with the Foreign Secretary concerns expressed by the United States, Dutch, Swiss and Swedish Governments regarding the reported presence of data cables running beneath Royal Mint Court. I note that the Cabinet Office has since denied the reports to the press. Will the Minister now provide the clarity that his colleague at the Foreign Office could not, and give a clear yes or no answer to this House as to whether any such cables run beneath or in the vicinity of the site?
Dan Jarvis
I reiterate the point that the Government have considered the breadth of national security considerations. Both the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary have been clear about that. We work incredibly closely with our allies, particularly our Five Eyes partners, to ensure our collective national security.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
My constituents are concerned about the broader domestic security risk that China is currently posing, beyond the potential implications of its embassy planning application. Considering that Chinese state-subsidised bus manufacturers have gained a rising market share in the UK over the past few years, the Department for Transport and National Cyber Security Centre—
Mr Speaker
Order. As important as that is, I think the hon. Member’s point is way off the question, which is just about the Chinese embassy. I am sure he might catch my eye during topicals.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Dan Jarvis)
The Government published the resilience action plan in July to set out their strategic approach to improve the UK’s resilience to the full range of risks that we face. One of the actions we have taken is to conduct the largest ever pandemic exercise, which involved all regions and nations of the UK and thousands of participants.
Gideon Amos
From the first ever charts by Captain Cook to real-time digital mapping, the UK Hydrographic Office enables and keeps our Royal Navy safe at sea—operating quite literally under the radar. Will the Minister pay tribute to the hundreds of people in my constituency who work at the office, and will he support a cross-sector approach to energy cables, telecommunication cables and their security, bringing in the University of Plymouth, University Centre Somerset and the Hydrographic Office in my constituency?
Dan Jarvis
I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the important work of the UK Hydrographic Office and its vital contribution to the UK’s maritime security. The Cabinet Office plays a central role to cohere cross-Government efforts to secure the UK’s undersea infrastructure. Given the growing prominence of this issue, lead Departments are engaging with industry partners, and we will continue this inclusive approach as we support the Royal Navy to take a leading role to secure our undersea infrastructure.
Susan Murray
The Russian spy ship Yantar has been probing our infrastructure in the North sea. While doing so, its crew used high-powered lasers against an RAF plane monitoring their activity, threatening the lives of our pilots. What steps are the Government taking to secure our critical strategic infrastructure in the North sea and to ensure clear and serious consequences for Russia when it carries out aggressive and dangerous military activity off our coasts?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Lady and the House will understand that I am limited in what I can say in my response, but I can assure her that Russia is a top national security priority for the Government, and UK law enforcement has recently secured a range of convictions in this area. I will have more to say about this later today.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Considering that Chinese state-subsidised manufacturers have gained a rising market share in the UK over the past few years, that the Department for Transport and the National Cyber Security Centre have recently announced an investigation into kill switches in Chinese buses, and that the 10-year bus pipeline is expected imminently, will the Minister be raising our Government’s concerns about Chinese buses directly with the Chinese Government?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, not just for his question today, but for the important work that he has done in this particular area, in his constituency and across Scotland. I have listened carefully to what he has had to say this morning, and I would be happy to discuss it with him further.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Dan Jarvis)
Through the national security risk assessment, the Cabinet Office engages closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to continuously assess risks to the security and resilience of the food sector, as well as interdependencies between critical national infrastructure sectors. The Government have published the results of the first annual public survey on risk and resilience, and we provide resilience advice to the public on gov.uk.
Daniel Zeichner
The UK food system has shown remarkable resistance and flexibility in recent years, but seasoned industry voices are warning that we face new challenges from climatic risk and global instability. I appreciate that this is not just a food production issue, but a cross-Government issue. Can my right hon. Friend say a little more about measures to assess our readiness for these new challenges?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend speaks with great authority on these matters. The Cabinet Office is strongly supportive of the work that DEFRA is undertaking on food security, including mapping critical food supply chain assets to provide a greater understanding of potential vulnerabilities. We have also published the first ever chronic risks analysis to support decision making on longer-term cross-cutting and interconnected risks, such as climate and geopolitical change.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare) (Lab)
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)
After the damage wrought by successive Conservative Governments, we have successfully reset relations with the devolved Governments. Thanks to the hard work of Eluned Morgan, Anas Sarwar and our brilliant Welsh and Scottish Labour MPs, we have provided the largest uplifts to their budgets since devolution began.
Gerald Jones
I very much welcome the additional £505 million of investment that the Chancellor announced in last week’s Budget through the Barnett formula, building on the biggest settlement since devolution. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is another example of two Labour Governments working together for the benefit of the people of Wales, which is in complete contrast to how we were treated by the Conservatives?
Darren Jones
I agree that this is but one fantastic example of two Labour Governments working together to deliver for the people of Wales, in stark contrast with 14 years of Conservative Governments ignoring Welsh leaders in the Senedd. Just the other week, we announced two AI growth zones and the UK’s first small modular reactor in Anglesey, alongside historic investment in Welsh rail earlier this year. Through that, we are creating 11,000 new jobs across Wales. That is thanks, again, to two Labour Governments working together for the people of Wales.
Katrina Murray
Does the Minister agree that in my constituency, where people are struggling to access healthcare, it is vital that the SNP Government make effective use of the recent funding uplift to finally deliver the long-promised elective treatment and diagnostic centre in Cumbernauld, so that we can cut waiting lists and get my constituents the care they need?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend will know that it was Nicola Sturgeon, campaigning less than a month before the 2021 Scottish Parliament election, who promised a new elective treatment and diagnostic centre for the people of Cumbernauld. Four and a half years later, my hon. Friend’s constituents are still waiting, and the SNP Government have admitted that they will not be building it any time soon. This Labour Government have committed billions of pounds in extra funding for Scottish public services, but voters in Cumbernauld and across Scotland will rightly be asking the SNP Government the question, “Where’s the money gone, John?”
Irene Campbell
Does the Minister agree that with a Labour Government at Holyrood working with a UK Labour Government, constituencies like North Ayrshire and Arran could be much better off, because nuclear policy in Scotland could change and sites like Hunterston, which is currently blocked from investment by SNP policy, could be developed to support small modular reactors, bringing good jobs to the community and playing a key part in our energy supply?
Darren Jones
In England and Wales, Labour Governments are investing billions of pounds to deliver a new generation of clean, safe nuclear power. Hunterston, in my hon. Friend’s constituency, is just one of the communities in Scotland that could benefit from this investment, if it was not for the SNP Government’s outdated and ideological ban on nuclear power. Their student politics approach is holding Scotland back. Only a vote for Scottish Labour and Anas Sarwar next May will deliver the jobs and growth that nuclear power could offer Scotland.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Despite the Government’s assurances, they and the Scottish Government fail to communicate in many ways. As a Scottish MP, I am used to the frustrating process of being sent from one to another, with nobody taking responsibility. Access for All is a great example. The new ramp at Leuchars station, which serves St Andrews, could provide effective step-free access, but nobody knows when the new scheme is coming and how it will be administered in Scotland. Can I get an assurance that conversations are taking place about the scheme?
Darren Jones
I can confirm that Ministers across Government, including myself, the Prime Minister and others in relevant Departments, engage with our counterparts in the Scottish Government frequently, and we wish to unblock problems to improve delivery for the people of Scotland. If the hon. Lady writes to me on the particular issue that she raises, I will ensure that it is taken into account. Perhaps next time, SNP Members might come to oral questions to hear about the issues directly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister is a gentleman—that is never in question. What steps will be taken to respect the principle of devolution and avoid legislating on behalf of the Northern Ireland Assembly without genuine necessity? I ask everyone to cast their minds back to 2019, when the Conservative Government brought in abortion legislation in Northern Ireland against the will of the Northern Ireland Assembly and against the will of the people of Northern Ireland. This House endorsed it. Mr Speaker, what can be done to ensure that that never, ever happens again?
Darren Jones
I think it comes from mutual respect and dialogue, which this Government have exhibited since we have come into office. That is in stark contrast to the relationship over the previous 14 years. The Northern Ireland Secretary and I, alongside the Prime Minister, engage with the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister on these issues routinely, and we will continue to try to provide the best answers for the people of Northern Ireland.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)
Since coming to office, the Government have secured a new strategic partnership with the EU to deliver on jobs, bills and borders. We are repairing the damage inflicted by the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal, which left food businesses paying £200 on paperwork for every single consignment shipped in from the EU. We have made significant progress since our historic May summit, including negotiations on a food and drink deal, which will slash red tape for businesses and bring down prices for consumers.
Alex Brewer
Given that Brexit has left a £90 billion hole in the UK’s tax revenues and that small business owners in my constituency of North East Hampshire are telling me that the last two Budgets have been “catastrophic” for them, why are the Government not pursuing a bespoke UK-EU customs union to cut red tape, boost economic growth and support British businesses?
Darren Jones
The Prime Minister was very clear in the House yesterday that we will be honouring our manifesto commitments on a single market and a customs union—we will not be rejoining those institutions. However, there is a great deal of work that can be done between the botched deal we inherited from the Conservatives—from their acrimonious relationship, when Britain and the European Union refused to talk to each other in the interests of either of them—and the new relationship that the Prime Minister has built with his counterparts in Europe to deliver for the people of the United Kingdom.
Andrew Cooper
Recent efforts to secure UK participation in the EU’s Security Action for Europe initiative, which aims to strengthen defence capacity across the continent in response to escalating Russian threats, appear to have come to an end without agreement. While it is right that the UK only enters agreements that clearly support our national interest and represent value for money, we must continue to play a leading role in European security. Will the Minister outline how the Government intend to build momentum for renewed UK-EU co-operation in this area?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. The United Kingdom remains committed to our role in European security in the face of rising threats. As the House will know, the Prime Minister has led the coalition of the willing to combat Vladimir Putin’s aggression in Ukraine and has worked tirelessly to strengthen our relationships with our allies, including across Europe. We are working quickly with the EU to implement our ambitious security and defence partnership, and have already stepped up our co-operation on key issues such as tackling hybrid threats and our collective support to Ukraine.
Dr Pinkerton
On “The News Agents” podcast yesterday evening, the Deputy Prime Minister, when asked about a UK-EU customs arrangement, said
“that journey of travel…is self-evident”.
Given that the botched Brexit deal is costing the UK Exchequer £90 billion a year, can I ask what that self-evident journey means for the Government’s own red lines? Will the Government take the opportunity to take a giant leap on that journey by supporting my ten-minute rule Bill next Tuesday?
Darren Jones
I have to confess that I have not listened to “The News Agents” podcast that the hon. Member refers to, but I know you will be pleased to hear, Mr Speaker, that what is self-evident is what is said in this House, not on podcasts. The Prime Minister was very clear yesterday on the position the Government hold in relation to a single market and a customs union, while also improving our trading and security relationships, which is what we will continue to deliver on.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The agreement in May included the restoration of the UK’s country-specific steel quota, but in October we saw new steel protection measures from the EU. Do the Government expect the article 28 GATT––general agreement on tariffs and trade—process to be honoured for those quotas, and will trade measures be set out prior to the steel strategy?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As he will understand, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office is in discussions with counterparts in the European Union about the changing global landscape for steel. This Government are very clear that we should protect British steel and our capabilities to produce steel in the UK, while supporting exports and making sure that British steel is not undercut by cheap global imports from around the world.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I am sure people will be pleased to hear that the Labour party is going to honour some of its manifesto commitments.
Last week, it was announced that the Government’s attempt to join the new EU defence fund had failed. This is a major setback for our relationship with the EU, and it is a major embarrassment for the Government. Since that time, no Minister has come to the House to explain what on earth has gone so horribly wrong, so perhaps the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster can tell us: what has gone so horribly wrong?
Darren Jones
First, regardless of the negotiation on SAFE, our collaboration with European partners is stronger than ever on defence and defence procurement. In relation to SAFE in particular, about which the hon. Member asked, this was always going to be a negotiation between the EU and the UK, and the UK Government rightly have to consider value for money considerations in return for how much access British industry has to the contracts being negotiated in Europe. Irrespective of the position on SAFE, I can confirm to the House that UK companies will still be able to take part in European procurement for defence equipment, with an up to 35% allowance for British components in those manufactured goods.
Alex Burghart
I admire the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s chutzpah in answering. He pretends that this was in some way not a defeat, but a victory—many more such victories, and we are lost.
The House will remember that in May, No. 10 trumpeted a new agreement with the EU, which gave the EU privileged access to our fishing waters for 12 years—12 years—to
“pave the way for the UK defence industry to participate in the EU’s proposed new…defence fund”.
Now that the EU has killed off that deal with what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster rightly describes as an unreasonable demand for £5 billion, are we going to get our fish back?
Darren Jones
The hon. Member will know that the agreement with the European Union was not just on one particular issue; it was a package of improvements in the relationship between the UK and the EU. He might want to welcome the agreement on food and drink regulation reforms, so we can get prices down on the shelves in British supermarkets, after they went through the roof under the last Conservative Administration.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Following threats from Donald Trump, earlier this week the Government announced that between £3 billion and £6 billion each year will be diverted from our NHS services into the pockets of pharmaceutical giants. The American Health Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., said the agreement shows Trump’s
“courage and leadership in demanding these reforms”
and that he puts Americans first. That will give no comfort to my Hazel Grove constituents, who rightly value our NHS and want to see it thrive. Does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster agree that we are more isolated from our European allies following Brexit, making us far too vulnerable to the threat of American tariffs? What will it take for the Government to rethink their red lines and protect the British people from further bullying from the White House, by agreeing a bespoke UK-EU customs union with our European neighbours?
Darren Jones
The agreement reached on pharmaceuticals is a win for the United Kingdom. We have an enormously important sector for pharmaceutical research and development and production in the United Kingdom, which exports many of its products to the American market, so to have agreed the tariff arrangements with the United States is a win for UK pharma and the people who work in it. I would just point to the fact that the UK’s relationship with the United States, thanks to our Prime Minister, has been one of the most productive relationships in the world in securing trade and security agreements both for the UK and to support our allies around the world.
Lisa Smart
I note the right hon. Gentleman’s response. It may well be good for the pharma industry; my question was whether it is good for the NHS. Just four days ago, the Prime Minister said that the Brexit deal “significantly hurt our economy” and that we have to keep moving towards a closer relationship with the EU. I agree with the Prime Minister. A clear and welcome step for jobs and growth would be to create a bespoke customs union with the EU. The Liberal Democrats want to cut unnecessary red tape, support British businesses and deliver sustainable long-term economic growth. I am sure the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster does, too. I agree with his earlier comment that what happens in this House matters, so will he at least agree not to block his colleagues on the Government Benches from backing the ten-minute rule Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) will move next Wednesday, which sets a path towards a bespoke EU-UK customs union—
Mr Speaker
Order. Honestly, you cannot go on and on. In fairness, we have to limit the amount of time. I am sure the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has got at least three of the questions.
Darren Jones
Mr Speaker, there is obviously a great deal of interest on the Liberal Democrat Benches in their ten-minute rule Bill, which I look forward to reading in due course.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Dan Jarvis)
The Government recently introduced the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill to strengthen the resilience of UK critical national infrastructure. Yesterday, I visited BT, which has worked with the National Cyber Security Centre to block almost 1 billion attempts to access malicious content in just six months. In spring, the Government will publish a business-first national cyber action plan, and we have already engaged with over 400 stakeholders as part of its development.
Andrew Rosindell
The United Kingdom is increasingly and uniquely vulnerable to malicious cyber-activity targeting national infrastructure and democratic institutions, including Parliament itself. That poses a serious risk to our national security. Experts have warned of a critical data leak, a new scale of severe blackouts, transport disruption and even Government being brought to a halt. What action is the Minister’s Department taking to ensure that the Government are prepared and sufficiently resourced to meet this pernicious national security threat?
Dan Jarvis
I understand why the hon. Gentleman raises this issue, and he is right to do so. The Government take the threats we face incredibly seriously. That is one of the reasons why the Prime Minister took the decision back in September to ensure that the Security Minister sits across both the Cabinet Office and the Home Office, so we are better placed as a Government to co-ordinate our national security response in the areas the hon. Gentleman outlined. I can give him and the House an absolute assurance on the seriousness we attach to these issues. We take them very seriously and we are working at pace to address them.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Josh Simons)
In this country, at present millions of people cannot access public services online, and millions lack the IDs that they need to go about their daily lives. That is the status quo, and we will not accept it. That is why we are introducing a new national digital credential, free for everyone over 16, that will be inclusive, secure and useful. This will involve a massive digital inclusion drive to ensure that the system works for everyone, including those who do not have smartphones, are elderly or are less digitally confident, so that everyone will benefit from simpler, safer and more secure access to public services.
Bradley Thomas
I thank the Minister for his scripted answer. Digital ID is a terrible idea. If the Government are going to pursue it, what assurances can he give me, in a tiny bit of detail, about what the Government will do to ensure that people are not, through a lack of technological skills or financial exclusion, disadvantaged in accessing Government services?
Josh Simons
Let me be clear about the status quo that the Conservative party left behind: millions of people right now are digitally excluded from accessing public services, and millions of people lack the identity credentials that they need to access them. We will not accept that. We will make sure that post offices, libraries and a whole range of physical places in the communities where people live can be used to access this new digital credential, getting people online who were left behind by the last Government.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Dan Jarvis)
The resilience action plan sets out how we will lead a conversation with the public on resilience. Our evidence gathering included consultation with organisations that represent disproportionately impacted groups to ensure that our approach to resilience reflects the characteristics of the whole of the UK.
Luke Akehurst
Will the Minister explain to the House the importance of exercises like Pegasus, and outline how Pegasus has supported this Government’s efforts to improve our national resilience for future pandemics?
Dan Jarvis
The Government remain committed to learning the lessons of the covid inquiry to protect and prepare us for the future. In line with the inquiry’s recommendations on pandemic response exercises, Exercise Pegasus has been the largest simulation of a pandemic in UK history, involving Ministers, the devolved Governments and representation from arm’s length bodies. We will communicate the findings and lessons from this exercise in due course, as recommended by the inquiry.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
The Minister without Portfolio (Anna Turley)
This Labour Government are proud to be taking historic steps to end child poverty. We are extending eligibility for free school meals to all children and households receiving universal credit next September in an unprecedented boost for children. That is going to benefit over half a million more children and put around £500 back into parents’ pockets every year. We believe that every child can better fulfil their potential if they are well fed, nourished and ready to learn in their school day.
Charlie Maynard
As many as 11% of pupils are missing out on the free school meals to which they are entitled. In many cases, they are not registered for reasons such as a fear of stigma or language barriers. In my Witney constituency, that means that around 230 children from the most disadvantaged homes may be missing out on a hot, healthy meal to get them through the school day. Council pilots of auto-enrolment have been shown to be effective. If implemented nationwide, auto-enrolment would make a huge difference to struggling families and it has overwhelming support from parents, so my question to the Minister is: what is the hold-up?
Anna Turley
We want to ensure that all families can claim the support they are entitled to, and we recognise that there is some great best practice happening around the country, so we will continue to keep the matter under review. By broadening the criteria to everyone on universal credit, it will be a lot easier for people to know that they can access free school meals. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is as excited as Government Members are for the child poverty strategy that will be published later this week. We look forward to many more exciting opportunities in that strategy to lift our children out of poverty and give them the future they deserve.
Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)
Since I last addressed the House, the Prime Minister announced the new Office for the Impact Economy, based in the Cabinet Office. From building affordable homes to giving children up and down the country the best start in life, social enterprises and community foundations are fundamental to delivering the change that this Government were elected to deliver. Changing lives for the better happens from the ground up, as well as from the top down. The Office for the Impact Economy will allow those organisations to engage with Government directly to get the support they need, and it will help public funding work harder by bringing philanthropists and other social investors together with communities that need investment. I look forward to updating the House further on this issue in due course.
Kenneth Stevenson
While passengers are experiencing short-term pain of long waits as the EU entry-exit system becomes fully operational, can the Minister confirm his Department is working to ensure that the agreement obtained by this Labour Government to allow British access to e-gates will, in the long term, cut queues and improve the travelling experience for my constituents in Airdrie and Shotts and other Members’ constituents?
Darren Jones
British passport holders will be able to use e-gates across Europe, allowing for more time to be spent on holiday and less time spent held up in queues. This is a positive step forward in expanding our access across the EU. The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office is working with individual member states to make this happen as soon as possible.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
A few weeks ago I wrote to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about Chinese ownership of critical national infrastructure, including the possible acquisition of Thames Water. I have not had a reply, but since then The Telegraph has been briefed by the Government that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would block such an acquisition. Can he confirm to the House that he will use his powers under the National Security and Investment Act 2021 to launch an investigation before any Chinese acquisition of Thames Water is allowed to proceed?
Darren Jones
The House will know that because of the quasi-judicial powers I have under the National Security and Investment Act 2021, I cannot comment on individual transactions. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are always willing to use those powers to protect the national interests and national security of this country. I do not recognise that briefing to The Telegraph, but I will ensure that he gets an answer to his correspondence shortly.
Alex Burghart
Well, someone was briefing in the right hon. Gentleman’s name. I thank him for his answer, but on the same theme, the electricity distribution network for London and much of the south-east, as well as the gas distribution network for about 5 million people in our country and the water supply for about another 3 million, are currently under Chinese ownership. That includes the power supply for the Palace of Westminster, Whitehall and many security capabilities. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster tell us whether he has reviewed the national security implications of these legacy acquisitions? If not, will he commit to doing so?
Darren Jones
I can reassure the hon. Member and the House that we constantly keep critical national infrastructure risks under review and will take interventions as required to protect the national interest and national security of the United Kingdom.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
As I said in response to an earlier question, we are in the process of negotiating the EU youth experience scheme, which came out of the agreement secured earlier in the year. We are also seeking associate membership in Erasmus. Those are just two examples of how we will try to take on a much closer relationship with the EU that will have benefits for young people, the economy and cultural exchange.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Darren Jones
We will always negotiate in Britain’s interest and ensure value for money for the taxpayer and benefit for the UK economy. I can confirm that not only has the Paymaster General agreed to meet with the Chair of the EFRA Committee, but the relevant Minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be appearing to give evidence in the normal way.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
Chris Ward
Small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of our economy, and we are looking at reforming procurement rules to do everything we can to make sure that the £400 billion a year we spend on this does everything possible to help small businesses. We consulted in the summer, including on late payments and reforming social value, and we are going to bring forward a package of reforms shortly on this.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Dan Jarvis)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. I will look carefully at what he has said and will be happy to meet to discuss it further.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
The Minister without Portfolio (Anna Turley)
Our great civil service serves citizens from across the UK, so it should look like them, sound like them, and come from the same towns, cities, regions and nations as the communities it serves. Through our places for growth programme, we are moving more roles from London to locations across the UK, including York, where 2,600 civil servants are already working across numerous Departments, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Chris Ward
I recognise the importance of this issue to my hon. Friend’s constituents. Amendments to Schengen rules are predominantly a matter for member states, but the Minister for the Cabinet Office has regular discussions with his counterparts in the EU, and I will ensure that he is aware of those concerns.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Last week, the National Security Adviser was due to appear before the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. Did he? If not, why not?
Dan Jarvis
My understanding is that the National Security Adviser did appear in front of the Committee, but it was a private session.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Darren Jones
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing so much investment in his constituency. The Office for the Impact Economy will be working with philanthropists and social investors, as well as corporate givers and others, to support programmes led by the Government, such as Pride in Place and other public investments, to deliver a better bang for our buck and the renewal of communities across the country, including in Bletchley. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to deliver on that promise of change.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Cabinet Office has an important role to play in publishing data to enable the public to track the Government’s performance. Does the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister agree that it would be helpful to have data on the number of prisoners wrongly released every day by the Justice Secretary?
Darren Jones
I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice receives the hon. Gentleman’s question, which he can maybe raise again in Justice questions when they come round.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Tomorrow will mark a year to the day since the Government launched the plan for change, to great fanfare, with its milestones, its mission boards, and its dashboards that never materialised. We have now found out that the five mission boards have been deleted from the latest list of Cabinet Committees. Has there been any change at all from the plan for change?
Darren Jones
I welcome the introduction of the plan for change to the debate today, and the hon. Gentleman will be as excited as I am about the promise of change being delivered: five interest rate cuts; mortgage rates coming down; wages growing faster than the cost of living; NHS waiting lists down not by 2 million, 3 million or 4 million, but by 5 million appointments; a better start in life for young people across the country—
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Minister does not know who in the Labour party signed off on Lord Alli’s pass to No. 10. It is an important question. Please could he find out and write to me and tell me who?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Further to the question from the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), most food insecurity in Northern Ireland comes from a lack of money, not a lack of food. What discussions has the Minister had with his counterparts in Northern Ireland on improving the root causes of food insecurity among all our constituents?
Darren Jones
I know that through the finance interministerial and the interministerial standing committee, leaders and relevant Ministers discuss a whole range of issues relevant to Northern Ireland, including this, with colleagues from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and others. I am always happy to have those conversations with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, if that is of help.
Local Elections
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister if she will make a statement about the cancellation of local elections scheduled for May 2026.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
Let me respond to the question directly. Local elections will go ahead in 2026—that has been and continues to be our position. We are a responsible Government, so if there are extenuating circumstances on the ground in particular councils, we will have that conversation with them, as the House would expect, but we are as up for elections as anyone else.
This is about our commitment to devolution, and the creation of strategic authorities and mayors who can unlock the economic potential of their areas and deliver for their communities. That will always be our guiding star—our lodestar—in every decision that we make about devolution, so I am pleased to confirm the long-term funding offer to six areas in the devolution priority programme. Once their mayors are in post, the six mayoral strategic authorities will receive close to £200 million collectively per year for the next 30 years for their investment fund. In that way, we will ensure that our mayoral strategic authorities have the strong foundation to unlock the growth potential that we see in every part of the country.
The Government recognise that mayoral strategic authorities are most successful when they are built on a strong history of partnership and joint delivery. That is what we have seen in our established mayoral authorities in Greater Manchester, Liverpool and across the country. The devolution priority programme areas have already made huge progress towards establishing their strategic authorities. We want to allow for a meaningful period between the establishment of a strategic authority, and its mayoral elections.
We are also conscious that those places are simultaneously undergoing local government reorganisation while building those new institutions. The Government are therefore minded to hold the inaugural mayoral elections for Sussex and Brighton, Hampshire and the Solent, Norfolk and Suffolk, and Greater Essex in May 2028, so that those areas have the opportunity to conclude their local government reorganisation, build strong and effective unitaries, which is what we want, and establish their strategic authorities before their mayors take post. The inaugural mayoral elections will take place, but in the meantime we are determined to work with those areas to provide capacity funding, build the institutions, and strengthen their partnership and joint working to deliver for their communities. At the heart of everything we do is unlocking areas’ potential by building strong institutions that can do that job and working in partnership with them to achieve it.
David Simmonds
You and I both value local democracy, Mr Speaker. Last week, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), the Secretary of State told the House that
“the Government’s intention is that all the elections scheduled for next May will go ahead next May.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 5.]
The following day, the Minister told the House:
“Labour is up for elections… our clear intention is to press ahead with elections next year. The decision to postpone elections is never taken lightly”.
She went on to state the reason the Government were resisting the Conservative amendment to ensure that those elections went ahead:
“It does not allow for extenuating circumstances at a national level, such as a pandemic, or for exceptional circumstances locally”.—[Official Report, 25 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 322.]
Given that we are all ready for and expecting the elections, having taken this Government at their word, the ambiguity that the Minister has created has caused a huge amount of doubt, significant cost and logistical challenges at a local level in changing the type of elections and the processes for nominating candidates, recruiting electoral canvassers and ensuring that we have the right polling station staff and that they are prepared to arrange that election on schedule. This is a huge waste of public money for elections that we are all ready for.
Given the Minister’s previous comments about circumstances in which council elections would be cancelled and the looming deadlines that electoral officers face, when will she make a decision, and what process will she follow in determining whether the planned council elections will go ahead? When will the Government brief the House on the timetable for the elections of mayors, which they made central to their Budget last week? Will she ask the Office for Budget Responsibility to update its Budget forecast, given the massive impact that this dithering and delay will have on the Budget’s clearly set out plans for housing, infrastructure, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and NHS reorganisation?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
It is really important that we distinguish between two things. We have been absolutely consistent that local council elections are happening in 2026. We are cracking on with it and getting ready for them. I hope the Opposition parties are getting ready for them. We will crack on with them, but these are inaugural mayoral elections that are predicated on us laying a statutory instrument, which we are still to lay, and having the consent of constituent authorities. It is absolutely right that we take stock of where we are and the process that we are asking places to get through, to ensure that at the end of this, we have strong unitary councils that are going through the process of reorganisation, strong strategic authorities, and then a mayor. That is the right and rational decision. There is a clear distinction that I ask the House to make between local council elections, which are scheduled and run to a rhythm, and inaugural mayoral elections, which we have not had before.
On the economics, I will take the hon. Member’s question seriously, even though it was completely ridiculous. We are committed to unlocking areas’ economic potential, so we want to crack ahead with strategic authorities. We want to lay the SI, so that we can get the strategic authorities set up in the timeframe that we have been negotiating and agreeing with places. We are committed to that long-term investment. We will bring forward a proportion of that investment into next year and the year after in the transition, so that places can get on with their investment pipeline and their programme.
At the heart of this—I will keep coming back to this—is a determination on the Government Benches to work with every part of the country to unlock their economic potential. We will do that in good faith. We will do that without playing politics. We will do that in partnership with any leader, no matter which party they belong to. I hope all Members across the House will approach this in the same spirit.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) for asking this urgent question and the Minister for responding. Real change is about having mayoral candidates rooted in their community, with an increase in power and funding so that they can deliver that change. There are many issues and challenges across local government, which we all talk about, from special educational needs and disabilities to temporary accommodation and children’s social care. These are big issues that our councillors are dealing with day in, day out.
On 11 November, the Secretary of State told our Select Committee that he did not think local government reorganisation was taking longer than planned and that elections scheduled for May would be going ahead. Less than a month later, the Minister is saying that more time is needed for local government reorganisation in some areas. Given that we are less than six months out, can the Minister reassure the House by confirming that local elections will be going ahead in areas that are seeing reorganisation into a unitary authority and that there will not be any additional delays? This will have an impact on the local people who are working hard on this and may be worried about their jobs, so it is vital that we get clarity from the Government on those areas where unitarisation is carrying on.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is right that this about local people and delivering for them. I reassure her that that same concern and commitment is at the heart of everything that we are doing. This is not about shifting the timescales for local government reorganisation; we are proceeding on the same timescales. Authorities across the country are putting together proposals and working to the timescales agreed, and we are committed to holding to that. This is about devolution in a subset of the areas that are going through local government reorganisation. It pertains to the four functional areas that are going through the process simultaneously: in those areas, it is the creation of not just unitary authorities, which is happening in lots of other areas, but strategic authorities and mayors at the same time. It is absolutely right that we take stock and create the space for them to do each of those things in a timeframe that ensures that we have institutions that are strong and work well at the end of the process.
We want to ensure that we are taking forward local government reorganisation at the timescale that we have agreed and talked about with our partners on the ground. We then want to ensure that strategic authorities are created within the timescales that we have talked about and agreed with our partners on the ground. Our proposals set out that we are minded to push the elections of mayors to 2028, so that we can ensure that the unitary authorities, strategic authorities and partnerships are set up and working well, and we then have the inaugural elections. That is a completely rational and sensible place to be, and we will try to do that in lockstep with our partners on the ground.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
Thank you for granting this incredibly important urgent question, Mr Speaker. I am sure colleagues from across the House will have been as shocked as I was to read in the media last night that the four priority strategic areas have had their elections cancelled and postponed until 2028, especially given the reassurances to the House that have been referenced by other hon. Members. Will the Minister explain why, yet again, information about election cancellations has been announced to the press and council chief executives ahead of MPs? Why have the Government chosen to cancel these important elections, which are a fundamental part of our democracy, and then told the media, not Parliament, first?
Will the Minister provide clarity on funding for local authorities, about which I am very concerned? The Government have repeatedly spoken about the importance of mayoral strategic authorities to unlocking investment and funding for authorities. Why are the Government limiting investment funding for the next two years, releasing only one third at a time, when local and upper tier authority leaders have already agreed the share of priorities? If mayors must work collaboratively with other local authority leaders and there is consensus on where investment is needed, why will the Government not release the funding now? Why will they hold that back by delaying the elections? Those authorities need the money now, so will the Government provide reassurance?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Let me be very clear: it was not us who briefed the media. We cannot control what other parties do—we always want to update the House, as well as local authorities. It is incredibly, incredibly important to be very clear that this is not about the cancellation of elections—[Interruption.] These are inaugural elections that are subject to a statutory instrument being laid and they are subject to consent. For all the reasons that I have set out, at the moment the Government are minded to have those elections in 2028, and we will work with the local authorities that are impacted to get consent to do that.
On the fundamental point about investment, we are as committed to investment as the hon. Lady. That is why we have announced £200 million for those areas over the next 30 years. We are urging all areas to produce their investment pipeline, because we want to see things happening on the ground. We have committed to a third, but we will continue to work with areas to ensure that if they have viable investment propositions, the Government are walking hand in hand and side by side with them to unlock that. It is good for the areas, but fundamentally it is good for the growth of the economy and for national Government.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I need to be blunt, as I usually am: we need to be better than this. Local leaders across the political spectrum have worked in good faith. They have put aside self-interest and differences, and they did everything asked of them to secure a better settlement for the people they represent. They reasonably expected the Government to do the same. Postponing last year’s elections allowed for these mayoral elections to be agreed, consulted on, the statutory tests to be met and funding to be confirmed, all of which was done, leaving just the legislation to be laid for polling day on 28 May. That is why Labour and other parties have already selected their candidates. The Government have a moral and a legal obligation to honour their side of the bargain. Following a statutory process, all involved had a reasonable expectation that these elections would go ahead. The Government know that trust is hard won but easily squandered. Given that we are where we are, will the Minister confirm that the mayoral elections will go ahead as planned in Cheshire and Warrington and in Cumbria in 2027? Will she update the House on the progress of the Lancashire devolution deal, which was due to be presented by autumn this year, given that we are now in winter?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank my hon. Friend for the huge amount of work that he put into getting us to this place. The fact that we are in a position where we have devolution deals and places undergoing the process of local government reorganisation with the good faith he talked about is testimony to the work he has done. But it is absolutely right that we, as a new ministerial team coming in, look at the facts and at where we are and that we make a judgment.
Ultimately, what drives my hon. Friend and the decisions he made with colleagues, and what drives us and the decisions we are making, is ensuring that, when we look back on this in 2030, we will have effective, powerful unitary councils across the country delivering for their people, and strategic authorities built on strong partnership working—we know that is critical for unlocking development—and powerful mayors. With every area I speak to, the objectives are the same.
Our judgment is that if we give ourselves some breathing room to go through the process and do that with those places in the time required, we will be better and stronger on the other side. We will do this in partnership with local areas. Yesterday, I personally spoke to every single leader directly. We are going to do this in partnership, because there is a common agenda at the end of it. But it is absolutely right that my responsibility, and the responsibility of the Government, is to do everything we can to ensure that the process delivers the outcome that I think hon. Members across the House adhere to.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
But the Government could have done this right and come to Parliament with a statement today. Instead, once again we wake up to overnight briefings. Cancelling elections is always a bad idea, and there is a real suspicion that the Government are worried about being trounced in elections.
May make a local point about Lincolnshire? It is now in complete chaos, because we do not know what is going to happen. The Government have already forced an unloved office of mayor on us, our friends in North East Lincolnshire have withdrawn from the whole process, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer) wants to carve West Lindsey—my district—in half by creating a greater Lincoln, and the county council under Reform leadership has a different proposal. Nobody knows what is going on. Just put local democracy first by allowing the people of Lincolnshire to have the district council system of local Government that they love and know, and stop throwing everything up in the air and wasting so much money.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I reiterate that these are inaugural elections, and therefore we are not cancelling elections. [Interruption.] These are inaugural elections that were always subject to us laying a statutory instrument and subject to the consent of places. To the right hon. Member’s specific point, it is really important that we bring the House back to why we are going through the process of local government reorganisation. We are not doing it because it is fun, or just for the sake of it; we are doing it because of the state in which local government was left by the Conservative party—[Interruption.] Absolutely—take responsibility! We had a decade and a half of under-investment, leaving local government on its knees. The Conservatives ducked the decisions they needed to make.
Now we are gripping the mantle, and at the heart of the reorganisation process is the simple premise that we want stronger unitaries. We believe that is the way in which we can organise services to deliver for communities. The Conservative party should have got a grip and done that. It did not; it ducked that. We are now having to pick that up, so I will not have Conservative Members talking to me about the pros and cons of reorganisation. We are doing it because we understand that we need to. If they were more serious, they would have cracked on and got on with it themselves.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
May I welcome the additional £21.7 million per year announced today for the Cheshire and Warrington combined authority? I know my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), who is on the Front Bench, has campaigned for that for many, many years. Our region has massive untapped potential in life sciences, chemical manufacturing and digital. For too long we have watched while our friends in the Liverpool city region and Greater Manchester have been able to build a transport network and a skills strategy fit for the 21st century. Does the Minister agree that this is the difference that a Labour Government make?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out the funding. Just so that the House records it, let me say what we are investing in. In the Cheshire and Warrington combined authority we are investing £21.7 million. In Cumbria we are investing £11.1 million. In greater Essex we are investing £41.5 million. In Hampshire and the Solent we are investing £44.6 million. In Norfolk and Suffolk we are investing £37.4 million. In Sussex and Brighton we are investing £38 million.
This is about investment in places. At its heart, this is about resources and power so that local leaders can work in partnership to deliver for their people. I will not apologise for that; it is absolutely the right thing. I will come back to this point every single time: at the heart of everything we are doing is ensuring that we have strong institutions that can deliver for their people. I know that the Conservatives do not like me to talk about it, but the legacy we have is that huge swathes of our country have been held back—growth and investment have been held back. That is not a reality that we are willing to contend with, which is why we are doing the hard yards and the graft in order to unlock powerful institutions that can deliver for their people. [Interruption.] The Conservatives can bluster all they like, but at the heart of this matter is investment in places. We are committed to that, and it is a shame that the Conservatives failed to do that.
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
I could scarcely believe it last year when the county council elections in Essex and elsewhere were postponed for a year. Clearly there is no reason at all why they cannot go ahead in 2026—although, I know that the local Conservative administration is fiercely opposed to that. The whole local government reorganisation is a dog’s dinner, and the public do not understand what is going on. You are asking people in Clacton to vote in local elections year after year after year. You are telling them that you are going to get rid of a district council that they know, understand and respect, and replace it with a pretty amorphous unitary authority. If that is going to go ahead—I do not like it, but clearly it is—you need a senior elected figure—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has used the word “you” three times. I am not imposing or cancelling elections anywhere.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The point of urgent questions is that they need to be short. The Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesperson also had limited time. Please can Members make their questions succinct, and can the Minister make her answers succinct too?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Let me reiterate that we are committed to moving forward with local council elections next year. On the fundamental question of local government reorganisation, which the hon. Member raised, let me say that at the heart of local government reorganisation is the creation of strong and effective councils that can deliver for their communities. I know that is a difficult concept for the Reform party, given the absolute shambles we are seeing in the councils it controls, whether in Kent or in Staffordshire. I know that the idea of strong and effective institutions delivering for their country is 100 miles away from Reform’s understanding of the point of government. Let me reassure him that we are absolutely committed to democracy and strong institutions, and we are committed to working with all councils to ensure that they deliver for their people.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The north-east has perhaps the strongest sense of regional identity in the country, and it benefits immensely from the brilliant Labour mayor, Kim McGuinness, who has the devolved powers and funding to make a real difference to the lives of the people in the north-east. I know that the Minister is working hard to devolve more powers and, critically, more funding. Does she agree it is critical that that sense of identity, the strong institutions, the funding and the powers are in place in order for mayors to be successful?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that absolutely fundamental point. We have now had coming on to two decades of mayors working alongside their places, and the lesson—whether in Greater Manchester, the north-east or the Liverpool city region—is that where there is a strong sense of identity, strong constituent authorities, effective partnership working and common ground in terms of what is being achieved for both the people and place, the model is powerful. The Government are absolutely committed and determined to build the foundations to get there, because we want every part of the country to be able to have a powerful executive, like Kim in the north-east, working alongside strong local authorities to invest and deliver for their people. That is our commitment; that is what we are going to work through. We will take sensible, pragmatic decisions to ensure that that is the outcome we achieve by 2030.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I disagree with all of this. I believe in strong local councils that are truly democratic and reflect local communities. My amendment to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill last week was about my borough of Havering, whose identity is linked to Essex. Will this delay allow the Minister to look again at the possibility of Havering being part of Greater Essex—with certain conditions, I accept—and not part of Greater London? If there were a referendum in my borough, I have no doubt that the people of my constituency would rather be linked to Essex than to inner London. Will the Minister please reconsider the arrangements for my borough of Havering?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. We have seen the huge impact that the Greater London Authority and the Mayor have had in London. London is one of the most successful cities in the world because of that strong basis. I think it is a tragedy that the hon. Gentleman does not want to be part of this vibrant city—I certainly am incredibly proud to be a Londoner under the GLA and the Mayor of London.
To the more fundamental question, the approach that we have consistently tried to take, both with local government reorganisation—I know the Opposition like to refute this—and with devolution, is that we will try to work hand in glove with places and ensure that places can come up with proposals that work for their patch. The whole premise of devolution is that local leaders and their people know what is best for them. That may be defining their boundaries, which is why, in the context of local government reorganisation, we have said to places, “Come forward with your proposals based on conversations you have had with your people and your place,” or, in the context of devolution, places have come together and said, “This is the functional geography that makes sense for us.” We will always take that approach, because ultimately we believe that local people know their patch best, and it is our job to enable them.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
I am glad to hear that local council elections will go ahead in 2026, and I welcome the significant investment into the six priority new mayoral areas. I also welcome the fact that Greater Essex—my part of the world—will have the opportunity to complete much-needed local government reform before we elect our inaugural Mayor of Essex. Can the Minister confirm when that new investment will land with councils, which were so badly underfunded by the previous Government?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
It is important that we keep coming back to the investment. During the transition period—over the next two years—we will be bringing forward that investment because we know that places in the priority programme, such as Greater Essex, have already started putting together their investment pipeline, and we want to allow them to crack on and start getting on with things now. We will be working with them to unlock investment next year and the year after so that they can deliver for their people.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
To describe this situation as a “dog’s dinner” is offensive to the makers of Pedigree Chum. The deferral of the elections in Hampshire will delay major strategic infrastructure planning, such as the Wrecclesham bypass in my constituency, and deprive the people of Hampshire of an excellent mayor in Donna Jones. Most importantly, though, it is an affront to democracy. As the Minister will know, my seat is a cross-border Hampshire and Surrey seat, so I have three questions for her. First, will the unitary authority elections in Surrey go ahead as planned next year? Secondly, will the Hampshire unitary authority elections also go ahead rapidly? Finally, will we get a mayor for Surrey?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Surrey elections will go ahead as planned. We are moving forward with the Hampshire elections as planned, although we are now minded to move the mayoral elections for Hampshire and the Solent to 2028. On the hon. Gentleman’s question on the Surrey mayor, our ambition is to have mayors all across the country. We will move at the pace that places become ready so that we prioritise building strong partnership through strategic authorities and then mayors. We have learned the lesson of what mayors can do, and the intention is to have both mayors and strong, powerful foundation authorities.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
All Labour Members agree that we want power brought closer to our communities, and I have been clear in backing proper devolution in Norfolk and effective local government reorganisation—and the proposal for three unitaries. However, now that the mayoral elections have been postponed, can the Minister assure us that Norfolk and Suffolk will not lose out on investment, including funding that has gone to mayoral combined authorities, and that we will have a seat at the table over the next three years until 2028, so that our area does not lose out?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Absolutely. That is why we have announced £37.4 million per year, and it is why we have committed to providing some of that investment up front. Critically, though, we are absolutely committed to working with strategic authorities to unlock new powers for them, so that they can get on and deliver for their people.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a district councillor.
This is such a shambles. We have a local government sector on its knees as a result of decisions made by the Conservatives and, now, the Labour party. So much time and resource has been put into these mayoral elections by local government and officers over the past year; staff and venues for polling stations have already been booked. Does the Minister have any idea how much money has been spent on this over the past 12 months?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are very clear that no area will be worse off as a result of this decision. Again, we are talking about four areas within the devolution priority programme, and we will work with those areas. We are providing capacity funding to all of them to help them with this process and help them set up their institutions, and we are committed to ensuring that they will be no worse off at the end of the process.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Unlike many Opposition Members, I welcome this announcement, for I know that the people of Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket will want the Government to get this process right. Does the Minister agree that we are not cancelling anything; we are simply postponing the mayoral elections, so that we can get this right, and so that we see the best of local democracy?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Yes. It is easy to plough on, but we care about the outcome we are trying to deliver, and about ensuring that at the end of this process, we have strong local government, strong strategic authorities and effective mayors. That matters for the people we are here to serve, so I will never regret us taking decisions that have that approach at their heart.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Does this latest and inconsistent decision underline that the whole of LGR and devolution is in a state of total chaos? The Government must be rueing the day that they bought the Department’s line that imposing a metropolitan concept on counties and the countryside was the right thing to do. Can the Minister explain, for example, why it was logical to cancel the district council elections last year, but not this year? Where is the logic in that? Is it not about time that she got together with her colleagues and cancelled this whole process, to save money, and so that people can get back to their jobs of running better social services, filling in potholes, and delivering for their local communities, as the excellent Tendring district council does?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We believe in unitaries; whether it is Cheshire or the other unitaries across the country, we can see that they deliver for people. I come back to the reason why we are doing this, and the fact that it takes some cheek for Conservative Members to say, “The status quo is fine.” The status quo is not fine—it is the Conservative party’s mess, created over 14 years, and Conservative Members should hang their heads in shame. We are acting and responding, because the status quo is neither sustainable nor desirable and will not deliver for the people we are all here to serve.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It is disappointing that the Minister continues to refer to the Isle of Wight as “the Solent”, which is a body of water where nobody lives. She says that our council elections will take place next year unless there are exceptional or extenuating circumstances. Can she please confirm unequivocally that her plans for a mayor and a local government review are not exceptional or extenuating circumstances that are sufficient for cancelling our elections next May?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are clear—I will keep saying this, and we have consistently said this—that we want to move forward with elections. The decision to delay the elections last year was not taken lightly. We all believe in the democratic process, and we all believe that it is absolutely right that leaders must face the electorate, so we will never, ever take the decision to cancel or delay an election lightly. There will have to be extenuating circumstances. Our plan and determination at the moment is to crack on with local elections.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
A democracy in which a Government can unilaterally chop and change the date of an election on a whim ceases to be a democracy altogether. This decision is taking the people of Eastbourne and Sussex for fools and must be resisted. Will the Minister give a cast-iron guarantee that the East Sussex county council elections will take place in 2026, and will she confirm that the mayoral election, which is now delayed until 2028, will take place under single transferable vote and not first past the post?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I confirm that the devolution Bill is coming through, and so the election will take place under single transferable vote. A statutory instrument will be laid before Parliament to lock into legislation the date of the mayoral election, subject to the consent of the constituent councils involved. As I have said consistently, we are determined to crack on with the elections, because we believe in the democratic process as much as the hon. Gentleman does, but it is right that we always create the space to reflect on and respond to any extenuating circumstances.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
This is an utter dog’s breakfast that is entirely of the Government’s making. Will the Minister apologise to Tim Passmore and other mayoral candidates for cancelling the elections next year? When will Norfolk and Suffolk get the £37.4 million investment fund that we were promised if we had a mayor, and not the £3 million—the crumbs—that she has promised today?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Of course, candidates have been selected, and I am very happy to apologise to them. I hope that, on the other side of this, whoever is mayor will have the knowledge that they have a strong unitary, and a strong strategic authority working in their interests. If this means that we will have a more powerful mayor who is delivering for their place, as a result of that strong partnership, then it is absolutely worth it. We have to put the people who the mayor is there to serve first.
We are committed to the investment. The full investment fund will come into place once the mayor is elected, but because we are keen for strategic authorities to crack on, we are bringing forward some of that investment. We will work with the areas, so that they can begin delivering for their people.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Last month, the Secretary of State clearly said to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee that elections, both local and mayoral, will go ahead. He did not equivocate. He did not say that there were ifs or buts; these elections were going ahead. Can the Minister confirm why the Secretary of State appeared to mislead MPs, and what steps will she take to ensure—
Mr Forster
Inadvertently mislead. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that MPs can trust and believe what her Department says in future communications?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
To be very clear, the Secretary of State was talking about council elections; I urge the hon. Member to look at the transcript. I keep trying to make the distinction between council elections and the inaugural mayoral elections, provisions on which do not come into force until we have laid the SI before Parliament and we have the consent of constituent authorities. There is a distinction. We are determined to move ahead with local elections, but it is right that we have made a judgment on mayoral elections.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
This development is cynical and scandalous, and completely ignores the democratic rights of the people of Essex and beyond. This Labour Government are botching and rushing local government reorganisation for their own political ends. Given their cancelling of local elections this year, and now their cancelling of mayoral elections in Greater Essex and beyond, when will this Labour Government admit that they are treating voters with contempt, and that what they are doing is flying in the face of local democracy?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are as up for elections as the Opposition. Candidly, they have a little bit more to be worried about. On the substance, I bring the hon. Member back to why we are doing this: it is because of the Conservatives’ lack of investment in local government and their failure to get a grip of the fact that the status quo is not working. What we are doing is not easy, but we are trying to do it in good faith, and I come back to the fact that at the heart of this, we are trying to ensure that we have strong unitaries, strong and functional partnerships, and a strong mayor. I will not resile from that commitment.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The Minister knew from day one that local government reorganisation and the introduction of mayors were taking place simultaneously; she knew that throughout the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Committee, so it is simply not credible to make this announcement now. Areas with delayed mayoral elections will have some funding brought forward. Can she confirm that those areas excluded from wave one of the programme, such as Wessex, will now be able to access funding, given that we were told that the reason why we could not have any funding was that we did not have a mayor? Now that the mayors do not exist, that money should be given to other areas, such as Wessex.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are committed to unlocking the economic potential of all areas. I am clear that different places are at different stages in their journey to getting a mayor, and it is absolutely right that we ensure that those places can still access devolved funding and the powers to drive that journey. We are keen to work with areas, to encourage them to form strong strategic authorities, and to empower them to deliver on the ground and unlock growth.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
In Suffolk, people are asking what on earth the Government are playing at. We are being asked to have county elections in 2026, unitary elections in 2027 and a mayoral election in 2028. That said, elected politicians in a democracy should never be afraid of the voters. Can the Minister say to the House—incredibly clearly—that Suffolk’s county council elections, already postponed once, will not be cancelled next May?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I have said time and again that we will crack on with local council elections next year, but it is right, if there are extenuating circumstances and particular circumstances on the ground, that we reflect on that. We recognise the democratic necessity of elections. Some of these areas have not had elections for coming on for seven or eight years. We think it is right that leaders face their voters, and that is our overriding starting premise, but if there are extenuating circumstances on the ground, we will reflect on those circumstances.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
The Minister keeps talking about the principle, and why this is being done, but we should not move away from the fundamental question: who misled the Minister by saying that this could be achieved in 2026, but then came back and said, “No, sorry, it has to be 2028”? It is 18 months until elections in 2027, and we are talking about 2028. Is she not concerned about finding out who is telling her false project timelines? How can she have any faith that 2028 will be delivered? We are told that the aim is to deliver better public services, but how can that be true when the Government cannot even get the organisation correct, and when there is a gap of two years?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for asking that question. All our areas in the devolution priority programme have been working at pace, and I give them huge credit for working collaboratively across parties and across authorities to deliver this. I believe that we could deliver it all in 2026, but the judgment we are making is about whether we do that based on strong foundations. If the difference between 2026 and 2028 means that we have got the unitary process through, have strong unitaries and strategic authorities that are working well, and have created the foundations for an effective mayor, then we think it is worth taking the time and having the breathing space to ensure that the foundations are strong.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I am sure the Minister agrees that trust in our politics, and trust in our democracy, is absolutely vital. I am also sure she will regret that postponing elections gives some, including those who do not have our country’s best interests at heart, the opportunity to try to sow seeds of distrust. This morning she will have seen the Electoral Commission’s latest stats, which show some eye-wateringly large donations. Our elections are not being fought on an even footing if they can be bought by a small handful of individuals. Will she encourage the Minister for Democracy to use the opportunity of the elections Bill to take meaningful steps to increase transparency and clarity, and to tighten up the financial donation rules, in order to restore trust in our democracy?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Lady for making that powerful point. Yes, we absolutely will do so.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Last Friday, along with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), I attended a meeting with the leader and the chief executive of North East Lincolnshire council. The chief executive produced a very thick report on why they do not want any further reorganisation in the council area. Up and down the country, councils are spending millions of pounds on producing reports about why they do or do not want to be a mayoral authority, and why they do or do not want reorganisation. Surely the Minister agrees that those millions would be better spent providing better services for their local communities.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We want investment to be spent on local communities—on that there is agreement—but I come back to the point that I have made time and again: the status quo is neither sustainable nor desirable, so something has to give and something has to change. The way that we are approaching it is to say to local areas, “Come up with your plan, and here is the set of criteria against which those plans will be judged”, but we cannot stand still and do nothing; we have to do something, and we are trying to go through a process in partnership with places.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Mandatory digital ID, abandoning trial by jury and now cancelling elections—these are the hallmarks of authoritarian regimes, aren’t they?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I do not believe that question warrants a response.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There are deep concerns about the postponing of local elections—democracy has been in place for centuries. What impression does the Minister think this announcement gives to the general public, who have every right to exercise their civic responsibility in a timely manner? Is she not concerned about the message that it gives constituents about democracy in the United Kingdom?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The hon. Member is completely right to talk about how sacrosanct democracy is. We absolutely share that view, but it is right that as we think about inaugural elections for mayors—they have never been held before in some areas—we try to ensure that, on the other side of the elections, we have strong institutions that can deliver for people. I think constituents in those areas will thank us if, at the end of it, we have institutions that are delivering incredibly well for them because we have taken the time to get this right.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Minister for her responses this morning.
David Simmonds
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? When the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill was making progress in Committee, the Minister was very clear that elections to local councils would be considered for cancellation on request from the affected local authorities. She has told the House this morning that, in fact, it will be done only in a pandemic or exceptional local circumstances. There is clearly some risk that the House may be inadvertently misled on what the decision-making criteria for that cancellation may be. Can you give me some guidance as to how we can gain the necessary clarity on what the decision-making process for the cancellation of council elections will be?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. He will know that it was not a point of order but a continuation of the urgent question, and it could have been put to the Minister earlier. However, he has put his point on the record.
Business of the House
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The business for the week commencing 8 December will include:
Monday 8 December—Consideration of Lords message to the Employment Rights Bill, followed by consideration of Lords message to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, followed by consideration of Lords message to the Mental Health Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 9 December—Second Reading of the Railways Bill.
Wednesday 10 December—Opposition day (14th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 11 December—General debate on St Andrew’s day and Scottish affairs, followed by general debate on the impact of foreign interference on security, trade and democracy. The subjects of these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 12 December—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 15 December will include:
Monday 15 December—Second Reading of the Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill.
Tuesday 16 December—Second Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Wednesday 17 December—Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill.
Thursday 18 December—General debate on matters to be raised before the Christmas Adjournment. The subject of this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
The House will rise for the Christmas recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 18 December 2025 and return on Monday 5 January 2026.
Jesse Norman
If I may, I would like to express my personal sorrow at the death of Sir John Stanley this week. The House may not know that he was the first person to reach and to comfort the dying Airey Neave, after Neave had been the victim of a bomb from the Irish National Liberation Army, a spin-off of the IRA. Sir John was also a highly effective member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
A couple of weeks ago, I invited the House to join me in supporting our cricketers down under. That was the kiss of death: they instantly lost the first test. So I am now thrilled, and I hope the House will join me in congratulating Joe Root on his majestic hundred in Australia in the present test.
Once again, the past seven days have not been a thing of glory for the Government. Not a single measure in the Budget has been scored by the Office for Budget Responsibility as positive for growth, while the OECD and a host of other experts have warned that the Chancellor’s tax rises last week will actually hold growth back. Except for seven Members, every Labour Member voted in favour of keeping the two-child benefit cap in 2024; last week, they voted in exactly the opposite way. Junior doctors will go on strike for the third time this year in the run-up to Christmas. In fairness, though, I should say that there has been one chink of light: the Government have rightly dropped day one protections in the Employment Rights Bill.
Yesterday, we were treated to the inglorious sight of the Prime Minister misusing the engagements question once again to make a party political broadcast at Prime Minister’s questions. We do not have a presidential system in this country, thank the Lord, nor do we insist on a rigid uniformity of practice in this House, but if the Prime Minister wishes to make a statement to Parliament, he may do so in the usual way, giving notice to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or to the Speaker, and taking questions from colleagues in this House on the policy. I therefore ask the Leader of the House, as our spokesman in the Cabinet, to tell the House what he will do to prevent this practice from recurring. I am also asking Mr Speaker to make it clear in public that this will not be tolerated by the Chair in future.
It was reported this week that the Government will be drawing on German start-up companies to fill a supposed drone gap for the British Army. I am sure the whole House will share my view that the UK should seek to offer a welcoming environment for foreign investment, and all the more so after a Budget that has done nothing to support economic growth. I also recognise the value of having leading international companies competitively involved in the testing and development of drones. However, it is a serious concern that there appear to be no plans within the Ministry of Defence to provide strategic leadership, investment and support to start-up drone companies created, led and managed in this country and by British nationals. We have been promised a defence investment plan, but Ministers have been unable to say when this plan will be presented to the House. It looks as though they may be leaving it to the last full week of term, perhaps to avoid a proper measure of parliamentary scrutiny. Experience has repeatedly shown that, in times of crisis, the nation needs to have core capabilities solidly based in UK-owned and led domestic manufacturing. That was one of the lessons of the pandemic. It is hard to imagine a more significant emerging defence need than that of high-quality, high-technology and cost-effective drones. There are superb companies in this country ready to scale, as needed.
Last June, the Prime Minister called for what he termed a “national conversation” on defence. He made it clear, rightly, that the defence of the realm was not just a matter for the Ministry of Defence; the whole of our society, as well as the whole of Government, needed to be mobilised into a better understanding of the threat. Since then, that threat has become only more serious. I am delighted that the Prime Minister is in Lossiemouth today to make an announcement, but the sad fact is that he has said precisely nothing to lead that wider national conversation or raise awareness of the threat. Meanwhile, the public are uncertain on the need and rationale for new spending, and key aspects of our defence and security readiness are, if anything, getting worse. May we, at the very least, have a statement next week on what the Government are planning to do to support the UK drones industry in filling that important strategic need?
Sir Alan Campbell
First of all, I join the shadow Leader of the House in paying tribute to Sir John Stanley, who was a committed and long-standing Member of Parliament and a highly respected Minister. He gave 41 years of continuous service to this House and to his constituents.
Let me also congratulate one of our senior Doorkeepers, Paul Barwell, on his outstanding 20 years’ service to this House. I know all Members value the excellent support of the Doorkeepers, and I am sure the whole House joins me in thanking Paul for his commitment and service.
I join the shadow Leader of the House in sending congratulations to Joe Root on his inaugural test century in Australia. I also send—I hope on behalf of the whole House—our condolences to the friends and family of the legendary Robin Smith, who unfortunately died recently.
This House is embracing the Christmas spirit. We have seen the arrival of Christmas trees. I note that at least one came from Kielder forest in Northumberland; as a north-east MP, I am very proud and very grateful for that.
On wider matters this week, on World AIDS Day, the HIV action plan was published. It commits to one of the most ambitious public health goals of our time: ending new HIV transmissions in England by 2030. We will tackle the barriers to accessing treatment, such as stigma, discrimination and inequality, backed by the first ever national investment in engagement initiatives.
I hope that this weekend Members across the House will be supporting the UK’s 5.5 million small businesses on this year’s Small Business Saturday. Small businesses are the backbone of the UK economy. They provide essential services, create jobs and drive growth. The Government are determined to make the UK the best place to start and grow a business, fostering a culture for risk-takers in every community and high street by removing the barriers that had held them back too long. The festive season is a critical time for many small businesses and I hope they are set for a bumper Christmas.
To keep communities safe over the busy Christmas period, we announced a further crackdown on town centre crime. Police and local partners will work together to tackle shop theft and street crime across hundreds of our town centres. We also want people to stay well this winter. One of the ways we will be doing that is by rolling out online access to nearly every GP practice, benefiting patients across England. We promised to end the 8 am scramble. This is a massive step towards that ambition, making it easier and faster to get GP appointments.
Let me now turn to the questions from the shadow Leader of the House. He mentioned growth in the economy and the Budget. Of course, central to the Budget was our ambition to get growth moving. I gently point out that growth has been moving in the right direction and that we are the second-best performer in that regard in the G7.
On the start of Prime Minister’s questions, Mr Speaker has already made very clear his views on this subject. I, too, make it clear in Cabinet, on matters around statements and questions, that it is important that when Ministers come to this place, they are held to account and that they do so within the conventions of this House. As I have said before, in some senses Ministers, including the Prime Minister, cannot really win on this one, because if they do take time to update the House on something important, they are sometimes told, “That was not the right time to do it,” but if they do not tell the House about important events that are going on, they are criticised for that too. I do think there needs to be some balance.
With regard to the defence matters that the shadow Leader of the House raised, it is very important that we see investment in drone companies; indeed, there is a very successful and expanding drone company in my constituency. I will draw his concerns to the attention of Defence Ministers. I do not agree with the slant that he put on the Government’s approach to these matters. We take national security very seriously. The Prime Minister takes national security very seriously. He is aware of the current and growing threats, and is determined that our country be ready to step up and meet those threats. I will draw the concerns of the shadow Leader of the House to the attention of Defence Ministers and see whether we can get a statement at the earliest opportunity.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Last week was Parliament Week, and like Members across the House I had the chance to visit some of the brilliant schools in my constituency, to hear from Hartlepool children about the things that matter to them at St Teresa’s, St Peter’s Elwick, West View, and Eldon Grove academy, where pupils showed me their brilliant campaign comics on litter, bullying and the environment. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Hartlepool’s extraordinary young people, and the brilliant school staff who support them, for their outstanding contributions to our community?
Sir Alan Campbell
I do, of course, join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Hartlepool pupils and staff who organised the events that he refers to. I was pleased to be involved in a number of Parliament Week events myself, and I would encourage all Members across the House to engage with schools in their communities, not just on Parliament Week but throughout the year, to make sure that we engender a better understanding of this place.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I join the Leader of the House in his tributes to Sir John Stanley and Paul Barwell. He referred to the Christmas spirit getting going in and around the House, and I ask him to spare a thought for the Lib Dem staffers clutching coffees this morning after their Christmas party last night. I cannot confirm or deny whether I joined them.
Earlier this week, the Government announced a trade deal between the US and the UK on drug prices and medicines. Having reportedly rejected a price increase of £2.5 billion earlier this summer, the Government’s negotiators went back to the table and will apparently now pay £3 billion more instead. There is a live debate over how much the NHS should pay for drugs, which I respect. Big pharma has always wanted to drive up prices and has clearly not liked the purchasing power of the NHS, but the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence thresholds have not changed for some time, and there are some who argue that that means we are missing out on particular medicines. Others make the alternative argument that the opportunity cost of that spending in other areas of healthcare means that the thresholds should stay where they are.
Wherever we stand on that debate, two things are clear. First, this considered debate should not be settled by the bully-boy tactics of President Trump. He introduced 100% tariffs, breaking the World Trade Organisation rules on tariffs over this, and has come out with the explicit intention of putting Americans first. Secondly, the Government should explain how this huge price increase will be paid for. Daniel Elkeles, the chief executive of NHS Providers, says that
“it is not yet clear how it will be paid for”,
and there are fears among GPs, dentists and community pharmacists that they will be the ones who will suffer as a result of the increase in prices. Will the Leader of the House urge a Health Minister to come to the Dispatch Box to answer questions about the impact of this new deal?
Sir Alan Campbell
If my memory serves me correctly, the hon. Gentleman is going to have to get used to sleepless nights; he has a few ahead of him, I think.
The hon. Gentleman raises an important matter, but the reality is that, due to the strength of our relationship with the United States, we have secured the first and best deal on pharmaceutical products—indeed, it is the lowest rate offered to any country. This deal is a win for patients and for our life sciences sector, and that is an important part of our plan for growth. Better access to innovative medicines is critical to keeping people healthy and treating illness more effectively. We are protecting the NHS and its frontline staff with record investment and reforms to deliver better care. That also means making sure that we have the best deal in place on pharmaceuticals.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
It has been five years since the Cumberlege report shone a light on a shocking patient safety scandal. Last year, the Hughes report set out redress options for those affected by sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. Many of the affected individuals have faced complex, lifelong challenges, which have been compounded by the delays they have faced in getting support. Can we have a debate in Government time about what steps we can take to put the findings into action and provide the recognition and compensation that patients need?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue; I know it is an issue of concern to Members right across the House. It is a complex matter, and we are carefully considering the options for redress outlined in the Hughes report. I note that there was a very well-attended Westminster Hall debate on this matter earlier this year. I will make sure that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary has heard her concerns, but I remind her, and indeed the House, of the opportunity to raise such matters more fully in the pre-recess Adjournment debate coming shortly.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Martin Vickers, in place of the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), sends his apologies for his absence. In addition to the debates that the Leader of the House mentioned, there will be Westminster Hall debates next Tuesday on consumer-led flexibility for a just transition and next Thursday afternoon on the role of Fairtrade certification in UK business and trade. The second debate on Thursday afternoon is particularly important, because it was initiated by me; it is on the future of the oil refining sector in the UK. The following week, beginning 15 December, there will be a debate on Tuesday on planning policy for quarries and debates on Thursday on the literary and cultural legacy of Jane Austen and on community audiology. Those debates show what a vast range of interests there are across the House.
Turning to my own question, last Saturday I visited Humberside airport with the shadow Transport Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), where management outlined the challenges faced not just by them but by regional airports up and down the country. They are facing increased national insurance costs, and in the case of Humberside, they face the potential loss of business from Eastern Airways, which is in administration. If work in the North sea—on the rigs and so on—declines, they will face the loss of the helicopter transfers that they rely on. Will the Leader of the House provide Government time for a debate on the role of regional airports?
Sir Alan Campbell
First, I am grateful to both the hon. Gentleman and the Chair of the Committee for the update on Backbench Business, and I thank everyone on that Committee.
On the constituency matter the hon. Gentleman raises, the Government recognise the importance of regional airports for the communities they serve and the local economy. He outlines the challenge to Humberside airport. We do recognise the potential impact of the Eastern Airways issue on employees and the airport itself, so I thank him for raising the matter. I will raise his concerns with Ministers, and should he seek a meeting to see what can be done to help in that situation, I will arrange that.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
The first duty of any Government is to ensure the safety and security of all its citizens. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention concluded that the detention of Jagtar Singh Johal violates international law. I ask the Leader of the House to urgently press the Foreign Secretary to update the House on what efforts have been made by the Government on the release of the British citizen Jagtar Johal.
Sir Alan Campbell
I note that 4 November was the eighth anniversary of Mr Johal’s arrest. We continue to raise concerns about his prolonged detention at every opportunity, and we emphasise the need for a prompt, full and just resolution to his case. I will draw my hon. Friend’s comments to the attention of the Foreign Office and ensure that Members are updated on any developments in this case.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Severn Area Rescue Association, known as SARA, is a volunteer-led lifeboat and inland search and rescue charity. It does fantastic work in north Worcestershire, along the route of the River Severn, and in the constituencies of many hon. Members. Although I welcome the Government’s announcement in the Budget last week that the requirement for vehicle excise duty will no longer apply to these organisations, will the Leader of the House support me in my endeavours—I have written to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs calling on the Government to reintroduce the flood team maintenance grant—to alleviate the pressure on such charities?
Sir Alan Campbell
I pay tribute to the volunteers up and down the country who do such important work, whether on the rivers in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency or along the coast in mine. He has generously referred to the Budget announcement, which is very welcome. I will ensure that he gets a response to the letter that he sent to the Secretary of State, to set out our position.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of Unite the union. The Leader of the House will be aware that the Birmingham bin dispute has gone on for many months. The city has declared a major incident and many of the workers are facing severe hardship. Will the Leader of the House urge a ministerial colleague to come to the House to make a statement on the role that the Government could play in resolving the dispute after all these months, which has caused such harm to the city and to the workers?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising this matter, which is raised often during business questions. It is very frustrating that the situation continues. The Government are absolutely clear that we want to see an end to the dispute at the earliest opportunity. I will raise his concerns with the relevant Minister and ensure that the House is updated when the situation changes.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
As part of the visa process, academics and researchers coming to our universities from other countries to do research in sensitive fields rightly have to go through extra security checks. This is known as the academic technology approval scheme. I have been supporting a constituent who had to apply for his visa to be extended, and the checks had to be done again. We had the usual delays, but sadly the gentleman’s father died. We tried to get the process expedited, but unfortunately it has been a frustrating process. The ATAS process is run and overseen by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but everyone we spoke to there said they had never heard of it and referred us back to the Home Office, which has no power over it at all. Will the Leader of the House ensure that there is an urgent review of the oversight of the scheme, including how MPs engage with it, and update the House at his earliest convenience?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is important that we have clarity on these schemes, because the ability of academics to come to this country to work and study is an important part of the life of our higher education institutions. I will draw the issue to the attention of the Foreign Office in order to get to the bottom of it, find out what the accurate picture is and make it aware of the hon. Lady’s concerns.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
Recently, a 12-year-old boy in Timperley in my constituency was stabbed with a screwdriver by a local adult man in a totally unjustified attack. Thankfully, my constituent survived this horrific ordeal, but both he and his parents were staggered to learn that the attacker has been released on bail. I share the deep concerns of the victim, his friends who witnessed the attack and all their parents about this decision, so could the Leader of the House help me raise—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. May I gently say to the hon. Member that this matter may well be sub judice and that the House therefore needs to tread very carefully when discussing it?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sure the whole House will join me in expressing our deepest sympathy on this distressing attack and in wishing the young boy a full and swift recovery from this horrific ordeal. I am not surprised that it has caused such distress to his parents. I will tread carefully and say that I will draw it to the attention of the relevant Minister and make sure that my hon. Friend gets a response.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I was pleased to welcome pupils from Annan academy in my constituency to Parliament last week and to hear directly from those young people that many of them had actively participated in a consultation by SNP-led Dumfries and Galloway council to voice their opposition to an ill-thought-out proposal to cut free musical instrument tuition in local schools. I am sure the Leader of the House will agree that not only are the Annan pupils right that music tuition should not be only for those who can pay for it, but that they are to be praised for speaking out on an issue that directly affects them and that we should encourage all young people to do the same.
Sir Alan Campbell
Students at Annan academy have set a fantastic example and are right to champion the importance of music. We are topping up the music and dance scheme in England and are publishing a new enrichment framework. I encourage others who have some responsibility for these matters to look at it and see what they can learn and then to apply it themselves. The pupils’ example, following Parliament Week, would be fitting for a contribution to the pre-recess Adjournment debate.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
As one of the co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV, AIDS and sexual health, I thank all Members across the House for joining in to recognise World AIDS Day on Monday and at Prime Minister’s questions on Wednesday. It is important that parliamentarians continue to show that cross-party support in highlighting that HIV is still very real for many people, but that by working together, we can be one of the first countries to end new HIV transmissions by 2030. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Government on the new HIV action plan, which sets out how we will prevent HIV transmissions, scale up testing and address the stigma that sadly affects many people, including women and black and minority ethnic people? Will he also congratulate the many charities and organisations that are working, often on a shoestring budget, to ensure that this agenda is still firmly on the Government’s mind?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter and playing her part in ensuring that this issue is at the forefront of our minds. I also join her in thanking charities and organisations involved in these matters. As I said, the Government have introduced the HIV action plan, which is one of the most ambitious public health goals of our time. We will continue the success of the blood-borne viruses emergency department opt-out testing programme. We will trial HIV testing within the NHS app and improve awareness of HIV prevention for those at risk. As I said, it is important that we tackle the barriers to accessing treatment, such as stigma, discrimination and inequality. Not only are we making that commitment, we are putting investment behind it.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Of the manifold carnival of basically lies that was the Vote Leave campaign, becoming £350 million richer a week was one of the principal lies. The sad reality, of course, is that we are £250 million a day worse off as a result of Brexit, which has forced the Chancellor to come after £66 billion of unreconciled revenue from the real economy. It was supposed to take back control but, well, this control does not feel very nice. It was supposed to stop immigration, but irregular immigration is through the roof. It was supposed to save the Tory party, but I give you exhibit A: the Tory Benches. Can we have a debate on Government time to get real about the catastrophic consequences of Brexit?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government’s position is to ensure that we get the best deal possible, working with our European partners. Many of the areas he talks about, quite frankly, have been hit negatively as a result of decisions which were democratically taken. It is important that we do everything we can to restore and to move on from that. Should he seek a Backbench Business debate, an Adjournment debate or even to contribute to the pre-recess Adjournment debate to raise these matters, I am sure that colleagues from across the House, actually, will share some of his concerns.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
There has been a significant increase in unmanaged houses in multiple occupation in Hillingdon. Despite calls for proper licensing, the Conservative council has taken 15 months just to bring forward a simple consultation. During that time, there has been additional antisocial behaviour, crime and significant community concern. Does the Leader of the House agree that residents deserve better than this? Can we make time in this place for a debate about a proper national regulatory framework for HMOs?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am very sorry to hear of the situation in my hon. Friend’s constituency; such concerns exist in constituencies across the country. Local authorities have powers to ensure that landlords comply with relevant regulations, and the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 introduces reforms to improve regulation of private rented sector properties, including HMOs. We keep the regulation of HMOs under review. Should my hon. Friend seek a debate, he might be able not just to put forward his concerns, but to hear from a Minister on how the Government intend to take matters forward.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
This House is at its strongest when we work across parties and in the interests of others, be they here in the United Kingdom or overseas. Does the Leader of the House share my concern—one shared across the House—about the democratic backsliding in Georgia? This country wants a close relationship with the Government in Tbilisi, and to re-engage on the Wardrop strategic dialogue, but we cannot do so while peaceful protests are being put down by water cannon infused with chemical weapons such as camite. If that is true, as I believe it to be, it could constitute a breach of international law. Will the Leader of the House encourage the Foreign Secretary to come to the House to give a statement on Georgia, and will he put on record his concerns about democratic backsliding there?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am happy to do so. There should be no democratic backsliding by Georgia. The UK Government are concerned about what is happening. We want to see that country continue on a trajectory in the direction of democracy. We are working, not just on our own but with European colleagues, to ensure that Georgia adheres to democratic norms. I will ensure that the Foreign Secretary hears the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns, and should there be a need for a statement at some point, I am sure that a Minister will make one.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
In Aylesbury, the average waiting time for a driving test at the local test centre is now 19 weeks. One constituent told me about the substantial financial toll, which can run into the thousands of pounds and places an unreasonable burden on families—that is not to mention the stress. I welcome the Government’s action, including deploying more driving examiners and reducing the ability of bots to book test slots, but driving instructors tell me that the problem is not solved yet. Will the Leader of the House advise me on what more I can do to ensure that we get new drivers on to the roads?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is doing just that by raising this matter on the Floor of the House, as I am sure she will continue to do—this matter is important to her and many other Members. As she points out, we are taking action to deliver additional driving tests and to prevent learners from being exploited by online bots. I will ensure that the Minister has heard what she said, and that they continue to keep the House updated on these matters.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Yesterday, in my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on women in defence, and alongside Angela Owen OBE, who founded Women in Defence UK in 2011, I was pleased to chair a briefing to discuss the publication of this year’s Women in Defence charter data report. The report shows that women account for roughly 25% of the total defence workforce, but for only 21% of directors and 23% of board-level positions. If the Government are serious about building a defence sector that lives up to its promises of equality and inclusion, will the Leader of the House advise me on how I might meet the relevant Minister to discuss the progression of more women into leadership roles in defence?
Sir Alan Campbell
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady and the APPG for their work. We are serious about the matters that she raises. I will ensure that she gets an opportunity to set them out in person at a meeting with the relevant Minister.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
This week, in the wake of COP30, devastating floods across south-east Asia have affected the people of Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia, with 1,300 estimated to have died. Here in the UK, we are witnessing ever-more extreme weather events, be they the wettest winters or the driest summers. Such events are affecting global food supplies. Given the environmental and economic damage being done by climate change, as well as the economic opportunity that it presents, might we have a debate in Government time on the climate emergency?
Sir Alan Campbell
Tackling climate change is a priority for this Government. We are seizing the opportunities of the clean energy economy and will continue to bear down on reducing emissions in a way that does not just secure good jobs but lowers bills. My hon. Friend may wish to seek a Backbench Business debate, because these concerns are not confined to one side of the House, or he may wish to join us at the pre-recess Adjournment debate and make those points more fully.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
As the Leader of the House will know, I have long championed a cause supported by other Members of this House, notably the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey): nuclear test veterans. These were the young men who were sent to the other side of the world to witness the tests of Britain’s first nuclear weapons. In welcoming the engagement we have had with the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister for Veterans and People, may I press the Leader of the House for a meeting with the Prime Minister? It has been promised. They did meet Boris Johnson when he was Prime Minister. We have ongoing issues about access to their medical records. I understand that the meeting with the PM has been delayed. The PM has said he supports them. I simply want the Leader of the House to use his immense authority and power to make sure that meeting happens.
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful for that overestimation of my influence and power. I will bring everything I have to bear to get the right hon. Gentleman the answer that he wants. The Prime Minister does care deeply about such matters. If a commitment has been made—and I do not doubt that it has—we will ensure that it is fulfilled.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
The Environment Agency budget was halved over the decade from 2010, and that contributed to the illegal waste sites that still blight our countryside today, including Brambletree Wharf in my constituency, which has been there since 2018. It is fantastic that the Government are doubling the budget for waste crime enforcement this year to almost £60 million, but can we have a debate in this House on whether the Environment Agency is using its existing powers appropriately and, indeed, whether new powers are needed, given the scale of the crisis? I am appalled that it has recently decided not to use its powers to prosecute those responsible for Brambletree Wharf, which, in my view, is a clear dereliction of its duty and worthy of further parliamentary debate.
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is not the first Member to raise concerns about the Environment Agency, and I imagine that it will have heard her concerns. We are committed to tackling waste crime, which is a blight on local communities and the environment. As she points out, the Environment Agency has a range of powers. Of course, we keep looking to see whether it has sufficient power, but if agencies have powers, they should be prepared to use them. She may wish to raise this at the next Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions or in an Adjournment debate.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
I am sure the Leader of the House shares my concern at the recent abduction of over 300 children and teachers from St Mary’s Catholic school in central Nigeria. This is part of a pattern of Islamist persecution of Christians in Nigeria and, indeed, around the world. Does he agree that this pattern exists, and will he agree to a debate in Government time so that the House can address it?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are very clear that they are against religious intolerance wherever it happens and whichever community or faith it comes from. The news from Nigeria is very worrying indeed; let us hope for a suitable outcome. The hon. Gentleman may wish to seek an Adjournment debate or speak in the pre-recess Adjournment debate to give further evidence about his concerns.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
One issue that literally keeps my constituents awake at night is noisy fireworks. It happens around weddings and around car meets, with young people setting them off at night. That is why I was pleased to support the ten-minute rule Bill introduced yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi). Given that this is a big issue around the country, affecting veterans, those with sensory issues, animals and others, will the Government consider taking over that ten-minute rule Bill, so that we can get it into law?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an issue that is often mentioned around bonfire night but is also relevant as we approach end-of-year celebrations. It is important that we respond with proportionate measures. I am not familiar with the ten-minute Bill he mentions—I missed that one—so I cannot give him a commitment that the Government will take it over, but I am sure that the matter will continue to be debated. It is right and proper that he raises his concerns on behalf of his constituents.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Last week, I attended the impressive national emergency briefing on the climate and nature crisis, where 10 leading experts warned MPs about escalating risks facing the UK. The briefing was challenging and informative, but also encouraging, and it set out positive steps that we can take to mitigate the impact. Those experts have called for a televised national emergency briefing, so that the public can hear the same evidence, a call that is now supported by over 33,000 signatories of an open letter to the Prime Minister and the major broadcasters. Can we have a debate in Government time on the case for such a televised emergency briefing, so that people across the UK can understand the threats we are facing and the actions that are required?
Sir Alan Campbell
If such a televised briefing is necessary, it is within the gift of the media to arrange one. I am sure that people from all sorts of situations will wish to contribute and the Government’s voice will be heard too. We take these matters extremely seriously and people are becoming increasingly aware of them, and the more information we can get out there to inform the debate, the better.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
People in Norwich and Norfolk care deeply about their local environment. Last Friday, I met local leaders at a roundtable hosted by Nelsonspirit, a fantastic social impact business, and we discussed sustainability and how to protect our environment. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking local groups, like Nelsonspirit, and will he make time for a debate on local sustainability and environment initiatives and the role of Government in supporting them?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter and for her commendable work in her constituency. I would be delighted to join her in thanking Nelsonspirit and all the local businesses, charities and schools in Norwich for their dedication to improving sustainability and protecting the local environment. I gently encourage her to attend the Westminster Hall debate next Tuesday on consumer-led flexibility for a just transition, where she may want to raise the matter further.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Llefarydd. Ahead of the Budget, I wrote to the Chancellor outlining the desperate economic situation facing hospitality businesses in Wales. I was disheartened that the Chancellor ignored those warnings, adding pressure to the ongoing struggles of the industry, with business property relief a key concern for businesses like Anglesey Taverns on Ynys Môn. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on how the Government can work with business owners in Wales to find sustainable solutions to increasingly unmanageable costs?
Sir Alan Campbell
I gently challenge the hon. Lady, because the Government have not ignored warnings about the sector at all. In fact, there were measures in the Budget that are intended to help. There is one important day left, in the final week before the recess, to raise matters about the Budget when we discuss the Finance Bill, so she may wish to raise those issues then. The stages of the Finance Bill will then be debated, probably on the Floor of the House, and she may wish to try to get on to the Committee. However, I gently say to her that although some of the decisions taken in the Budget were difficult, their central intent is to bear down on the cost of living, and the hospitality sector will benefit from people having more money in their pockets.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
There is nothing more special and beautiful in life than seeing a child’s face light up when they get to see Santa, but not every family can afford to go to a grotto. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking all the amazing volunteer organisations, such as the Rotary clubs and the Lions clubs—I am a Doncaster Lion myself—whose members walk the streets, go to food banks and go to supermarkets to see the children and bring Christmas spirit to Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme and places across the country?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in thanking all the volunteers, particularly from the Rotary clubs and the Lions clubs, across the country for all their hard work. It is people like them who make the Christmas season so special. I wish him well in his Santa dash—I am sure he will make a dashing Santa.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
In Wokingham, we are lucky to have CLASP—caring, listening and supporting partnership—which is a charity that gives wonderful support to adults with learning disabilities. It says that there is a serious lack of awareness about the issues faced by adults with learning difficulties and autism, notably that they typically have a shorter life expectancy, often dying up to 20 years younger than most people. Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising the invaluable role that charities such as CLASP play in supporting and raising awareness for our most vulnerable residents?
Sir Alan Campbell
I pay tribute to that organisation and others across our country, and to the hon. Gentleman for raising this important matter on the Floor of the House. He will know that the Health Secretary takes these matters very seriously indeed. Should he seek a meeting with a Health Minister to expand on that, I will see if we can arrange one.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
The No Tier Snooker Society in Congleton has brought joy to those living with early onset dementia and a supportive circle for their families. It is played with revised rules—hence the name—and is a model for initiatives in other areas. It was set up by Ian, with help from nurse Denise Parr, and I am so pleased to see it spreading further. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Ian on his excellent initiative, thank the volunteers and local businesses who have supported it and grant a Backbench Business debate on community initiatives to support those with early onset dementia and their family members?
Sir Alan Campbell
First, I express my thanks to the No Tier Snooker Society and other organisations that support those with dementia. When I play snooker, it inevitably ends in tears. As we know, community support is vital for those suffering with dementia and other diseases. That is a matter not just for her constituency but for everyone across our country. I will ensure that the Health Secretary and the Culture Secretary hear about the case she raised and see what further can be done.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
This week, it is the 14th birthday of Khaled, the son of the British-Egyptian former political prisoner Alaa Abd el-Fattah. Khaled will not see his father in person as Alaa was prevented from travelling to the UK by the Egyptian authorities in November. While I am sure the Leader of the House will wish Khaled a happy birthday, will he also assure me that the Government will help ensure that his father can travel here as soon as possible?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am happy to join the whole House in wishing a Khaled a happy birthday. Let us hope that his family concerns are addressed sooner rather than later. I will ask Ministers for an update on what they are doing and what hope we can have for the family to be reunited.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
Last week, I had the privilege of meeting a number of schools during UK Parliament Week, including Tenterfields academy, the Impact independent school and Leasowes high school in my constituency. I had some fantastic questions and really intelligent insights into democracy from those students. Leasowes high school had the opportunity to visit Parliament earlier this year, but I hear from other schools in my constituency that, despite the excellent service provided, it is very oversubscribed. Does the Leader of the House agree that the UK Parliament Week team do excellent work? Can he do anything to allow more spaces to open up so that more children can experience that learning about democracy?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in thanking the parliamentary education team for the work they do, not just during UK Parliament Week but throughout the year. It is important that schools like Leasowes can visit this place and see democracy at work. The educational travel subsidy, which is part of this matter and was raised by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) last week, will be considered at the House of Commons Commission meeting on Monday.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I am sure that the Leader of the House shares my alarm at the most recent stats from the Office for National Statistics showing that suicide rates are at their highest since the turn of the century, which bears out what I am hearing from my local mental health trust. Might he have a conversation with a Health Minister and encourage them to come to the Dispatch Box to update the House on the Government’s approach to suicide prevention and, in particular, what more can be done to support the work of those at the coalface, such as the wonderful Stockport Samaritans, as they undertake their lifesaving work?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am happy to thank not just Stockport Samaritans, but Samaritans across the country for the fantastic and very difficult work that they do. The question of suicide has been raised frequently in business questions, and it is certainly a key part of the Government’s recently announced men’s health strategy, because, if I am correct, suicide remains the biggest killer of men under 50. I will draw the hon. Lady’s point to the attention of Health Ministers; should she seek a meeting with them further to explore this matter, we will see what we can do.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
Like others, to mark Parliament Week I had the pleasure of visiting Leigh Church of England primary school and hearing directly from students about their campaign to support teaching assistants. It was inspiring to see young people championing those who support them, showing real democratic engagement and care for their community. Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating their brilliant campaign? As they will be listening intently to him, will he advise on other ways in which they can campaign to get this important message across?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in celebrating the incredible work of teaching assistants, and I congratulate the young people on their campaign in support of those who do work that is vital to our education system. The reality is that teaching assistants play a significant role in our children’s education and life chances. I will give some thought to how the campaign can continue, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising it on the Floor of the House. My advice to the children themselves is, “Work with your fantastic MP and see how this campaign can progress.”
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Many people on repeat prescriptions rely on NHS 111’s emergency prescription service to get the meds they need if they have unexpectedly run out. However, I have learned through my own experience that if somebody is in a moving vehicle, NHS 111 will not proceed to have a conversation with them until they are stationary. Many residents on long public transport journeys, for example, are therefore delayed in getting the medication they need. To address this issue, will the Leader of the House help me to arrange a meeting with the relevant Health Minister?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point on a matter I was unaware of. As someone who seeks a repeat prescription, I will ensure that I do not do it when I am travelling. That is a new one to me, and I will seek a meeting with a Health Minister so that we can explore it.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Next week marks 70 years since Cumbernauld was designated a new town on 9 December 1955. It was part of a visionary programme that reshaped communities across Scotland and the UK. While we rightly celebrate that legacy of ambition and innovation, many new towns, including my own, face significant challenges, from ageing infrastructure to pressures on public services and town centres. Will the Leader of the House allocate time for a debate on the past, present and future of the UK’s new towns so that we can consider how best to support their regeneration and ensure that places such as Cumbernauld continue to thrive for decades to come?
Sir Alan Campbell
The towns created in the new towns movement included some of the fastest-growing local economies in the country, and I pay tribute to everyone who has been involved in the development and evolution of new towns. They were a very important part of our history, and they remain so. Our 10-year infrastructure strategy outlines what we will do to upgrade infrastructure to drive growth and raise living standards in every part of the country, including in new towns. With our new towns taskforce, we will create the next generation of new towns, with early investment in infrastructure, transport connections and environmental resilience.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
Yesterday I co-ordinated 36 MPs and Members of the other place in calling on the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to include in the forthcoming animal welfare strategy a timebound plan to end the use of farrowing crates and cages in farming. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the strategy will be brought out, as the Government committed to do, by the end of the year? Will there be a statement to this House, before rather than after the House rises for Christmas, that the strategy will include an end to the cruel use of farrowing crates and cages?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will certainly take that point back and find out where the strategy is. It is a really important strategy, and it is important that the Government bring it forward, not least because my postbag is full of people who are genuinely concerned about animal welfare, as I am. If we have said that it will happen before the end of the year, of course that is our ambition. However, I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that it is sometimes more important to get these things absolutely right than to hit an artificial deadline. I will go and find out where the strategy is and raise the matter with Ministers.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
The people of the Stotfold Good Neighbour Group have been far more than just good friends for lots of people in their community; they go above and beyond to be a crucial lifeline for many who would otherwise be isolated, helping with trips to the doctor and hospitals and crucial shopping trips. With the group having completed more than 15,000 connections for the town, will the Leader of the House join me in thanking all the volunteers who make it possible? Will he also join me in celebrating the very welcome news that they are being recognised with the King’s award for voluntary service?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Stotfold Good Neighbour Group on receiving the prestigious King’s award for voluntary service, which is the highest award for local volunteering groups in the UK. I have said before, and it remains true, that volunteers are the bedrock of our communities, and I hope that the award gives them well-deserved recognition and appreciation.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Residents across Twickenham, Teddington, the Hamptons and Whitton are sick to the back teeth with South Western Railway repeatedly cancelling, delaying and putting on short trains. The service to every station in my constituency has become appreciably worse since nationalisation, despite promises to the contrary from Ministers, with local residents missing out on work, medical appointments and education. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the performance of SWR?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Railways Bill will come to this House shortly, and Great British Railways will come shortly, but the hon. Lady raises the frustration of a lot of people with the underperformance of parts of our railways. The reforms we intend to introduce are absolutely central to ensuring that there are real improvements. Again, I gently point her towards either a Backbench Business debate or an Adjournment debate, because I am sure that many colleagues would want to take part.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
South Side Studios is a fantastic temporary custodian of the old Wilko shop on Leighton Buzzard high street. It has put on some brilliant events, such as salsa, more dancing, painting and Lego workshops—who does not like Lego? While it has had fantastic success in persuading commercial businesses to embrace meanwhile use, it has had rather less success with the local council, which has an old, disused care home that I am told costs £7,000 every week for security. Will the Leader of the House consider a debate on meanwhile use so that we can spread the news about the positive benefits it can bring?
Sir Alan Campbell
Let me pay tribute to the interesting work that South Side Studios does. The Government remain committed to the rejuvenation of our high streets and to tackling vacancy, and we support innovative solutions to this issue, such as meanwhile use and rental auctions. It is a matter for local authorities to consider temporary planning permission, but I hope that my hon. Friend’s local authority has heard about this matter. Once again, she is right to raise these matters—she shows that on this issue, as on many others, she is on the side of her constituents.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I thank the Leader of the House for his positive answers about the persecuted across the world each week? They are much appreciated. I am deeply concerned by the increasing targeted attacks on Christians in northern Mozambique, with more than 20 Christians killed in the past month. Will the Leader of the House join me in condemning those appalling attacks? Will he urge the Foreign Secretary to outline what concrete actions the Government will take to ensure the protection of Christian communities and the promotion of freedom of religion or belief in Mozambique?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter in the very sensitive way that he always does. The UK is committed to defending freedom of religion or belief for all, and we condemn attacks on religious grounds wherever they should happen and for whatever reason. The British high commission in Mozambique, alongside international partners, regularly engages with the relevant authorities and religious leaders to address violence and instability in the region. I encourage him to attend the debate on international human rights in Westminster Hall next week, at which I am sure his wise contribution will be appreciated.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Last year, against a target of restoring 5,000 hectares of ancient woodland in England, we managed a grand total of zero. It is little surprise, then, that Government analysis published this week shows that we continue to see wildlife decline across the board, yet certain commentators continue to peddle spurious narratives scapegoating nature for the failure of a corporatist economic system to deliver prosperity for ordinary people. May we have a debate on the true value of nature to our society and on how we can finally reverse decades of decline in our natural environment?
Sir Alan Campbell
There are some opportunities before the Christmas recess—the Planning and Infrastructure Bill is coming back, and we have the pre-recess Adjournment debate—when my hon. Friend may wish to raise these matters. He is right to raise concerns about nature. We are concerned about the natural environment, but we must also ensure that there is a balance between the development that we seek and need and a healthy natural environment.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
My constituent Caroline lost her universal credit transitional protection after her earnings fell below the administrative earnings threshold. I wrote to the Department for Work and Pensions about her case in August, but since then I have received only a holding reply. Could the Leader of the House use his good offices to ensure that I get a reply for my constituent?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this case with me. If he gives the details of the case afterwards, I will certainly raise it with Ministers. Although a holding reply may be sensible at the time, it cannot go on forever, and he needs to get a substantive reply.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Tomorrow marks the 10-year anniversary of Storm Desmond and the flooding of the city of Carlisle that forced thousands of my constituents from their homes. As we remember the horror of 2015, we also celebrate the incredible people of Carlisle who came together to support their friends and neighbours at that time. One group, in particular, went on to form the North Cumbria Search and Rescue team, whose work continues to be funded entirely by donations to this day. I invite the Leader of the House to thank North Cumbria Search and Rescue for its continued work to keep communities across north Cumbria safe.
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important anniversary. I remember those terrible events very well. The anniversary gives us the opportunity to pay tribute to the fantastic people across the communities of Carlisle and the way they responded to the challenges of the flooding. I join my hon. Friend in celebrating the extraordinary work of North Cumbria Search and Rescue and all those who run those vital services, and not just in her area but across the UK.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Last month, during consideration of a Lords message on the Employment Rights Bill, I said:
“I have proportionate respect for the work of the other place”.—[Official Report, 5 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 978.]
However, this House and the public—especially young, lower-paid and insecure workers—expect a popularly elected Government’s manifesto commitments not to be held up, compromised or rejected by the other place. Will the Leader of the House therefore schedule an urgent debate, in Government time and in this, the elected Chamber, on whether we should now abolish the House of Lords?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend will know that the Employment Rights Bill will return to this House before the recess, and he may wish then to raise this point. Of course, it is important that this House, as the elected House, ultimately gets its way, but the upper House has an important role to play on many matters. We have had debates about these matters in the past, and I am sure that the debate about not just whether we reform the House of Lords, but whether we actually need a second Chamber, will continue into the future.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
This week, residents in Rossendale have once again experienced massive disruption and delays due to roadworks. This time it was emergency works by United Utilities, where necessary four-way lights were not being operated according to the permit. My office has been working with Lancashire county council to get promises of action, but as of this morning there has been no change. My residents are rightly fed up with this happening time and again. Since being elected, I have called on the county council to properly enforce street works and to introduce a lane rental scheme, which could address congestion on our busiest roads. I am once again calling on the Reform council leadership to take urgent action. To shine a light on the issue, will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on the issue of street works?
Sir Alan Campbell
I share my hon. Friend’s frustration. I understand just how disruptive street works can be for drivers and local communities, and it is really disappointing that the local authority has not responded positively on these matters. We are doubling fixed penalty notices for certain street works offences, but in the meantime I urge the county council to enforce the orders that my hon. Friend raises, not least because residents and road users may otherwise conclude that the Reform-led council is all talk and no delivery.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating schools and youth groups in my constituency for their phenomenal 53 engagements with UK Parliament Week? It is not a competition, but I would like to update the House that Rugby came 12th out of 650 constituencies, and second in the west midlands. I visited Ashlawn school, Rugby Free secondary school, Cawston Brownies, Binley Woods youth club and the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh Rugby branch to discuss politics with young people, while English Martyrs RC primary, Clifton-upon-Dunsmore Church of England primary and the 1st Hillmorton Guides sent questions that I answered on social media. Their questions and enthusiasm for contributing to improving their community, country and world shows that democracy has a bright future. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to the brilliant parliamentary staff who worked so hard to ensure a very successful UK Parliament Week?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will certainly join my hon. Friend in thanking the parliamentary staff for their fantastic work, and thanking Mr Speaker for his leadership with regard to Parliament Week. I also congratulate my hon. Friend on something else: 53 is a huge number of engagements. I can see that he is very much wired into his local constituency and is doing a fantastic job of motivating people there. It is really important that schools and clubs engage, and I want to thank each of the ones my hon. Friend has mentioned as well as all the others who have engaged for making Parliament Week such a success. It is great that so many young people are involved and have, hopefully, not just a better understanding but a better interest in politics. They may wish to take that on into involvement at a local level—and who knows, we may see some of them sitting on these Benches in future years.
Camden Nursery Sexual Abuse Case
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before we come to the statement, I should inform the House that the case concerned is still technically sub judice until sentencing. However, the Government have made the judgment that the House should have an opportunity to consider this matter, as it raises issues of national importance, and the accused has pleaded guilty. Mr Speaker has therefore granted a limited waiver so that Members may discuss the issues raised in the context of the case. Members should not speculate about sentencing issues and should also be cautious about prejudicing any ongoing investigations.
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will now make a statement regarding the sickening case of child sexual abuse at a nursery in Camden. Before I go further, I want to remind the House that a live police investigation is still under way and that the perpetrator is awaiting sentencing.
All Members and people across our country will wish to join me in expressing our horror at hearing of these appalling crimes. A 45-year-old British man, Vincent Chan, has pleaded guilty to 26 offences, which include multiple counts of sexual assault on a child by penetration, assault of a child by touching, and taking and making indecent photographs of a child, including category A images depicting the most serious abuse. He was employed by a nursery setting in Camden between June 2017 and May 2024. On 8 September 2025, he was arrested after evidence was uncovered on devices seized in a previous police investigation and was charged with the 26 offences in question on 9 September. Yesterday, Vincent Chan entered a plea of guilty, and sentencing will take place on 23 January.
In the meantime, the Metropolitan police have met families of all the children they have identified as victims of contact offences. In addition, the Met has written to the other families whose children attended the setting in question while the individual worked there to reassure them that where there is evidence of offences, the affected families have been contacted. Local children’s social care services are providing emotional and practical support to families and signposting them to specialist support services.
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has been commissioned to set up a bespoke helpline as the first point of contact for anyone affected by these horrific acts. Details of the helpline can be found in communications from Camden council and the Metropolitan police. Specialist support is available for victims from the NSPCC helpline. People affected can be supported directly or referred to the right source of support to meet their needs, and the Government have provided funding to ensure there is sufficient capacity to support families.
Following a notification of a serious incident, the police, the integrated care board and the local authority completed a rapid review to establish the facts. That meant setting out a clear timeline of the events leading up to the incidents, the incidents themselves, the roles played by different agencies, and the safety of children at the nursery at each stage. Those initial findings are now being worked through quickly, but I can confirm to the House that the rapid review has concluded that a full local child safeguarding practice review is warranted. That wider review is being set up immediately. I am clear that it must shine the strongest possible light on these horrifying incidents, and that we must learn every lesson we can to make sure that crimes like this are guarded against at every step and every stage. It is critical that local safeguarding partners can continue their investigations, but I will work closely with them, with the child safeguarding practice review panel and its chair Sir David Holmes, and with Home Office colleagues to make absolutely sure that we have the most robust safeguards possible in place.
We must do everything in our power to protect children. I take my responsibilities as Secretary of State for not simply Education, but children, with the utmost seriousness. However, preventing cases like these requires everyone to believe in, and act on, the fundamental principle that safeguarding is everyone’s business. It is the duty of all of us right across our society to report abuse if we see it, and if we see or hear something that feels wrong, to question and challenge it. All of us owe it to our children to do the right thing. Keeping children safe is one of the most important duties of any society, and I thank our early years staff and wider children’s services workforce—those who work so hard, day in and day out, to give the children of this country the best start in life. I know that all committed early years and children’s services professionals will be just as horrified as we all are to hear about what has taken place, and just as distressed to think that something like this could happen in a place that should have been dedicated to keeping children safe and helping them thrive.
The defendant has now pleaded guilty to these sickening crimes and will be sentenced, but my thoughts this afternoon are not on him; they are with all the child victims of these vile and abhorrent crimes and their families, who are now trying to recover from the suffering and pain he has caused. My promise to them through these darkest of days, and my promise to Members in the Chamber today and to families across the country, is that not only will justice be served, but we will strengthen the ways in which we keep children safe. We will root out abuse wherever it hides, and we will never stop working to rid our society of this evil. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
This is an utterly horrific case. I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement, and I thank her officials and advisers, who took the time to brief me on it.
Any parent who has ever sent their child to nursery has had a physical reaction to this news. It is just so unspeakably awful, and the betrayal of trust that has taken place is abhorrent. I know that the thoughts and prayers of everyone in this place will be with the families and children affected, and all of our collective efforts must now focus on how we do all we can to prevent this from ever happening again. With that goal in mind, I have a number of questions about the case that I want to put to the Secretary of State, with the full understanding that much of what I ask might be covered by the serious case review. I am seeking her assurances that these issues will be looked at in the future, rather than expecting full answers now.
The first question is about the time it took for the images and videos on the devices in question to be looked at by the police. My understanding is that while the perpetrator was first arrested and the devices seized in June 2024, those devices were not examined, and the abusive content was not found by the police, until over a year later. This is obviously an unacceptably long delay, given that the case involved nursery children and a man who, in 2024, was barred from working with children. There clearly needs to be an expedited process for devices in cases involving children, particularly those who cannot speak and advocate for themselves. I would be grateful if the Education Secretary would confirm that she will raise this matter with the Home Secretary.
Secondly, I understand that closed circuit television was in use at the nursery, but the footage was wiped during the time it took for these serious abuse offences to come to light, so we do not have access to it. This is terrible, because with that CCTV, it might have been possible to identify affected children more easily, and to spare hundreds of parents the unimaginable terror that their children might have been affected. Obviously, this links to my first point about the delays in accessing the devices, but given that in other nursery abuse cases it has also taken time for offences to come to light, looking at the retention guidance for CCTV in nurseries seems a sensible step. It would be helpful to understand whether the Education Secretary is considering such a step.
Thirdly, this investigation was triggered by a member of staff at the nursery raising concerns. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether those concerns were investigated immediately by the nursery, at what stage Ofsted was notified, and what steps Ofsted took? Is the Secretary of State content that a rigorous and timely process was followed by Ofsted? It will seem unbelievable to most people that this abuse was able to go on under the noses of other staff and in the daytime, without anyone else being aware. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether other concerns were raised about Mr Chan previously, whether by other nursery staff or by parents, and what checks have taken place on safeguarding procedures at this nursery chain subsequent to this incident?
Lastly, according to reports, the perpetrator in question had 26,000 indecent images of children and 16 nursery devices at his home. Was it standard practice for these devices to be removed from the site? Why did nobody notice, and why was he allowed to have so many devices? Is the Education Secretary considering revised guidance about the use of devices in early years settings?
I stand with the Secretary of State, officials and the police as they do all they can to seek justice for victims. We in this House will do all we can to ensure that this never happens again.
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her response. I know she shares my commitment and determination to make sure that our early years settings are safe for our children, as parents and children rightly expect them to be. She has raised important areas related to policy. I will answer her points as best I can; she will appreciate that there may be limitations on precisely what I can say, but she raises important questions that will need to be considered through the work of the local review.
The right hon. Lady has rightly asked about the time it took for images to be looked at. That question will be considered in the local review, and I will of course discuss the point about children with colleagues at the Home Office. She also asked about the use of CCTV and devices—again, she is right to do so. To be clear, we believe that it may not have been the case that CCTV was in operation at the nursery—that came to light subsequently—but we will make sure that the review considers that important question. On the wider point about the use of CCTV and devices in early years settings, some of these settings already use CCTV, as she noted. Sadly, we know that it can never entirely prevent the prospect of abuse, and there may well be differing views among parents, carers and those in the sector about CCTV use in those settings. However, I appreciate that the issue has been raised as a concern in a number of ways, so I intend to appoint an expert advisory group to develop guidance for the sector on the safe and effective use of CCTV and digital devices. This guidance will set out best practice, technical information and clear expectations, and I will provide updates as that work progresses.
The right hon. Lady asked other questions; they are the right questions, and the local review will consider them further. She will understand that I cannot expand on many of the facts, but I appreciate the care and sensitivity that she has shown in her approach to this issue. I know that today, the focus of everyone in this House will be on the families—those who are suffering because of these despicable acts. We across this House stand with them as they get the support they need and the justice they deserve, and we as a Government will continue to take whatever steps are necessary to keep children safe, root out abuse wherever it hides, and rid our society of this evil.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Education Select Committee.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement.
Vincent Chan’s crimes are utterly horrific—the most egregious breach of trust imaginable, and every parent’s worst nightmare. My thoughts and, I know, the thoughts of the whole House have been with the children who are his victims, and with their families, ever since news of his crimes came into the public domain.
Incidents like this one, and the recent case of Roksana Lecka, who was convicted of abusing children at two nurseries, raise serious concerns about the effectiveness of Ofsted’s early years inspection regime, which currently rates 98% of providers as good or outstanding. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that Ofsted urgently brings forward reform of its early years inspection framework, so that it is fit for purpose? Will she review the current requirements for safeguarding training for early years practitioners, and the use of CCTV, to ensure that all staff are appropriately trained and the requirements are fit for purpose?
The Secretary of State’s colleagues in the Home Office have decided not to implement the version of mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse recommended by Professor Alexis Jay in the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse report, citing the workload that it would create. Does the Secretary of State agree that workload should not be a consideration when it comes to the safety of children? Will she urge her colleagues in the Home Office to rethink that decision, and to implement the more robust mandatory reporting obligation set out by Professor Jay, which includes criminal sanctions for non-compliance?
Finally, the Secretary of State spoke about the support that is quite rightly being provided to the victims of Vincent Chan and their families. Can she say a bit more about how support will be made available to those children and their families in such a way that they can draw on it throughout their life, whenever they need it?
Bridget Phillipson
The Chair of the Select Committee raises questions relating to Ofsted, as the shadow Secretary of State did, and I will respond in some detail to those. It is important that we understand what has happened here, so that, as far as we can, we prevent this from ever happening again. It is critical that local safeguarding partners conclude their investigations. We will work with them and the child safeguarding practice review panel.
We will also work with Ofsted to review the regulation of nursery chains. Ofsted keeps all settings under review, and conducts visits where risk assessments deem them necessary. The horrific crimes that we are discussing today are an important reminder that we expect providers to be vigilant across all early years settings. It is important that settings and staff report and act on concerns quickly, as part of an open safeguarding culture. I set out to the House my intentions around CCTV and the use of digital devices, and I would, as always, appreciate the input of the Select Committee and the Chair as we take that work forward.
On the wider need for reform in child protection and children’s safeguarding matters, on 9 April the Government published a progress update to address the recommendations from IICSA, including the recommendation on establishing a child protection authority to provide stronger national oversight of child protection. We will shortly launch a consultation on how we take that forward, and I will continue to discuss all the related matters with colleagues in the Home Office.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement, and for the briefing that officials provided to me. The details of this case are harrowing and deeply disturbing, and my first thoughts are with the families affected. I sincerely hope that they are getting all the support and care they need.
Sadly, however, this latest heinous case is part of a distressing pattern that is emerging in early years settings across the country, in which safeguarding practices have not been followed or are proving insufficient to prevent babies and young children from coming to harm. Less than three months ago, Roksana Lecka was jailed for eight years on 21 counts of child cruelty relating to her time working at Riverside nursery, Twickenham Green, in my constituency. Just last year, another nursery worker was jailed for manslaughter following the tragic death of Gigi Meehan in Cheadle. The BBC’s “Panorama” has exposed a worrying level of abuse and neglect in nurseries across the country.
The Secretary of State rightly says that lessons will be learned from the Camden case, but it is clear that we already urgently need to strengthen safeguarding in early years settings. The safeguarding panel review in the Twickenham Green case and the parents of the children affected have clearly set out three broad areas for change. The first is transparency around who is working in our early years settings, what qualifications and what training they have, and their history and vetting. What consideration has the Secretary of State given to an early years practitioner register, of the kind that Australia has recently proposed?
The second area for change is monitoring. In the Twickenham Green and Gigi Meehan cases, CCTV was vital in securing convictions, and it might have led to Chan being caught sooner. I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement today, but will she seriously consider mandating CCTV in nurseries, and making it a requirement for management to regularly review footage, and for Ofsted to routinely check footage at inspections? The third is accountability. The Vincent Chan and Twickenham Green cases involved nursery chains. Will the Secretary of State set out a timeline for when Ofsted will start corporate inspections of nursery chains, and will she ensure that when serious safeguarding issues are found in one setting, inspections are triggered across the chain?
No parent heading off to work should have to worry about whether their child is safe, but our most vulnerable are repeatedly being let down. The Secretary of State rightly said that keeping children safe is one of the most important duties in our society. Ministers urgently need to act to keep children safe, and we stand ready to work with them.
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her engagement with officials on these matters. We will be most effective if we work across the House to address the serious concerns that have been raised in this case, as well as in the other cases to which she makes reference.
I will ask the expert advisory group, when it looks at guidance, to consider the use of CCTV and whether it ought to be mandatory in early years settings. There are differing views across the sector and among parents and carers; although the use of CCTV could clearly have benefits, some have raised concerns about the potential for the misuse of the recordings. We need to ensure that any guidance or changes that are brought forward are in line with the evidence, so that it leads to the appropriate use of CCTV and devices in settings.
From next April, Ofsted will inspect new early years providers within 18 months of opening and move towards inspecting all providers at least once every four years, compared with six years previously. Ofsted will receive additional funding to enhance the quality of inspection by strengthening quality assurance processes and providing targeted training for inspectors. We are working with Ofsted to introduce reporting on larger nursery chains, so that issues that span a group of providers can be addressed. Ofsted will continue to keep all settings under review to ensure that visits take place when risk assessments deem them necessary.
The local review will be led by a reviewer who is independent of the local authority and local safeguarding partners. We will of course consider any of its recommendations that have wider implications for the sector and children’s safeguarding, and I will keep hon. Members updated on progress.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for Education for her statement and for reassuring us that the case is being given the importance and treated with the urgency it deserves. This is every parent’s worst nightmare. I pay tribute to my constituents and to the brave parents, who are here today to watch proceedings. They not only want justice for their own children, but want to ensure that never again are children put in this situation.
The parents in my constituency have a number of requests. I recognise that the Secretary of State will not be able to answer all of them, but I would be grateful if she could write to me. Has she considered enhanced background checks for everyone working with children, enabling the use of safeguarding CCTV in nurseries and early years providers, and a mandatory two-adult supervision rule for all nurseries and childcare practices? Is she looking into expanding Ofsted ratings to include a clear assessment of nurseries’ digital device policies and controls? Is she looking into establishing an independent, state-run safeguarding reporting body that parents can approach directly when concerns are raised, as they were in the case of this nursery? Such a body must be fully resourced to investigate childcare providers without reliance on internal nursery procedures.
Finally, will the Secretary of State ask the Prime Minister if he will meet me and affected parents to discuss not just this particular case, but how we strengthen the safeguarding process and the accountability of large childcare providers in our country?
Bridget Phillipson
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the families for their bravery and courage. I cannot begin to imagine the trauma and pain that they are experiencing as a result of these heinous crimes. I am pleased that she is such a powerful champion and voice for children and families, both in her community and across our country. She raises a number of important questions. I will respond to her fully in writing to the best of my ability, given some of the limitations we are continuing to operate under in this case. I can give her the assurance that the Prime Minister would be happy to meet the families affected. At that meeting, we will be able to discuss further many of the questions that they have and many of the questions that she has rightly raised on their behalf today in the House.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
This case is appalling, and it is right that the thoughts of us all are with the families affected and that the Government should do everything they can to prevent such cases from occurring in future. When does the Secretary of State expect the findings of the review to come forward? What additional steps are the Government looking at to ensure that parents and anyone with safeguarding concerns can report them much more easily?
Bridget Phillipson
The local review will get under way immediately. It will be led by an independent reviewer, who is independent of the local safeguarding partnership. From the point at which they take up the post, there will be six months for that report to come forward. The chair of the national panel will keep in close contact with the local reviewer during that time to track progress and any emerging challenges or issues, and that will be shared with the Department for Education if necessary.
The hon. Member is right to highlight that safeguarding is a responsibility for all of us—to challenge, to question and to report what we see. The reforms that we will set out in response to Alexis Jay’s review, including through the child protection authority, will be an important means of reinforcing that. We all have to be ever vigilant and willing to challenge and question, but also to believe children when they are able to speak and tell us what they have experienced. We must take that seriously and act on their concerns. That is a responsibility not just for staff in early years settings, but for all of us right across society.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
This awful case underlines how important it is that we implement the recommendations from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse as soon as possible. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) said, the Home Office has set out plans not to implement the recommendation on mandatory reporting in full. I spoke on Report of the Crime and Policing Bill to set out why that will leave children vulnerable. Will the Secretary of State ask the relevant Minister from her Department to meet me to discuss these concerns in more detail and to find a solution?
Bridget Phillipson
I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend raises and the importance of ensuring that we have the strongest possible protections for all children to keep them safe from harm. That is why we provided a progress update arising from the IICSA recommendations, which included the establishment of a child protection authority, and we will set out more shortly and launch a consultation on how we take this forward. I will speak to colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that my hon. Friend has the meeting that he requests to discuss this matter further.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
May I start by echoing the comments of the Secretary of State and all Members in saying that my thoughts are with the families affected by this awful case? There is a concerning lack of accountability once a setting shuts down, even if it is part of a chain. There is no mechanism to ensure that chain providers have corporate responsibility when harm occurs. How will the Minister address that? What assurances can she give parents that if a setting is closed down and de-registered from Ofsted, individual staff members are further checked and vetted before they go on to work elsewhere?
Bridget Phillipson
As a Department, we are working with Ofsted to review the regulation of nursery chains to ensure that parents can see strengths and areas of concern across the chain and that, where appropriate, action can be taken. I recognise the additional question that the hon. Member asks about the nature of regulation and the importance of preventing rules from being exploited. I will ensure that she receives a full response from Ofsted setting out its approach and any changes it is considering in relation to her questions.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
All our thoughts are with the families of the children affected by this appalling case. We cannot even begin to understand the impact it will have on those children throughout their lives. A whole load of support will need to be brought in to protect them and deal with the knock-on effects that they experience.
It brings to mind a case that has been brought to my attention involving another group of extremely vulnerable individuals. These are older children with complex and severe learning disabilities. I cannot talk too much about it, because it is a live case, but a parallel that struck me was that serious safeguarding concerns have been identified and given weight in one setting, when the organisation is part of a larger chain. In the case before us, it is a chain of nurseries and in the case I am referring to it is a multi-academy trust. It raises questions as to whether the body can be trusted with safeguarding more widely. Are there plans in place to look at corporate responsibility and to look at these things across the piece, rather than just as individual isolated incidents?
Another parallel is that I understand a whistleblower brought this case to the attention of the police in the first place. What measures will be introduced to protect whistleblowers in such cases, particularly when the person and the organisation to whom the whistleblower is reporting may be compromised?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend raises a number of important concerns about how groups operate in early years settings and schools, and the importance of ensuring that we have the right framework in place to take action where necessary. We are taking an active approach in early years and in schools, and are working with Ofsted on these key points. I recognise the limitations on what she can say about the case in the Chamber today, but the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) or I would willing to meet her to discuss her concerns and what more we can do to ensure that we keep all children safe from harm.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) raises the question of whistleblowing. I will not comment on this case in particular, given that the local review is under way, but whistleblowers continue to enjoy protection under the law in the action they take to protect others from harm. In the progress against Alexis Jay’s review, we will be taking further action on mandatory reporting, as we have discussed today.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The thoughts of the whole House are with the victims and their families, but will the Secretary of State join me in praising the Metropolitan police team that brought this case to charge—in particular, Detective Superintendent Lewis Basford and his team—and the Crown Prosecution Service? It must have been harrowing for them to investigate the case and bring it to charge.
More generally, an estimated half a million children are sexually abused in this country every year. According to the National Crime Agency, 840,000 individuals currently pose a sexual risk to children. Shockingly, there are 400,000 searches a month in this country for child sexual abuse images. This country, while still safer than many, clearly has a problem, and it often starts online. What more can the Government do to ensure that the owners of tech companies, not just the managers, are held to account when they are not taking action against the downloading and viewing of such images?
The Secretary of State mentions the child protection authority that might be coming forward. May I encourage her not to move away from the great work that the National Crime Agency is doing? It has done a lot more in this area over recent years and has had a lot of success. It has the resources, the manpower and the technology. I would not want its excellent work to be overshadowed by any new authority. Given that local police forces do not have the resources and are overstretched already, what more can be done at a national level to co-ordinate across police forces in England and Wales, including West Mercia in my area, and with the National Crime Agency so that we can see a reduction in the viewing of these images?
Bridget Phillipson
The right hon. Gentleman raises a number of important points, and he is right to thank the police for their thorough work in what has been an extremely complex and harrowing investigation. I pay tribute to all those who have been involved to this point in supporting the victims and families, and to those who will be involved in taking forward further work in this area.
The right hon. Gentleman is also right to draw attention to the scale of child sexual abuse that we still sadly see in our country. Before I came to this House, I worked with many of those who had been affected by child sexual abuse, and I understand the lifelong impact it can have on many people. I understand also that for a very long time, we have not been serious enough as a society about encouraging those who have experienced appalling abuse, including in childhood, to seek the support and advice that they will need, often for many years into the future. A key issue that we have often faced in that regard has been the fact that children, when they have come forward to report abuse, have not always been believed by those in positions of authority, and that has to change. The culture shift that is required is as important as any legislative measures that we need to take, so that children are believed when they report abuse. We need action to follow so that those in positions of authority face consequences for their actions and their failure to take forward allegations by children and others.
The right hon. Gentleman also refers to the appalling scale of what we see online. We will continue to work with Home Office colleagues on this issue, and I will look carefully at what he said about the development of the child protection authority. We will set out more details to the House in due course and update Members in this area, alongside a consultation that will allow views about the best way forward to be aired.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and for the urgency and respect that she has shown this particular case. May I put on the record that I agree with the sentiments of this House about the urgency with which we need to deal with this particular case and potential future cases, which we must stop?
The police have to be commended, but the trigger point was the whistleblower—that is where it started. We have to look at two things, because the pain that is being suffered by the parents is unimaginable, and the trauma of the children will be felt for years and generations to come. Can the Secretary of State assure me that unregistered, unregulated settings are looked at very quickly and that the lessons learned from this particular case are shared among all settings across the entire country, so that everybody learns the lessons—not just this particular setting or chain?
Bridget Phillipson
I agree very strongly with my hon. Friend. Alongside bringing forward the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we are taking a number of important steps to improve safeguarding. The Bill brings forward bold new measures to keep children safe, including a legal obligation for safeguarding partners to work hand in hand with education and childcare settings, because we know that it is often teachers and early years staff who first see the signs of abuse and neglect. That runs alongside the establishment of the child protection authority, a new national body that will have expertise, authority and a single mission: to protect children. Through that work and the development of the child protection authority, we will be in a stronger position to make sure that where there are lessons to learn in individual cases, they are shared and spread much more widely, so that we can keep children safe from harm.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her clear and reassuring commitment to take the necessary steps, which everybody in this House and everybody out there who is a parent, or who looks at this case, wants to see. It is almost impossible to comprehend what has happened—I just cannot take it in—but our thoughts are very much with the parents and children affected.
This is a devastating case, and there will be a prolonged impact on all the children and parents involved. I am very pleased that the person involved has pleaded guilty and is due to be sentenced—hopefully, he will get a strict punishment. What lesson can be learned from this case in relation to whistleblowing, to ensure that staff feel safe enough to report anything unusual without the fear of not being protected? The case was only discovered due to minor concerns, which turned out to be much, much more.
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The local review, which will come forward shortly, will put us in a position to consider what lessons there are from this case, but the wider questions require a policy response, either from Government or from others, about how we can do more to keep children safe. It is right that that work is done thoroughly and carefully, as we would expect.
There is, of course, the ongoing need to make sure that all settings are as safe as possible for our children. As part of that work, particularly around early years settings, we strengthened the requirements in September and introduced a wide range of strengthened safeguarding measures to the early years foundation stage. That includes enhanced recruitment practices to prevent further unsuitable individuals from working with children, and new whistleblowing requirements to help ensure that all early years educators understand how to escalate any safeguarding concerns.
Dawn Sturgess Inquiry
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the Dawn Sturgess inquiry, which has today published its report.
I start with Dawn Sturgess. The untimely and sudden death of a much-missed mother, partner, daughter, sister and friend is a deeply personal tragedy, and today we keep her and her loved ones in our thoughts and prayers.
On 4 March 2018, Sergei and Yulia Skripal were targeted by the GRU, the Russian military intelligence service. Three GRU agents flew to the UK intent on killing Sergei Skripal. Two agents, known as Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, travelled to Salisbury and contaminated the door handle of Sergei’s house with the nerve agent Novichok, with callous and despicable disregard for others who might enter or leave that address. Sergei and Yulia were poisoned, and spent weeks in a critical condition. Others, including Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, were harmed as they responded to the incident.
On 30 June 2018, Charlie Rowley gave his partner Dawn Sturgess a gift of a Nina Ricci perfume bottle. She sprayed her wrists with the contents. Tragically, the bottle contained Novichok and had been recklessly thrown away by Petrov and Boshirov as they left Salisbury four months earlier. Dawn died at Salisbury hospital on 8 July 2018. An inquest was opened, but it was clear that a proper examination of Dawn Sturgess’s death would require a statutory public inquiry, which has been chaired by Lord Hughes.
Today, after an extensive and painstaking process, the inquiry has published its report. The inquiry has found that those who were involved in the assassination attempt against Sergei Skripal were “morally responsible” for Dawn’s death, and that
“deploying a highly toxic nerve agent in a busy city was an astonishingly reckless act.”
The chair concludes that the operation must have been signed off at the highest level of the Russian state, including by President Putin.
In respect of the emergency services’ treatment of Dawn, the inquiry found that she received “entirely appropriate medical care” but that, tragically, her condition was “unsurvivable”. On preventability, the chair has concluded that the Government’s public health advice following the attack on the Skripals was reasonable. He also found that although there were failings in the management of Sergei Skripal, the risk of assassination by Russian personnel was reasonably assessed and, based on that assessment, he did not need a new identity.
The inquiry has been clear in its findings of responsibility, and we must respond equally unequivocally. I have previously described to hon. Members the acute threat that Russia poses to the UK and our national security. Its recent acts have ranged from murdering Alexander Litvinenko and using a deadly nerve agent in Salisbury to espionage, arson, cyber-attacks and the targeting of UK parliamentarians for interference operations.
Since 2018, the UK has been at the forefront of the response against Russia. In direct response to the poisonings, the then Government expelled 23 undeclared Russian intelligence officers. This triggered the expulsion of over 150 Russian diplomats by 28 countries, including NATO allies. The UK has subsequently committed to prevent the rebuild of Russian intelligence and to remove Russian dirty money in the UK, developed legislative powers to harden the UK’s defences against state threats, and delivered new port and border powers, increased security checks on goods from Russia, and banned Russian-owned or linked aircraft from entering the UK.
The invasion of Ukraine introduced a stark new reality and demonstrated Russia’s intent to undermine European and global security. The UK has led the way in standing by Ukraine and providing unprecedented military, humanitarian and diplomatic support. In total, the UK has committed £21.8 billion for Ukraine and sanctioned over 2,900 individuals, entities and ships. This Government are proud to be at the forefront of the coalition of the willing to support Ukraine in defending its sovereignty and security. This has inevitably made the UK a target for increased hostile activity by Russia. Following an arson attack in east London in May 2024, the then Home Secretary warned of a pattern of Russian malign activities across Europe that had reached UK soil. In response, the UK expelled the Russian defence attaché and removed diplomatic status from Russian properties believed to have been used for intelligence purposes.
We are determined that the UK remains a hard operating environment for the Russian intelligence services. In October last year, we sanctioned three Russian agencies and three senior figures who were attempting to undermine and destabilise Ukraine and its democracy. In July, the UK sanctioned and exposed three GRU units and 18 of its military intelligence officers for the targeting of Yulia Skripal and cyber-operations in support of Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine. Yet we are now grappling with an increasingly reckless methodology. The director general of MI5 recently highlighted Russian state actors turning to proxies “for their dirty work”, and
“recruiting proxies on social media platforms, instructing them via encrypted apps, and offering payment in cryptocurrencies.”
UK law enforcement has secured convictions in several significant cases just this year: six individuals spying for Russia; six men involved in an arson attack on a warehouse supplying Ukraine; an individual who attempted to offer services to Russian intelligence; and a former MEP who accepted bribes to promote pro-Russian narratives in the EU Parliament. These cases serve as a strong reminder for anyone—anyone—seeking to facilitate or undertake hostile activity for Russia on UK soil.
This Government remain committed to providing our law enforcement partners with the tools they need to tackle these threats. We have specified Russia on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme to make it even more challenging to conceal relationships with the Russian state. I can now announce that the Government are going further. Today, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has imposed a further cost on the Russian regime by sanctioning the GRU under the Russia sanctions regime, along with several associated individuals. These sanctions recognise the continued reckless and destabilising activity of the GRU, which seeks to undermine Ukraine, European security and the safety of the United Kingdom. They will include sanctions against eight GRU officers under the cyber sanctions regime and three GRU officers under the Russia sanctions regime who have been implicated in hostile activity across Europe. We are also summoning the Russian ambassador to hold Russia to account for its responsibility for the tragic death of a British citizen.
There has been extensive misinformation and disinformation relating to these horrific and barbaric poisonings. This inquiry has categorically rejected those falsehoods, and this Government continue to reject the lies spread by Russia through its propaganda and paid mouthpieces. I wish—I am sure on behalf of the whole House—to wholeheartedly thank Lord Hughes and his team. This was a considerable task of great importance, and they have collectively approached it with diligence, care and sensitivity. I also want to take this opportunity—I am again sure on behalf of the whole House—to thank the first responders, military personnel, scientists, medical practitioners and all those who responded to the attack. They are the very best of us, and I know that Members right across the House will join me in paying tribute to them for the important work they do to keep us safe.
Dawn Sturgess was the victim of an utterly reckless and dangerous act—a chemical weapons attack perpetrated by Russia on British soil—and the pain and suffering it has caused can never be undone, but we must honour Dawn Sturgess’s memory, uphold truth and justice, and keep everyone in our country safe. I commend this statement to the House.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I thank the Security Minister for advance sight of his statement. Let me set out straightaway that the Opposition of course fully support the Government’s work in keeping our country safe. I think I agree with and support everything the Security Minister said in his statement. I particularly welcome the additional sanctions that he announced on certain members of the Russian security services.
I join the Security Minister in remembering Dawn Sturgess, who lost her life as a result of this reckless and barbaric attack. Leaving highly dangerous chemical weapons lying around was a reckless undertaking by those Russian agents, and Dawn Sturgess’s death lies squarely at their door. I pay tribute to Sergei and Yulia Skripal for the bravery they have shown when faced with targeting by agents of the Russian state, who came to this country specifically with the purpose in mind of killing them.
I also pay tribute to the emergency services and security services, as the Security Minister did, who responded so bravely, and some of whom, such as Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, were themselves harmed as they responded to the attack. The emergency services and security services, on that day and in the days following, distinguished themselves greatly, and I know the whole House will want to thank them for the work they did.
The chair of the inquiry concluded, as the Security Minister said, that this operation would have been signed off or agreed to at the very highest level of the Russian state by President Putin himself. I think that makes the important point that Russia is a dangerous and hostile state, and that Vladimir Putin is a dangerous and hostile leader—a man who, as this inquiry has found, personally sanctioned the assassination of civilians on British soil.
Of course, the atrocities that the Russian state and President Vladimir Putin have perpetrated are not confined to those we are discussing today. We have seen, on its own soil, the Russian state murder domestic political opponents such as Alexei Navalny. We have seen them shoot down civilian airliners, and we have seen them interfere across Africa. We have seen Putin support former President Assad of Syria in persecuting civilians in Syria, including supporting the use of chemical weapons. So we should be in no doubt at all about the threat that Russia and President Putin pose not just in Russia or Ukraine, but on our soil and across the whole world.
I think there is a lesson there for the way in which we in the west collectively consider the Ukraine conflict, which the Security Minister spoke about. I think the actions we have been discussing are one of many reasons that we in the west should be steadfast and unwavering in our support for Ukraine. The lessons of history are quite clear: appeasement does not work, and showing weakness when faced with aggressive dictators simply emboldens them. I hope people in our Government and other Governments, particularly the American Administration, keep that in mind as they conduct negotiations in the coming days and weeks.
I know that, quite rightly, the Security Minister will not be able to comment on details, but the House would appreciate an update and assurances about the work being done to protect us domestically against Russian threats. He did not mention cyber-threats in his statement —[Interruption.] I do apologise. He did mention them, and we know that Russia repeatedly and deliberately targets both governmental infrastructure and private sector IT infrastructure. So far as he is able to provide one, an update on the work he is leading to counter that would be welcome, as would any indication about whether we are proactively engaged in degrading Russia’s capability in that area. I appreciate that there are severe limitations around what he can say, but any indication he can provide to the House would be very much appreciated.
The lessons we can draw from this episode relate not just to Russia, but to any state where we have intelligence or information that they are engaged in aggressive hostile acts. We know, of course, that it is not just Russia: other states, including China, are engaged in different but potentially equally damaging espionage and other activity on our soil. The lesson that this episode teaches is that we cannot be complacent. We cannot, for example, prioritise economic links above national security. We need to be on the front foot when it comes to these threats.
In that spirit, and drawing that lesson from this episode, perhaps the Security Minister can explain to the House why China is not in the enhanced tier of FIRS, which in my opinion it should be, and why the Government appear to be contemplating granting planning consent for a super embassy for China on a very sensitive site close to sensitive communications infrastructure, and from which it is very likely China will conduct large-scale espionage activities? The lesson that this episode teaches us is that we cannot be complacent, and we must be active and energetic in protecting our national interest.
In general terms, I fully support the direction of travel the Security Minister has set out, and, of course, the Opposition will support him personally and the Government in the work they are doing to keep our country safe.
Dan Jarvis
I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his response and for the tone of it. I am very grateful. I think he will have noted, from my opening remarks, the gravity and seriousness I attach to the matter at hand. I know that he and other Opposition Members will have noted that in my opening statement I spoke seamlessly about the work done by the previous Government and this Government. I believe that standing against Russia and the threat it poses to our national security should be, and is, a shared endeavour across this House. I pay tribute to the work the previous Government did, in 2018 and beyond, in standing against the threat we face. Wherever possible, we should work closely together on it.
The shadow Home Secretary very accurately characterised the nature of the threat. I agree with what he said with regard to Russia and Putin. It is impossible to overstate the seriousness of this attack and the other activity he characterised.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about Ukraine and I am grateful to him for doing so. Again, I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the previous Government for the commitment they made to defending Ukraine. It should be a matter of great pride across the House that, perhaps above almost everything else, it is something that binds this House together. There is a unity of purpose among us all in ensuring that we stand together to support Ukraine in its fight against Russia. I give him and the House an absolute commitment that we will continue the work of the previous Government.
Genuinely, I was really pleased that the right hon. Gentleman asked about cyber, because I am particularly keen to ensure that we co-ordinate our activity across Government as effectively as we possibly can. In truth, it was one reason why the Prime Minister made the machinery of government change back in September so that the Security Minister sits across both the Home Office and the Cabinet Office and can more effectively co-ordinate that work. He will know that the Government introduced the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill just a couple of weeks ago. From a Home Office perspective, we are working hard on the ransomware proposals that we consulted on earlier this year. He was right to make the important point about the work we do with regard to positively degrading the nature of the threats he described. He knows I am very limited in terms of what I can say about that, but I know he will join me in paying tribute to the very important work that the National Cyber Force does.
It did not come as a huge surprise that the shadow Home Secretary—in truth, I do not blame him for doing so—took the opportunity to raise the issue of China. I hope he has had the chance to look at what I said this morning at Cabinet Office oral questions and what I said in response to an urgent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) yesterday with regard to the Government’s position on China. I hope he has had the opportunity to look precisely at what I said about the embassy.
With regard to FIRS, I completely understand the points the shadow Home Secretary made. The Government continue to keep that under very close review and I hope we will have more to say about it in due course.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My thoughts, too, are with the family of Dawn Sturgess.
In 2010, Putin said:
“Traitors will kick the bucket, believe me.”
Post-Litvinenko, how can it be that our country can afford protection for, say, a former Prime Minister such as Liz Truss, but not for an asset such as Sergei Skripal? Yesterday’s story in the i newspaper underlines the issue about Russian agents infiltrating our society, and the points the Minister makes across the board are so well put, but given that, as we have heard, Putin has no concern for life, least of all in his own country, can the Minister confirm that he is working with all Departments across Government to assure the British public of their safety and security?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution and the work he does in chairing the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. The quote he described is chilling. In response to the point he made yesterday about the coverage in the i newspaper, I can give him the assurances he seeks and tell him and the House that we take all national security threats incredibly seriously. The Government have acted decisively by introducing tougher legislation, enforcing sanctions and working closely with our international partners to make the UK one of the most challenging environments for our adversaries to operate in. That continues to be an absolute priority in terms of securing our national security. I am absolutely determined to ensure that the United Kingdom is the hardest possible target for our adversaries.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I thank the Security Minister for speaking for the whole House when he gave our sincere condolences to Dawn Sturgess’s family, paid tribute to the emergency and security services, and conveyed his thoughts to those affected in the Novichok attack.
Government’s primary role is to keep our country safe. The report into the tragic killing of Dawn Sturgess on the streets of the UK by Russian agents in their attempt to assassinate Sergei Skripal, is damning. The report found Vladimir Putin to be responsible for the death of an innocent British citizen on our shores.
Basic protections were not in place. Sergei was a clear target for Russian state assassins. The inquiry states that he was resettled in the UK under his own name. Russia used that to track him down and MI5 failed to rename him. Can the Minister confirm to the House why the security services left him in an “alarmingly accessible” situation, despite clearly being an identified target of Russian state assassination, including residing in Salisbury in his own name? How have the security services justified to the Minister their apparent failure to implement even basic protective measures, such as CCTV, alarms or secure accommodation? Worryingly for UK security, Putin’s assassins had no trouble locating him. That failure put him at risk, but also exposed the wider public in Salisbury and across the country. That contributed to the death of Dawn, an entirely innocent member of the public.
Last year, the Sturgess family’s legal team described the Skripals as sitting ducks due to failings that should have been foreseen by MI5. Given the preventable deaths and public risk, what accountability measures will the Government take to ensure MI5 protects both vulnerable individuals and the wider public? Considering the threat Russia poses to world security, especially security at home, will the Government finally seize the £30 billion in frozen Russian assets across the UK, including Sutton Place in my constituency?
Finally, the Government need to see the report as a turning point for the threat Russia poses to the UK. Will they launch an investigation into Russian interference in British politics to ensure no more UK politicians, like the former leader of the Reform party in Wales, are bribed with Russian money?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the importance of keeping our country safe. I assure him that we take that incredibly seriously. We will of course look very carefully at the detail of this report. He asked about the accountability mechanisms in Government. I assure him that the Home Secretary and I take our responsibilities to hold the security services to account very seriously indeed—that is a process that the new Home Secretary and I dedicate a significant amount of time to every single week. But we have to be crystal clear that the inquiry’s report states unequivocally that responsibility lies with the Russian state. The chair of the inquiry found that the operation to assassinate Sergei Skripal was authorised at the highest level, and concluded that it would not have taken place without the approval of President Putin. The use of a military-grade nerve agent on British soil was a violation of international law and a truly despicable act, and the responsibility for that lies with Russia, and Russia alone.
The hon. Gentleman asked, entirely reasonably, about the confiscation of sovereign Russian assets. I assure him that we take that incredibly seriously as well. Our priority is to ensure that all the options that we consider with regard to that matter are in line with international law and are economically and financially responsible, but Russia must be held accountable for the terrible damage it has done in Ukraine. We will do whatever we can to ensure that Russia is held accountable and made to pay for its actions.
The hon. Gentleman’s final point was an important one about Russian interference in our democracy. I chair the defending democracy taskforce, which has recently had its mandate renewed by the Prime Minister. These are matters that we take incredibly seriously. We use the taskforce as the fulcrum point across Government to ensure that we have a whole-of-system response that draws together Government Departments and law enforcement, and I assure the hon. Gentleman of the priority that we attach to that work. It is something that I believe should be a cross-party endeavour, so if he or other Members of this House wish to discuss it with me further, I am always very happy to do so.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The day a British citizen died on British soil as a result of a Russian attack ought to have been a wake-up call for everyone in this country. I recognise the steps that the previous Government took and that this Government are taking to address that threat. The reality is that Russian planes and ships menace our airs and waters, their cyber-attacks have hit our NHS and councils, including Redcar and Cleveland borough council, and their propaganda has been disseminated by British politicians and online. Does the Security Minister agree that, as far as the British public are concerned, this is not a distant threat elsewhere in the world; it is here and now, affecting them today? Can I also push him specifically on social media disinformation, and what steps he can take, working with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, to address it in this country?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the threat. It is not a distant matter; it quite literally impacts the lives of our citizens every single day. I give him an assurance of how seriously we take these matters. He is also right to raise the issue of misinformation and disinformation. Again, through the defending democracy taskforce, these are matters that we keep under very close review. He is right to mention the important contribution that is required of DSIT. We work very closely with DSIT and other Government Departments on these matters. We keep a constant vigilance. I think that, in truth, there is more that we need to do, and I will have further conversations with ministerial colleagues about that particular matter.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Member of Parliament for Salisbury.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I thank the Security Minister for early sight of his statement, and I thank him most warmly for the way in which he has presented the Government’s response this afternoon. As someone who spent a previous life in Salisbury and south Wiltshire, he has served the people of my constituency very well. I am also very pleased with the remarks of the shadow Home Secretary.
Today’s report was written as a consequence of the need to bring clarity and to understand unequivocally who was responsible for what happened in 2018, but it is important to remember the huge impact it had on Salisbury, and the tragedy that befell Dawn Sturgess, Charlie Rowley, Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, and Yulia and Sergei Skripal. The report is very clear about where culpability lies: it lies with President Putin. Russia was responsible, and Putin as an individual was responsible. He personally ordered what happened in Salisbury, and we should never forget it.
Putin is a ruthless dictator, not someone with whom deals can be done. Contrary to one of the candidates in the general election last year in Salisbury who said that he admired him as a political operator, I do not. I never will. I welcome what the Minister said on additional sanctions, and I encourage him and his successors always to pursue energetically, and with continued vigilance, further such measures as required. I welcome what he said about more sophisticated threats emerging on cyber, and I urge him to extend that to look at what happens with our cloud infrastructure.
I have just one question. Paragraph 6.25 of the report refers to the issue of regular written assessments, which were lacking in terms of the ongoing care of Sergei Skripal. I think that is the only element that needs serious review for individuals like him in future, but I thank the Minister again for the way he has spoken today, which will give huge comfort to my constituents in Salisbury and to the families of those so tragically affected.
Dan Jarvis
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for the dignified and diligent way in which he represented his constituents and his constituency at the time, and for his service since, including today’s. I know that it will be hugely appreciated across the House, and certainly in the great city of Salisbury and across the wider great county of Wiltshire. He is absolutely right: responsibility for this dreadful attack rests at the top of the Russian regime with President Putin. I give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks that this Government, and I am sure—I certainly hope—any successor Governments or Ministers, will be incredibly vigilant and pursue whatever measures are required. I have noted the point he made about the cloud, which I think is a good one. On his specific point about regular written assessments, I will take that away and look at it closely. Again, I commend him for his service to the great city of Salisbury.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for his statement and pleased to hear of further sanctions. He stated that Dawn Sturgess was the victim of an utterly reckless and dangerous act. I would go further and call it a heinous crime, the responsibility for which lies with Vladimir Putin, among the many other such crimes for which he is responsible. The Minister also said that we must honour Dawn Sturgess’s memory. My plea to him would be that we do so by never allowing Vladimir Putin to escape responsibility or accountability for the crime that was perpetrated in Salisbury that day.
Dan Jarvis
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who puts it very well. The greatest legacy, as well as remembering the tragic loss of life in this case, would be to ensure that our collective defences as a country are tightened to the extent that such an attack could never happen again. Of course, the Russian regime will constantly test our defences and we will have to remain incredibly vigilant. It is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that we have the appropriate levels of resource, and that the United Kingdom is the hardest possible operating environment for Russia and its proxies, but he is right to remind us of where responsibility for this heinous act lies: with President Putin.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
I, too, welcome the Minister’s statement, and indeed the additional sanctions that he announced. It is absolutely right that we do everything we can to resist Russia’s attacks on our security and its attempts to suborn our democracy, and I wholeheartedly agree with him. It is obviously right that the traitorous former MEP that the Minister mentioned is now in prison. I speak as the Member representing Amesbury, the town that Dawn Sturgess was in when she took the fatal poison, but it was represented at the time by my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen). I want to acknowledge his leadership throughout these difficult years for Salisbury and Amesbury.
It appears from the report that the NHS did a good job in its immediate response to the medical emergency that Dawn suffered, but it is also apparent that, when it comes to the wider system of support for the community in Salisbury and Amesbury, the response was somewhat messy—perhaps for perfectly understandable reasons. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government are looking generally at our public safety response in the event of such crises, and can he say what more can be done to ensure that in any future event local communities are properly supported?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member for the very sensible and constructive nature of his remarks. I recognise his service as a Wiltshire MP and his obvious constituency interest in this matter. I also genuinely welcome his condemnation of the treachery that we have seen recently, and I am glad that he made that point. He raises a sensible and constructive point with regard to the NHS, and I can give him the assurances that he seeks regarding the Government’s attention to these matters. One of the reasons why the Prime Minister took the machinery of Government change back in September to ensure that I, as Security Minister, sit across both the Home Office and the Cabinet Office was to maximise the leverage and co-ordination across Government with regard not only to national security policy, but to our resilience, and we have recently undertaken the largest ever resilience exercise across Government. He is right to raise that point. I give him an assurance of the seriousness with which we take these matters. We will, of course, look very carefully at the report’s recommendations in that regard. I am grateful to him for his comments today.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The number of Russian spies operating in the UK is the highest it has been since the cold war—not my words but those of the head of Counter Terrorism Policing. I welcome the sanctions today on the GRU, but the Security Minister will know that the United Kingdom is probably regarded as Russia’s No. 1 enemy—not the United States but the United Kingdom. He will also know that there are other agencies that are operating internationally and have an international footprint, such as the FSB and SVR. While noting and recognising the importance of, shall we say, diplomatic reciprocity, what more can be done, to quote him, to have a “hard operating environment” for both those agencies? Are other Russian political dissidents safe here in the United Kingdom?
Finally, on the proliferation of chemical weapons, we know that a chemical agent and a nuclear agent were used in some of the cases outlined today, so given the breakdown in many countries and the security around chemical weapons in those countries—whether in Africa or other parts of the world—how confident is the Minister that the security services are aware of where those chemical weapons might be and where they might be tempted to be deployed?
Dan Jarvis
I am, as always, grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the expertise and experience that he brings to these matters, not least given his very long-standing service on two relevant Committees in this place. He mentioned Counter Terrorism Policing. Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work that they do. I have a very good and close working relationship with CTP. They do extraordinary work and it is a privilege to stand alongside them. They are exceptional in the work that they do.
It is in part a symptom of the work that the previous Government and this Government have done to make the UK the hardest possible operating environment that increasingly Russia and other malign states are seeking to use criminal proxies to do their bidding and business in the United Kingdom. There is a lot of work taking place, not only across Government but with our allies in Europe, who we are working very closely with, and further afield to ensure that we are best placed to target malign states that are using criminal proxies. The director general of MI5 referenced that in his recent annual lecture on the threats we face.
On the right hon. Member’s point about the UK being a hard target, he will understand better than most that I am very limited in what I can say about that, and that it would be unwise to give detail that would be helpful to our adversaries. However, I can give him an assurance of the seriousness with which we take these matters. He raised an important point about dissidents. It is an issue that I keep under very close review. We make sure that we have the right mechanisms in place to provide security.
The right hon. Member’s point about chemical weapons was well made. We work very closely with our international allies to ensure that we are doing everything that we can to minimise the risk and threat. It is not easy work, and there are no guarantees of its success, but I give an assurance of the seriousness with which we take it. Our approach is to work closely with our allies.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
I join the Security Minister in acknowledging the memory of Dawn Sturgess, and the sacrifice made by Dawn’s partner Charlie, Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey and the fearless first responders. In the seven years since this attack, an emboldened Putin has increased his aggression across Europe. Can the Minister assure the House that all the lessons that come out of this inquiry will be acted on in full? Will the UK Government continue to work with our EU partners in standing up to Putin’s aggression in Europe? Will the Government underscore the point that our multilateral defence of the international rules-based order is our strength, and his isolationist aggression will forever be his weakness?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his comments, and I can give him the assurances that he seeks. As he will acknowledge, the report was published less than a couple of hours ago, but the Government will look very carefully at its findings. I give him and the House an assurance that where there is a requirement to act, we will not hesitate to do so.
The hon. Member’s point about our EU partners was well made. We value our relationships with our neighbours, EU partners and Five Eyes colleagues, and I recently met members of the G7 to discuss these matters. When it comes to standing up to the threats that we face, we are much stronger when we join up with our international partners, and that is the right approach. I completely agree with what the hon. Member said about the rules-based order; I am sure that all Members of this House do. That is the right approach. Respecting international law and standing with our allies is the best way to defeat Putin.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Have the Government formed a view as to why President Putin—the killer in the Kremlin—chose to target Sergei Skripal after he had been pardoned and exchanged? Nothing that I am saying now derives from my time chairing the Intelligence and Security Committee, but I recall speculation in the press that it was because Mr Skripal had been actively involved with either the British state or the military, or had in some way been, shall we say, active in opposing the Government of the country from which he had been exchanged. If that is the case, surely the conclusion in paragraph 8.18—that the only measures that could have prevented the attack
“would have been such as to hide him completely with an entirely new identity”—
should have been considered. It is rather surprising that it was not. Was Skripal engaged in anything that made him a target?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman knows the very high regard in which I hold him. He has asked me some important questions, but they are not necessarily questions that it would be in the interests of our national security for me to get into in any great detail. I can say that I have formed a view about the motive that underpinned this particular attack, but I am not going to get into it today. The point he made about the detail of the report was also raised by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster). I can give him an assurance that we will go very carefully through the all the detail of the report, and I will consider what he has said today. The conclusion that I draw, which I think is the conclusion that Lord Hughes has drawn, is that responsibility for the attack lies with the Russian state. It is the Government’s responsibility to do everything we can to guard against the threat posed, mindful of the nature of that threat.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
To the extent that he is able, can the Minister please explain what steps he is taking to secure UK commercial ports, given recent reports of individuals with links to the Russian military entering via those routes?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Lady raises an entirely reasonable point. She will understand that I will not want to get too much into the detail of that. We look at these matters carefully, and we work across Government and with law enforcement and the intelligence agencies on them. Again, one reason why I sit across two Departments is to ensure that our response is co-ordinated as effectively as possible. She is right to raise this issue; we are doing everything we can to counter it.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Minister has referred to the threat that Russia poses to UK national security. A former Irish Teachta Dála who was also a deputy chief of an Irish army unit has said:
“If you are looking to affect a western country with extensive assets and poor security culture, then Ireland is ground zero…It is a playground for them.”
He was specifically speaking of Russian intelligence. The Minister has rightly referred to working with EU and international partners. May I seek an assurance that he is also working with the Irish Government and Irish security forces to ensure that the Republic of Ireland does not become a soft way into Northern Ireland and, indeed, the rest of the United Kingdom?
Dan Jarvis
That is an entirely reasonable challenge, and I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he seeks.
Northern Ireland: Legacy of the Past
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Tonia Antoniazzi will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which time no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of the statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair and not the relevant Minister. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting me the opportunity to make this statement, following the publication on Monday of our report, “The Government’s new approach to addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland”.
Getting the approach right is key to protecting more than 20 years of fragile peace in Northern Ireland, which is a truly remarkable achievement. However, the past still casts a shadow over the present for many people, particularly those who have lost loved ones or who were injured or suffered significant trauma during the conflict. Unresolved cases of killing, torture and serious injury can poison relations in the present. Our report is a unanimous cross-party document. It is the culmination of a year’s work, and I am grateful to our Committee specialist, Dr Joe Ryan-Hume, and our specialist adviser, Dr Eamonn O’Kane, for their diligent and sensitive contribution to that work.
In December last year, my Committee launched an inquiry into the Government’s then emerging plans. We received almost 80 pieces of written evidence, and held eight evidence sessions with representatives of victims and survivors, veterans, retired police officers and human rights groups. We also heard twice from the Secretary of State. Importantly, too, we visited Northern Ireland to hear at first hand from people directly affected by the troubles. As a cross-party group, we recognise the significance of raising these concerns with a unified voice, and I am deeply appreciative of my colleagues’ collaborative spirit in shaping a report built on consensus. This was considered, constructive and consensual work, done at pace, so that we could produce a report before the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill returns to the Floor of the House for its Committee stage. It is our hope that the detail in the report can frame the parameters of the debate, in this House and beyond, on a host of issues.
I will start with the commission. We found that the current main legacy investigation body, the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, has been unable to garner the trust and authority necessary across the communities to carry out its work effectively. It was clear that its roots in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 hampered it from the beginning, and that fundamental reform was inevitable. There remain, however, several outstanding issues.
On investigations, the Government must address the lack of a specific requirement for the investigations process to be ECHR-compliant, and the de facto exclusion of most troubles-related sexual crimes from the commission’s remit. On case referrals, the Government’s plans to widen the range of people and organisations who can refer a case to the new legacy commission seem sensible, but changes could still be made to the definition of “close family member” to make it more inclusive and reflective of the reality of modern family life. The centralising of appointment powers, so that they are held by the Secretary of State, was also raised as an issue. Greater transparency and clear guidance on appointment processes are needed to bolster confidence.
The Government’s proposal for reform of the commission’s governance and oversight may answer many of the concerns that we heard, but several remain. For example, concerns have been raised about the proposed victims and survivors advisory group—about who its members will be and how they will be appointed, and about the potential duplication of the role performed by the victims forum in Northern Ireland.
I turn to resources. All the reform, good will and political impetus in the world will not lead to truth and justice if there is not enough money, either for investigatory or information-disclosing bodies. The ICRIR has pointed out the increase in demand on its services—something that we hope will only continue under the new commission. If the commission is to receive relevant information in a timely manner, the resourcing of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and other organisations that will face new demands for their records will also need to be considered.
Let me turn to the proposals for inquests. The Government’s plans for an enhanced inquisitorial mechanism through the legacy commission are seen by some as an improvement on the system produced by the 2023 Act. However, concerns persist, including about why judges presiding are to be appointed by Ministers, rather than through the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission.
I turn to veterans. As I said at the outset, we took evidence from veterans’ representatives during our inquiry. The Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, who we heard from twice, told us most recently that the Government had been listening to veterans’ concerns “to an extent”, but added that what was proposed was not really protections for veterans, so much as safeguards for all witnesses. Indeed, the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors described the measures to us at the same hearing as
“welfare…that you would want to afford to anyone involved in the process of engaging with the Legacy Commission.”
We concluded that by packaging proposals as protections, rather than safeguards available to all, the Government risk undermining trust in the process among the very groups —veterans and others—in whom they hope to instil confidence. We also said that the reopening of previously defective investigations should take place only where necessary for the purposes of European convention on human rights compatibility, or owing to new evidence.
Information disclosure has been, and remains, one of the most significant issues with legacy policy. The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill assigns the Government a new role in balancing information disclosure with national security—something that Ministers did not undertake under previous legacy measures before the 2023 Act, or with Operation Kenova—hence concerns persist about trust, appeal rights and how the provision will operate in practice.
The Government plan to move information retrieval matters to the new Independent Commission on Information Retrieval. Again, Ministers will need to strike a balance, this time between safeguarding the information provided to the commission, so that individuals have the confidence to engage with it, and verifying that information, so that the public have confidence in the commission’s reports. We also hear that there is a lack of detail on the body’s relationship with the Legacy Commission and the extent to which an information firewall will exist between them.
With regard to the ICIR and in other areas, the Government of Ireland will also have to play a part. There must be more detail on the Irish Government’s timeline for introducing similar structures to those being provided here, and also more information on the proposed legacy unit in the Garda. To be clear, throughout our inquiry we consistently heard about the lack of commitment to address legacy in Ireland. We were also told by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission that there has been a lack of compliance in the Republic of Ireland and a lack of commitment to beginning and completing article 2 investigations.
I and some of my Committee colleagues met Irish Government officials on Monday as part of a visit to Dublin. We were encouraged by the dedication and determination of those involved to establish legacy mechanisms. At this juncture, we urge Dublin to move at pace to show its commitment and mutual good faith, and to maximise confidence and the likelihood of successful outcomes.
On Monday we also met TDs and Senators from across the political spectrum. We agreed that the framework, the Bill and our report represent an opportunity to take forward legacy policy. Among the many issues we discussed, we reflected on what it might mean if people from one community heard those in another community say “sorry”. Reconciliation is difficult and cannot be forced on anyone. My Committee colleagues and I plan to explore it in more detail next year, but it is clear right now—not least from the brave testimony of victims and survivors during our inquiry—that reconciliation stands a chance of succeeding only if accompanied by people’s admissions, and acknowledgment, of the truth.
In conclusion, legacy is not only about addressing the past; it is about laying the foundations for a better future. It has been a privilege to lead this vital inquiry, and I am deeply humbled by the courage of those who I have had the honour to meet. Our Committee’s report gives the Government the opportunity to pause and reflect on a process that is vital to the future of Northern Ireland. If they do so, they will help ensure that we all seize this chance to put the people who matter most—those who lived through the troubles and still experience its effect today—at the heart of this new approach. We owe it to them to get this right.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I agree entirely with the Chairman of the Committee that reconciliation depends upon uncovering the truth. Does her Committee’s report go into the incompatibility of that aim with the reinstatement of trials that the previous legacy Act would have prevented, given that when people face the prospect of being put on trial, they are less likely, rather than more likely, to say what actually happened?
Tonia Antoniazzi
With regard to veterans going on trial, we did take evidence and heard those concerns, and it is reflected in our report. I would happily have a conversation with the right hon. Member to pursue that further. His expertise in this field is welcomed by all members of the Committee from across the House, so I thank him.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent statement on our important report on the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland. I want to acknowledge the Committee staff, Chloe and Joe, who are sitting in the Gallery, who helped put our report together. The clear message from the families, the representatives and the victims, to whom I pay tribute, who we met across the Province was that they want answers, justice and to finally move on. With that in mind, will my hon. Friend set out how she thinks Members of this House can engage more properly and effectively with colleagues in the Oireachtas and the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that we give full voice to all those affected by the troubles?
Tonia Antoniazzi
Having met the Good Friday agreement Committee and other Members in Dublin, it is imperative for us, and for Members of Parliament who have not spent time in Northern Ireland, to engage with what life is like for people and the legacy they live with. I commend my hon. Friend for his efforts in encouraging cross-party and cross-country collaboration with our counterparts not just in Dublin, but in Northern Ireland.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I apologise—I have only just seen this report. I was not aware that it was coming out in this statement, so forgive me if the hon. Lady has already covered this.
Two questions have emerged. The first is that one of the biggest criticisms as the Bill went through the House of Commons and that still remains—I say this as somebody who served in Northern Ireland and is among the veterans—is what appears to be the treatment of veterans and of those who committed the atrocities in one and the same way. It is their real concern that they are getting mixed up now with the idea of those who started this process and committed the most awful atrocities.
The second element is the role of Ireland. Its refusal to carry out parallel inquiries and to play a full part on topics like the Omagh bombing are big questions that have been asked. To what degree does the hon. Lady think the Government should address those questions seriously, because there was a distinct refusal on the Front Bench to deal with that last issue in any form?
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank the right hon. Member and respect that he served in Northern Ireland, as we know many people have. The Irish Government have pledged to co-operate with the UK public inquiry, but it was clear from what we heard that victims’ families are frustrated with the decision not to commit to their own inquiry on the Omagh bombing, and that the lack of progress on the Republic of Ireland’s inquiry remains a profound obstacle to uncovering the truth. But we did hear positive statements when we were in Dublin, and I do have a greater understanding of why, alongside the troubles Bill going through Parliament now, there may be a misunderstanding. We urged them as a Committee to be more transparent and open with us and with the UK Government, so we know what they are doing and that they are not hiding anything from us.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Again, I thank my hon. Friend for the work done on the report. Building on the question from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), does the report highlight the importance of ensuring that we have ECHR-compliant processes in place if we want to ensure that there is full buy-in from the institutions in the Republic of Ireland in being able to answer the questions that victims and families need them to answer?
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank my hon. Friend for her dedication and work on the Committee, and her ability to ask the questions that need asking. The absence of a clear requirement for ECHR compliance has been an issue. The fact that we are now moving forward with ECHR-compliant investigations is important. Those conversations with Dublin and the Irish Government are key. As I said to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), that will be important moving forwards.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I am grateful to the Committee for its report and to the hon. Lady for her statement. Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), protections for veterans really mean a lot to those who served in Northern Ireland. It is important to stress that when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced these measures back in September when the House was in recess, he said the protections were specifically for veterans. Subsequently, he admitted in response to my written questions that they were available to all potential participants. Does she agree that we need absolute clarity on whether the protections are unique to veterans or would actually apply to former paramilitaries?
Tonia Antoniazzi
The hon. Member makes a good point, but what we need to do is get that clarification from the Secretary of State. I am not here to give an opinion; I am here to present the findings of our report. The Government call them “protections”. Should they be protections and who are they for? We need clarity around that.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend, who chaired the process diligently, often in receipt of very difficult evidence from those who served and also those involved in the reconciliation process. On our visit to Dublin, it was great to understand how much of an improvement there has been in relations between the UK Government and the Irish Government, because that is the only way we will deliver what the people need us to deliver.
On reconciliation, the report lays out a path for what the Government must do to ensure that reconciliation is not lost as part of the process, as part 4 remains the same as it did in the previous Bill. Could the Chair of the Committee give us more detail on what she thinks the Government need to do to ensure reconciliation is delivered at the same time?
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. We have not seen much detail on reconciliation, but our Committee will consider it. I commend the Government on their much-improved relations with the Irish Government. It is testament to the Secretary of State and his new Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), that we are in this position, and I am very grateful to them for it, but we need to make reconciliation work going forward, as my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) says.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I thank the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for her report. It has been a pleasure to serve under her chairship on that Committee for the past year, and it is a personal sadness that I no longer serve on it. She mentioned that the Committee received evidence about a collective loss of confidence and faith in the ICRIR. Will she take this opportunity to make it clear that we also received evidence setting out that there was no loss of personal faith or confidence in the leadership of that organisation? Sir Declan Morgan impressed us all with his honour, decency and candour. He just happened to be leading an organisation that was compromised for the very fact of its birth.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank the hon. Member for his service on the Committee, where his background in academia played an important role. Sir Declan Morgan brought integrity to the commission, and I thank him personally for his work. The evidence shows that it was not him but the set-up of the institution he was leading that caused it to fail.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for the evidence sessions. The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill will go into Committee of the whole House, so those sessions will be the only opportunity for witnesses to come put forward and give their testimonies on the Bill and the current legislation. Forty-two amendments and five new clauses have already been tabled, which shows the interest in it and the further work that needs to be done on it.
On the warm words of the Irish Government, I have been involved in those conversations for 14 years and heard a lot of warm words, but we have never seen anything on legacy from the Irish Government, either on paper or in delivery. Will the Chair of the Select Committee continue to put pressure on her own Front Benchers to produce some action in that regard?
In one recommendation, the Committee suggests that the
“exclusion of…Troubles-related sexual crimes from the commission’s remit”
ought to be addressed in the Bill. In that case, will the Chair of the Select Committee support my amendment 4, which would do that?
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution and for our engagement. It is unfortunate that he is unable to join the Committee—I find it disappointing, but that is how the procedures work. I have heard what he and others have said about the Irish Government’s warm words. As a Committee, we will continue to have dialogue and very frank conversations with them, and with our Government, to get the answers that he and others in Northern Ireland require.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and its members for all they have done. In the last paragraph of her statement, she mentioned the “people who matter most”. I believe that those who matter most are those who served and died in uniform and sacrificed themselves for freedom and liberty. The IRA murderers have never been made accountable for all the things that have happened. I think of 10 December 1971, when my cousin was murdered. Those who killed him and his friend Daniel McCormick escaped across the border 54 years ago. We have been waiting for justice for 54 years—and we are not the only ones. I know you would not let me rattle off a list of names, Madam Deputy Speaker, but there are so many people who want justice. We want justice; our families want justice. How will the legacy of the past ensure that those who served this country, and their families, get justice?
Tonia Antoniazzi
The hon. Member is well respected. I will endeavour to fight for his family in their loss, and I will ensure that the Committee does everything it can to provide justice and evidence, and make that wrong a right.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I have no doubt that the House will join me in backing the statement that we all value and respect the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Bill Presented
War in Ukraine
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Sir Bernard Jenkin, who will speak for around 15 minutes.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House again condemns President Putin’s war of aggression in Ukraine, which is nowin its fourth year of tragedy and destruction; condemns the atrocities committed by Russia in Ukraine, in particular the abduction of Ukrainian children; supports efforts to negotiate a durable and lasting peace agreement; asserts that this must reaffirm all Ukrainian sovereign territory as recognised in international law, including any occupied territories; believes that Ukraine’s sovereignty must be guaranteed by all parties including by all NATO nations and by the EU, to mirror Article V of the NATO Treaty; further believes that Ukraine must be free to sustain capability to deter a future Russian attack; also supports increased economic sanctions further to reduce Russian revenues from the export of oil and gas; and urges the Government and the UK’s allies to accelerate military support for Ukraine, and to release frozen Russian assets for the financing of increased military spending in Ukraine as soon as possible.
The motion stands in my name and those of many right hon. and hon. Members from across the House. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for providing time for this debate—the first full debate on Ukraine since February. The motion can be summarised very simply: Ukraine must and can win.
The Russia-Ukraine war was never some regional territorial dispute, as some would like to believe. It has now moved far beyond conventional geopolitics; it is not about territory and cannot be solved by Ukraine ceding territory to Russia. That is because it is an existential clash between competing visions of how global security should be organised, and indeed of the nature of our society. It is the result of a long-standing intellectual current within Russia: a mix of imperial nostalgia, nationalist theology, and a deliberate rejection of democracy and the Western rules-based order. Furthermore, that ideological framework is not fading but growing, adapting and continually finding new ways to justify the unjustifiable, both at home and abroad. Russia’s view of a desirable world order is one based on spheres of influence and the right of big countries to impose their will on smaller neighbours.
Putin and his henchmen are not politicians as we understand the word. They are intelligence officers and soldiers who have turned the tradecraft of the KGB into the statecraft of the Russian state, in the pursuit of building their world order and destroying ours. For that gang of autocrats, an independent Ukraine is not just inconvenient; they cannot tolerate Ukraine’s independence because it threatens the very foundations of their own idea of Russian identity. Their war in Ukraine is only part of a much larger war in their minds—a war that involves the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe, whether we like it or not. Yes, this war has come to us. I am reminded of the words of Leon Trotsky—and I use the word “you” advisedly as I quote him, Madam Deputy Speaker:
“You might not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”
Putin and his henchmen have been saying for a long time that they are at war with us. In the past few weeks alone, expert commentators such as Fiona Hill, Eliza Manningham-Buller, the former director general of MI5, and Lord Robertson, the ex-Secretary-General of NATO, have all affirmed that Russia is at war with us—and yes, I mean Russia, not just Putin. This is because Putin’s gang of ideologues are skilled at exploiting the resentments of the Russian people in a highly controlled information environment, so that the people accept their lies and support what they have been told: that Russia is in some fight for its survival against the hostile west.
Some western policymakers find this reality unpalatable. They prefer the illusion that Putin might accept some compromise—some deal whereby Ukraine might trade land for peace. But let there be no mistake: that is not just wishful thinking; it is dangerous, because it both ignores the motive for Russia to wage this war and denies that Russia has already unleashed war against Europe and the United Kingdom.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
David Burton-Sampson
The hon. Gentleman is giving a great speech, and I agree with his points. With spy ships through the channel and submarines off the coast of Scotland, does he agree that it is vital for not only Ukraine but the rest of Europe that we work closely with the coalition of the willing throughout this conflict?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Of course I agree with that, and I will come back to how we work with our allies later.
The first thing we must understand is how the character of war has changed. In today’s war, everything is a weapon: disinformation, terrorism, sabotage, assassination, psychological manipulation, malign influence, cyber-attacks, economic warfare, menacing undersea cables—even energy, food and fertiliser are used as weapons. Let us also not forget that Russia has weaponised the abduction of Ukrainian children, which is just one of the atrocities that it inflicts on the occupied territories. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) cannot be here, but I hope that her cause will be taken up by someone else in the debate.
Make no mistake: we are today already under a sustained assault through a co-ordinated campaign that merges all these weapons and others, and these attacks are steadily increasing in audacity and seriousness. They are sometimes reported in the press but often downplayed by wishful Governments who are unwilling to acknowledge these attacks for what they are. They can appear to be isolated acts of espionage, sabotage or diversion, but they are not. They are elements of a systematic, strategic offensive designed to undermine public trust in our Governments and our democratic systems, to fragment our societies, to establish groups that destabilise our countries from within, and above all, to probe our defences and to find weaknesses to exploit further. This is a test of the resilience of our entire society.
This is hybrid warfare, or grey-zone warfare, but the term “total war” might be more accurate as a description. “The New Total War” is the apposite title of a recent book authored by the former Member for the Isle of Wight, Bob Seely. The Baltic and Nordic countries and Poland are currently the main targets, but so is the UK. Indeed, the UK is singled out by Russia as public enemy No. 1 because Russia sees the UK, quite rightly, as a bulwark against threats and coercion that intimidate some other countries.
But grey-zone warfare is by no means the only threat the UK faces. Our critical national infrastructure is exposed, particularly offshore. NATO and the UK lack comprehensive air defence. Just this week, Putin said Russia is “ready” for war with NATO. We have to be honest when we answer this question: how ready are we?
There is also a dangerous narrative taking hold that Ukraine is losing the war with Russia in Ukraine and that we must just accept this. That is wholly wrong. There are in fact detailed assessments, publicly available, which demonstrate that Russia cannot win militarily, so long as NATO countries continue to give military and financial support to Ukraine and economic sanctions against Russia are maintained and strengthened.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I give way to the hon. Lady and thank her for her support.
Helen Maguire
Is the hon. Member aware that the Russian state is so deprived of military equipment currently that it is taking tanks out of museums to try to get them on to the battlefield?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
That is certainly true, but the Russians are also depending more and more on what they produce in their factories rather than their legacy stock, which is making the war more and more expensive for them. They are not in an ideal position.
The initial Russian dash for Kyiv was disastrous for the Russian army. The Russians failed from day one to establish air superiority over Ukraine, which is effectively a no-fly zone for Russian military aircraft. Ukraine has succeeded in developing technology and tactics that make Russian attempts to advance extraordinarily costly. Ukraine’s ability to strike at Russian military and economic assets deep in Russia is increasing. There is absolutely nothing inevitable about a Russian victory over Ukraine. If we continue to sustain Ukraine and to undermine the Russian economy with sanctions, Russia will be forced to change its calculus for carrying on.
Nevertheless, Putin is projecting confidence that he is winning, but let us be clear: this is not because of the military situation but because of a lack of political will in so many NATO countries. If Putin wins, it is only because we let Putin win, as we let him win in Georgia, the Crimea and the Russian oblasts of eastern Ukraine before he embarked on the attempt to take Kyiv. He proved that we are soft, and his confidence is based on his continued belief that nothing has changed.
It has often been pointed out that the combined GDP of all NATO is vastly greater than Russia’s, so we should have nothing to fear, but that advantage only matters if we have the will to use this economic superiority to defeat Russia’s expansionist agenda. War is about nothing if it is not about willpower. Sadly, with a few notable exceptions such as the Baltic states and Poland, we have yet to demonstrate that willpower to win.
That is particularly due to the United States. First, the vacillation of President Biden and his fear of fuelling escalation gave Russia time to build up its war machine and exploit wider alliances. Now, the despicable and disastrous attitude of President Trump seems to offer Putin the opportunity to achieve everything he wants: the subjugation of Ukraine, the humiliation of NATO and the enlargement of the Russian sphere of influence at the expense of European security. Ironically, the effect of the Trump Administration’s 28-point peace plan has been to encourage Putin to keep the war going. That is because Trump appears ready to give President Putin everything he wants—Ukraine as a Russian vassal state. There is no incentive for Putin to stop this war under these circumstances, while the US is seeking to force Ukraine and Europe to accept peace at any price. It sometimes looks as if European resolve might also crumble. Trump thinks he is the master of the universe, but he is in fact being psychologically manipulated by Putin with flattery and—I make no bones about it—with bribes.
But something positive in Europe may finally be happening. Despite the tendency of European leaders to focus on the differences between them, Merz, Macron, our own Prime Minister and the leaders of NATO and the EU have shown remarkable unity. There is a realisation that a so-called peace agreed on Trump’s terms would not be peace at all. Putin would continue his campaign by other means. There would be little or no deterrence to discourage Putin from resuming military action on some bogus pretext at some future date. As Kaja Kallas, the European Union foreign policy chief, has explained:
“Russia has never truly had to come to terms with its brutal past or bear the consequences of its actions”.
She has argued that the nature of the Russian regime means that
“rewarding aggression will bring more war, not less”.
She is right: Putin will come back for more.
The democratic world cannot forget the lessons of history. The attitude of some is an eerie parallel of what Chamberlain said about Hitler’s annexation of the Czech Sudetenland, which he described as
“a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing.”
Let this House never forget that Russia signed the 2004 Budapest memorandum, which probits the use of military force in Ukraine. President Putin disregarded that undertaking when he annexed Crimea and then attacked eastern Ukraine. How many times do we need to learn this lesson? In Putin’s world, Russia recognises no international law, only its own absolute sovereignty, so a Russian signature on any treaty is not to be trusted, unless it can be externally guaranteed by people who have the necessary force.
Putin is already taunting the UK and NATO with hybrid war attacks. A Russian ship firing lasers at UK military aircraft in neutral airspace would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. This cannot just be ignored. Russia is testing NATO responses and mocking our slow pace of re-arming. The consequences of remaining passive would be dire for the credibility of NATO as a deterrent force. Letting Russia have its agenda would also increase Russia’s credibility with neutral countries, at the expense of NATO and our allies. They will see the EU and NATO as representing waning powers, unable to contain Russia as we did during the cold war.
The agreement on much tougher proposals at Geneva last week, while still engaging with Secretary of State Rubio, is a real achievement. The latest news that Putin has again refused to stop the war exposes him as the true aggressor. This is a war that he could instantly stop oh so easily. So long as Europe and NATO continue to support Ukraine, and Ukraine refuses to settle on Russian terms, then Putin will not agree to a ceasefire, until he realises that there is no diplomatic shortcut open to him.
The biggest risk we face is that Trump loses interest in his peace effort and withdraws support for Ukraine. However, there is already evidence that Trump’s power over the Congress is waning. Abandoning Ukraine would split US politics. We must hope that the US will also continue with intelligence support, but we should be ready for that to stop. If necessary, Europe should offer to pay for that intelligence, if that enables that intelligence support to be continued.
Settling for a fake peace on unsustainable Trump-Witkoff terms would be far worse. We in Europe have to accept that President Trump’s actions have demonstrated that he does not care about Ukraine, and his commitment to European security is, at best, ambiguous. The right plan is for European NATO to be ready to continue to support Ukrainian resistance to Russia’s demands whatever happens, to continue to support Ukraine’s military, and to help to finance Ukraine’s increasingly effective defence industries. That is why today’s motion refers to the release of the €140 billion Russian frozen assets in Europe, which is vital. Russia will then continue to suffer the astronomical attrition, on men and matériel, at vast financial cost. More intensive sanctions must also bite on their economy.
In truth, we can kid ourselves about the Russian economy, but it remains pretty resilient. However, sanctions have reduced foreign exchange earnings by some 20%—they come only from the export of oil and gas—and Russia’s domestic banks are now the only buyers of Russian Government bonds. This is not a long-term sustainable position for Russia. Secondary sanctions applied to the Russian shadow fleet, and to countries that enable that shadow fleet to exist, have made and can continue to make the export of oil and gas less and less profitable, or even loss-making for Russia.
Above all, we see the Russian army advancing so slowly in Ukraine, taking tiny areas of land at incredible human cost. We are seeing a land war that Russia cannot win. It has taken all of this year for Russia to take the small town of Pokrovsk, and at the cost of some 100,000 casualties.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
They have not really taken it.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
My right hon. Friend is right: the Russians have not already taken the town, although they say they have. The US ambassador to NATO pointed out recently that a snail crawling from the Russia border westwards would now be in the middle of Poland, had it left at the same time as the beginning of the invasion—that is how badly the Russians are doing militarily.
There is no breakthrough that would give Russia strategic military success, so Putin escalates by ramping up hybrid warfare on NATO states. He wants to move the focus of the war on to fresh battlefields. He attacks Ukrainian energy infrastructure. He could launch a miliary attack on a NATO member country using a form of warfare for which that country, unlike Ukraine, is not prepared. Such an attack on an ally would necessitate a response by the UK, if deterrence is to remain credible. It might even involve UK troops in Estonia, for example. Our troops are not prepared for the kind of drone warfare that we are seeing in Ukraine. If Russia did that, what would we do? I leave that question hanging in the air.
An attack could involve a missile attack on targets within the UK, for which we are equally unprepared, or on our offshore assets. Our allies in Germany, Poland and Finland take very seriously the real risk that Europe may be drawn into a more military confrontation with Russia, and a lot sooner than is comfortable to acknowledge.
What must we do in the face of this now obvious threat to our security? We must acknowledge and explain to our population that we are indeed at war now, and we must explain the nature of the hybrid threat. We must call out Russian hybrid attacks for what they are and we must devise robust responses, as well as increasing our own defences. Are these interceptions, and no more, a sufficient response?
We must constantly adapt the use of sanctions, realising that, like any weapon, Russia will devise countermeasures to evade them. We must, as a real priority, increase our military and economic support to Ukraine, however difficult that might be. We need to make it clear, by both our words and our actions, that Russia cannot win this war. I say to the Minister for the Armed Forces, who will respond to the debate, that it is not enough for us to repeat the mantra “for as long as it takes.” What does that mean? It has already taken far too long. We must commit to supporting Ukraine until Ukraine achieves victory, and soon, and that is possible.
What does that victory look like? Ukraine must be able to sustain itself as a secure and independent sovereign state, as part of the family of free and democratic nations. Victory is no threat to Russian territory or sovereignty—there is no plan or objective to topple President Putin—but this victory is the only way to prevent Russia from discrediting NATO and corroding the confidence that we democracies can and must use to prevent despots from degrading the global international order.
To help to achieve peace, we in the UK must accelerate our own war readiness, as the Defence Committee set out in its recent report. The noble Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, who oversaw the Government’s strategic defence review, recently remarked:
“We are under-prepared…we’re under attack and we’re not safe”.
Changing that does not simply mean strengthening our armed forces, although that is essential; it also means adapting a lot of things in our country so that we can survive and fight a war. That will be difficult, even painful, so the sooner we start, the better, because it is weakness that encourages Putin—the stronger we are, the less likely we are to be attacked.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for securing the debate and for making such an eloquent speech—he made all the points that I was going to make in my speech, but I will make it nevertheless.
Today is 1,379 days since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, but let us not forget that Ukraine had already been at war with Russia for eight years. We all remember the rhetoric from the Kremlin: that Kyiv would fall in three days. Last week we heard from former Russian ground forces commander, Vladimir Chirkin, who made a rare criticism of the Kremlin from inside Russia. He said that Russia had not been prepared for its invasion of Ukraine. It is instructive to the House to quote him:
“we had the traditional underestimation of the opponent and overestimation of our own military”
as Russia had been buoyed by confidence from its five-day war in Georgia in 2008. He continued:
“During the first few weeks, we were taught a serious harsh lesson, and the former Defence Minister tried to find a face-saving exit from the situation, calling what was happening a ‘gesture of goodwill.’”
Chirkin also criticised the entire Russian intelligence community for telling the leadership that 70% of the Ukrainian population supported the invasion, which turned out to be entirely false. We know that well over 90% of Ukrainians—even in the east, in the south and in Crimea—support the continued sovereignty of Ukraine. That was one of the first times that a top Russian official has made such public criticism of Russia’s war effort—something that can lead to criminal charges in Russia.
Let us be under no illusion: in this country we are in our own war with Russia. Every day, the Russians undertake hybrid attacks against us, but here, unlike in Ukraine, where children are under direct threat of death and abduction from Russia, our children are under threat of online manipulation. Although our buildings are not under immediate threat of destruction by Russian drones, our borders are being tested by reconnaissance and dummy drones to assess our readiness for a full-scale war.
I have been to Ukraine seven times since the start of the full-scale invasion, and not just to Kyiv or Lviv; I have travelled that great country in its time of greatest need, visiting Vinnytsia, Zhytomyr, Odesa, Chernihiv, Mykolaiv, Kherson oblast, Dnipro, Zaporizhzhia and my sister city of Kharkiv, which has had a relationship with Leeds since not long after the full-scale invasion began. I have seen at first hand the strength, courage and determination of Ukraine and the commitment to Ukrainian culture, language and identity.
I know that the Ukrainian people will never allow their identity to be subsumed by Russia. That is why the Russian practice of stealing Ukrainian children, Russifying them and then, when of age, sending them back to Ukraine to fight for Russia is so abhorrent. It is the worst, most dystopian war crime one can imagine. We need to ensure that Russia is prosecuted at the International Criminal Court for that. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for her amazing work in leading the APPG on that matter.
There is so much that we can say about the needs of Ukraine. I do not think we should use the debate to provide a running commentary on the war, or on the stalled peace talks, which Russia has disingenuously used to try to pursue its original war goals. I do want to talk about what could turn the dial.
As we all know, only maximum pressure on Russia and placing Ukraine in the strongest possible position will create a scenario where a ceasefire can be agreed. The twin approach of seizing Russian state assets for military aid and squeezing the Russian economy through the strongest possible sanctions regime may create those conditions, and it would certainly put Ukraine in a much stronger position than it is now.
We all know what assets are held in Euroclear, and we need those assets to be seized and repurposed for the self-defence of Ukraine. Euroclear has been holding about €200 billion belonging to Russia’s central bank, which is the majority of an estimated €260 billion in sovereign Russian assets held in the west. The full seizure of Russian assets is clearly proportional to the crimes committed by the Russian state against Ukraine, and any post-war settlement will incur huge reparations, so the seizure of assets is paying forward a long tradition of post-war reparations.
I welcome the news yesterday that the European Commission plans to move forward quickly with the reparations loan to Ukraine using frozen Russian assets, or an EU loan based on common borrowing, with a figure of €90 billion being reported, which is significant. That second option is due to some reservations from the Belgian Government, who host Euroclear in Brussels. I welcome Ursula von der Leyen’s statement that Ukraine must have “the means to defend” itself
“and take forward peace negotiations for a position of strength.”
I am sure the entire House agrees with that.
Publicly available information indicates that the United Kingdom has frozen private, corporate and Russian assets belonging to sanctioned individuals amounting to £28 billion. Will the Minister indicate the total value of sovereign Russian state assets currently frozen in the United Kingdom and whether the Government are prepared immediately to allocate those funds not subject to the approval of international partners, such as Euroclear assets, to support Ukraine during this difficult time?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
It is interesting that although we have all mounted pressure on the UK Government, and the Foreign Office in particular, to seize these assets and use their capital value—most of the assets are in cash now anyway—the answer has been a refusal. I understand the nervousness about resulting market instability, but the Government have said that the interest from the capital can be used, even though you cannot own the interest if you do not own the capital. We are dancing on the head of a pin. Would it not be better if the Government were clear, seized the capital once and for all, and regularised the use of that money, one way or another?
Alex Sobel
I agree. It is not just that the profits or interest from assets held here should be repurposed; we should look at how those assets are being managed, and maximise them, for use for Ukraine’s purposes. I will conclude my question to the Minister: will the United Kingdom be part of the reparations loan to Ukraine scheme, alongside the EU, if or when that comes about?
I will be brief on sanctions, as I have spoken about them many times before. More action is needed on two issues: we need to complete the sanction regime against the shadow fleet, and to sanction third-country imports to Russia. We also need to strengthen our enforcement in those areas. The shadow fleet is not just a way of Russia moving its fossil fuel exports and financing its illegal war; the unseaworthiness of the vessels is a danger to both people and the environment. In recent days, two Russian shadow fleet tankers went up in flames in the Turkish Black sea—again, that is a danger to people and to the ecosystem of the Black sea.
The shadow fleet is estimated to number about 630 vessels, and nearly all of them are old and in a poor state of repair. The recent large sanction packages from the US, EU and UK are welcome, but obviously the fleet evolves over time, and as many as 200 vessels are not yet sanctioned. We also need to use much more diplomatic muscle to ensure sanctions enforcement, in order to prevent the shadow fleet from not only docking, but using nearshore waters for repairs, refuelling and supply, which sometimes happens even in countries that have sanctioned the shadow fleet. Crippling the shadow fleet is crippling Russia.
The Government have moved on third-party sanctions. For instance, Kazakhstan has had a huge surge in imports of British luxury cars. UK automotive exports to Kazakhstan between January and April 2023 were 3,900% higher than in the same period in 2022. I was unsure whether there really was such a surge in interest in our vehicles in Kazakhstan, so I looked up the guidance on exporting to Kazakhstan from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and it states—I will be slightly long on this—that
“Russia is going to great lengths to circumvent sanctions, and continues to procure Western military, dual-use, and other critical goods through third countries, including beyond battlefield technologies. Russia relies on deceptive tactics, such as indirect shipping routes, falsification of the end-uses of goods and professional evasion networks.”
Kazakhstan might receive an order from a Russian importer for goods that are subject to UK sanctions, and so cannot be obtained directly in Russia from the UK. The Kazakh firm orders the goods from a UK supplier without informing it—or others involved, such as bankers, insurers and shippers—that the end user of the goods is Russia. The UK supplier exports the goods to the Kazakh firm, which exports them to Russia. That practice, and others like it, constitute the circumvention of sanctions. The risk of that happening may affect all parties in a supply chain.
That FCDO guidance is clearly helpful and instructive to anybody trading with Kazakhstan, or pretty much any other country neighbouring Russia that is not a member of NATO or the EU—or Ukraine, obviously. I know that the Minister is not from the Department for Business and Trade or the FCDO, but how many UK firms have had export licences revoked because they have traded with countries neighbouring Russia for the purposes of sanction evasion? My concern is that we have the guidance and know what is happening—we see a rise in exports of certain goods—but we are not taking action against individual companies. The answer would be instructive. Taking action would put us in a much stronger position when it comes to supporting Ukraine and trying to stymie the Russian economy.
To conclude, what we do in the next few months will decide the fate of Europe for the next 50 years. Will we scale up our support for Ukraine and ensure that the Ukrainian people have a democratic future in the European family, or will we slow-walk and slide slowly into our own military conflict with Russia? This is the time for us all to stand with Ukraine and ensure not just its future, but all our futures. Slava Ukraini!
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
If Members keep their contributions to under 10 minutes, we can get everybody in. I call the Father of the House.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Western societies are visibly divided over how to respond to Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and those divisions play directly into Vladimir Putin’s strategic aims. Putin’s method has always been to widen fractures within democracies, and to exploit hesitation among allies.
At one pole of the debate are those who believe that any compromise with Moscow would amount to a betrayal of Ukraine and a surrender on moral principle; at the opposite pole are soft apologists for Putin, who dismiss support for Ukraine as naive, or attribute it to sinister global conspiracies. Those extremes distort sensible discussion, and we must fight against both ends to strengthen the thoughtful, strategic centre ground of this debate. Giving in to either extreme just makes it more difficult to develop and deploy a coherent western policy. The responsible course is to steer between absolutism and appeasement, while protecting both Ukrainian sovereignty and our own national interest.
The Ukrainian armed forces have performed very well, and have proved that they can defend their homeland. Ukraine continues to hold the line across hundreds of miles. There are those who claim that the Russians are winning, or that their victory is inevitable, but the history books are replete with examples of outcomes deemed inevitable that never happened. Experience on the ground shows that this war will not be a slam dunk for either side.
Predictions of imminent Russian victory ignore the reality that Ukrainian defences remain resilient and adaptive. War is the mother of invention, and the Ukrainians have been extremely innovative in adapting their offensive means, as well as defending against Russian countermeasures. As long as Ukraine retains control of the territory it holds, claims that Russia is “winning” do not stand realistic scrutiny. Morale, ingenuity and international support have enabled Ukraine to deny Putin the strategic breakthrough he seeks.
We in the United Kingdom have been one of Ukraine’s most consistent and substantial supporters, and we should be proud of that. We should be open to further support where prudent, while maintaining our clear position that the UK will not become an active combatant.
Critics who deride President Trump’s peace efforts overlook the value of initiatives that at least attempt to move the conflict towards negotiation. Putin’s rejection of recent proposals underscores that the obstacle to peace lies in Moscow, not with Ukraine or among Ukraine’s friends. I hope people will forgive me for not being entirely rude about our closest ally, but let us be honest: many people are attacking Trump’s proposals just because they are Trump’s. If the proposals had come from Mr Biden or a prospective President Harris, critics may have been cautious, but they would not have attempted to stand in their way. We should not let political prejudice undermine our careful examination of substantial proposals for ending the active conflict.
President Trump is putting forward constructive proposals, and we should understand them and be supportive, if necessary, while questioning them. It is easy to demand endless resistance from the comfort of our own homes, but it is our Ukrainian friends who are paying the price in blood, lives and the future of their country. There is no virtue in insisting on absolute maximalist goals while others must bear the human cost of achieving them.
Ukraine and Russia once enjoyed deep cultural, social and economic ties, and Putin has singlehandedly killed all that. He alone is responsible for turning two neighbouring peoples against each other. It will take multiple generations before Ukraine and Russia can be friends again, but we can try to help them to at least stop making war, and at least try to end the killing. Of course, the ideal solution is for Russian forces to withdraw; if they did that today, everyone would rejoice. However, we must deal with the reality: they are not going to do that.
Cessation of hostilities is therefore the necessary first step. Responsible policymakers must prepare for outcomes that fall short of our ideals, while still ending the bloodshed. President Trump’s efforts to encourage negotiation represent an attempt to find practical steps towards a ceasefire. I agree that no agreement can be legitimate without the free and sovereign consent of Ukraine, which cannot be dictated to by Washington or Moscow. We should be absolutely clear that we cannot advocate for any agreement—this is the important thing—that forces Ukraine to give up territory it currently holds. To pressure Ukraine into ceding land would be akin to surrendering the Sudetenland. We left Czechoslovakia absolutely defenceless in 1938—that must never happen again.
There is more that we can do on our side in the west, not just when it comes to sending money and matériel to Ukraine, but by changing our behaviour. We need to increase economic pressure on Russia. Sanctions and financial constraints remain one of the few non-military tools that can meaningfully weaken the Kremlin’s capacity to wage a war. Germany, I am afraid, and some of our European allies continue to buy Russian energy in various forms, undermining our collective leverage. We must ask our partners whether they are actually making constructive attempts to secure alternative sources of energy; we hope they are. The slow pace at which some European countries have diversified their energy supply undercuts the effect of sanctions. Europe’s over-reliance on Russian hydrocarbons is yet another compelling reason for the United Kingdom to pursue nuclear energy with renewed determination.
We must also learn the lessons of history. Russia’s economy, measured in nominal GDP, is roughly comparable to Italy’s, and it is therefore far from the superpower that people often talk about. I mean no insult to our wonderful Italian friends. The disparity between Russia’s global posture and the actual size of its economy highlights how vulnerable Moscow is to sustained economic isolation, and that is how we are going to win in the long term.
Although the military dimension of the conflict is vital, it alone will not produce a decisive victory or a durable settlement for Ukraine. Economic pressure, diplomatic alignment and long-term energy resilience across Europe are equally important; they are vital to a successful strategy. The goal of diplomacy must be to find a workable, if imperfect, path to ending unnecessary killing. Ours should be a humane policy—to be strong, and to get a fair peace that stops the killing. The longer the war continues, the greater the damage to Ukraine’s economy, infrastructure and demographic future. The continuation of the conflict also damages Russia, although its citizens have little say in the matter.
The United Kingdom has offered sanctuary to many thousands of Ukrainians, supporting their education, welfare and community integration. Public good will remains high, but history teaches us that political and social patience cannot be taken for granted indefinitely. I will end on this point. My fear is that there will come a day—it may still be years away—when the British Government and the British public feel that we have done enough, and that is that. The American Government may say the same. If a peace arrangement is not reached before fatigue sets in among Ukraine’s allies, Kyiv may find itself dangerously exposed. Allowing that to happen would serve no interest except Vladimir Putin’s and would hand him an undeserved strategic victory. The prudent course is to sustain and, if sensible, expand our support for Ukraine, while actively exploring diplomatic routes towards peace. Working constructively with our American allies gives us a chance, however modest, to help end the killing.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for securing today’s very important debate, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for his leadership of the important all-party group to which he devotes so much of his time. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bravery of the Ukrainian people in the face of an unprovoked, premeditated and barbaric attack by Russia against a sovereign democratic state. Putin’s invasion—which will be four years ago come February—has resulted in millions fleeing their homes, hundreds of thousands of casualties, and relentless attacks on hospitals, homes and schools.
Like many Members who will speak today, I am particularly concerned for Ukraine’s children, many of whom have been subjected to state-sanctioned abductions to the Russian Federation. I welcome the Government’s new sanctions that target those supporting Vladimir Putin’s cruel attempts to forcibly deport and indoctrinate Ukraine’s children and erase their Ukrainian cultural heritage. However, this issue was not mentioned in President Trump’s 28-point plan for peace between Russia and Ukraine. I am therefore proud to add my name to an open letter to the Minister calling for the rights of children to be upheld in any peace agreement. That letter was released today, and was organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter); she really wanted to be able to contribute to today’s debate, but as has been mentioned, she has unfortunately been called away on other business. I also pay tribute to the decision of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly to join the international coalition for the return of Ukrainian children, and to the appointment of Swedish MP Carina Ödebrink as special envoy on Russian abductions and deportations of Ukrainian children. I look forward to supporting her in her new role.
In my role as leader of the UK OSCE Parliamentary Assembly delegation, and as the recently appointed chair of its parliamentary support team for Ukraine, I have listened to evidence from brave Ukrainians who have defied all the odds. At our Crimea platform summit in Stockholm just last week, the OSCE PA reiterated our unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. President Pere Joan Pons reminded us of the wider implications of Ukraine’s struggles, saying:
“When we stand with Ukraine, we defend something bigger than any one nation—we defend the idea of Europe itself: its liberty, its dignity, and the right of every nation to choose its future”.
President Pons and I appointed fellow PSTU member Boris Dittrich as a special rapporteur with a dedicated mandate to push for the release of the three OSCE officials who are unlawfully being held in Russian detention: Dmytro Shabanov, Maksym Petrov and Vadym Golda. At the OSCE’s autumn session in Istanbul, President Pons and I met with Marharyta Shabanova, wife of Dmytro, to discuss our efforts. I hope the UK Government will also look into how they can support those officials’ release.
I am proud that this Labour Government have stepped up for Ukraine. The UK must uphold its promise to deliver £3 billion of military aid to Ukraine every year for as long as needed. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex that “as long as needed” should not be forever, but as soon as possible. The UK’s military, financial, diplomatic and political support for Ukraine must remain iron-clad. I am pleased that in recent weeks, alongside our allies, we have reasserted our steadfast commitment to Ukraine and a European security architecture based on the principles of the UN charter and the OSCE, despite blatant abuses by Russia.
Looking around the Chamber today, I am also heartened by the cross-party support for Ukraine. The UK has provided £457 million in humanitarian assistance since the start of the full-scale invasion, including £100 million of humanitarian support; £20 million to double this year’s support to Ukrainian energy infrastructure; and £40 million for stabilisation and early recovery, which the Foreign Secretary announced in Kyiv in September. That funding is vital, and I know it has been warmly welcomed. We must continue to stand with Ukraine, confront Russian aggression, and hold Putin to account for his war crimes. While other countries may choose to look away, our country’s response must be one of strength, resilience and unity for as long as it takes.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on his opening remarks, which were specific and precise; I will try not to repeat many of them, but to get into some of the other issues.
My personal connection with Ukraine goes right back to a matter of months after the original invasion. I was involved with a Scottish charity called Siobhan’s Trust, which went out there to help those who were fleeing at the Polish border. When that had settled a little, the charity decided to cross the border and carry on feeding people who had been dispossessed behind the frontline. I see the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) in his place; I call him an hon. Friend in this, because he came out there with me to see the same remarkable charity. It is a wonderfully bonkers British charity. The team wear kilts, put the pipes in their mouths, and dance and entertain the Ukrainians only a few miles behind enemy lines, risking themselves at the same time. They show the remarkable bond that we in this country have forged with the Ukrainians in their hour of need. The charity is peculiarly British, and that is what we are about.
We know what this is all about. We do not need this House to lead this debate. In truth, if we were to ask ordinary people on the high streets of this great country, they would immediately react, “We stand with Ukraine.” Why? Because they know what it is all about. History tells us what happens when countries fall: they do not rise again unless somebody else can rescue them. There is nobody to rescue countries like Ukraine if it is not us, after all our experiences of the second world war and our determination to ensure such a brutal war never takes place again. It is happening now.
I have to remind the US that, even if it is not a guarantor, it certainly has an obligation to Ukraine under the Budapest memorandum. It cannot sweep that aside. The obligation came about mostly because Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons. I wonder whether Putin would have invaded if it had kept its nuclear weapons. Ukraine was misled by the west. We said that we would stand by the Ukrainians, and away went their nuclear weapons Then, of course, Putin eventually decides to invade—at first piecemeal, invading part of the territory, and then fully later on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex is quite right that the Russians have been both singularly appalling in the way that they have behaved and incredibly poor in terms of their military activity. That notwithstanding, they would never have done this if Ukraine had kept its nuclear weapons, which would have been its major line of defence.
I have travelled many times to Ukraine to visit charities and others and have spoken to many Ministers in Kyiv about the difficulties and problems, including in Kharkiv, not long after Ukraine had driven the Russians back. Another Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), was with me in Kharkiv, and we saw the devastation. How quickly the Ukrainians repair it is another marvel: I saw many buildings that had been shot at and blown apart—people had died—and by the next time I went to see them, which was a year later, they were back up and standing. That is a phenomenal testimony to the capability of the Ukrainians to recognise that, despite this terrible war, they have to keep on making efforts to live as natural and normal a life as they can.
President Zelensky has rightly become the signal and the character of the defence. I know there has been a difficult relationship with the White House over his desire to wear fatigues—that strikes me as a rather petty point but, no matter how big they are, some people can be incredibly petty. His whole character, responsibility and defiance in staying in Kyiv, when Russia attacked and was determined to find and kill him, shows the courage of the Ukrainians embodied in one man. We need to support him in difficult times.
We know that Ukraine is not perfect. Which country can put its hand on its heart and say it has never had corruption? Which countries have come out of the Soviet Union and not struggled with corruption? The only way people could exist in a Soviet country was through corruption, because that was how to get things done, because things were so bureaucratic and hopeless and people were not properly paid. The Ukranians are trying to get on top of that. They want to be a democracy, and they want to have freedom and human rights. Even if nothing else had happened, surely it should have been our responsibility to stand by Ukraine in its attempt to get that done. We only have to go back 150 years in this country, and we were riddled with corruption. We changed how we ran things, we changed the civil service code and we changed payments, and we got on top of it for the most part. When we talk about our lack of corruption, it came after a number of years of hardship many years ago in our history. Those who complain about corruption and point the finger should point the finger at themselves, because it is a misunderstanding of history and our obligation to a people who wish to be free. They will one day be utterly free, if we stand with them.
Russia has engaged in appalling war crimes. If people go to the battlefield, they will see what the Russians have been doing. They deliberately target civilians, so that the military will come to try and help them, and then they get a bigger target. The whole nature of warfare has been turned on its head in Ukraine. A soldier who had had his leg blown off told me the other day, “There is no safe space behind the frontline, as there always was before. You have to go miles back before you can even begin to think of putting up some kind of hospital or first aid centre, because those drones fly all day and all night. What they do is hit one soldier and lay them out, dead or alive. Then, as the others run to him, they rain down on them with their explosives.” That is why more than 50,000 people in Ukraine today who have been serving on the frontline need prosthetics.
Ukraine has the most advanced prosthetics laboratories that I have ever seen. They could teach us a thing or two. There is a whole problem with the tourniquet, because it cannot be released. Soldiers cannot get to the wounded soldier lying on the ground, because they know what will happen if they go to them, so the wounded soldier lies, often for an hour or more, with a tourniquet destroying their arm, even though it may be saving their life. They end up with terrible prosthetics requirements into their shoulder blades. Do they moan and complain about that? No, they do not. They sit down technically and work out how to solve it. We have a lot to learn from them, including on the battlefield and how they counter the drones. The Ukranians are way ahead of us, and I hope that the MOD realises that it is not us who can teach them a lesson, but they who can teach us. I spend time trying to bring companies over from Ukraine to give us that technology on drones and all these other areas where we should learn from them.
The other point I want people to learn is that we seem to talk about Ukrainians as though they were capable of little themselves. They had no defence manufacturing capability worth talking about, but today they manufacture more than 50% of their own defence needs. They do it unbelievably efficiently and they do it under regular fire from Russia. I have visited companies in Ukraine where half of the place gets blown up and in about four days they are back manufacturing and fixing things. Those are things that we used to do when we were in the second world war being bombarded. The Ukranians show the same resilience, the same application and the same flexibility.
We must stand with Ukraine. We stand with Ukranians because of what they want to be and because it is our responsibility to defend those who seek freedom and democracy as their cause. It is as simple as that. The UK has been the most united over this, and I applaud colleagues from all parts of the House, because we have all stood together. It is noticeable that when we talk to Ukrainians, they always raise that point. The UK is united, and that is the most important point.
I will finish on sanctions. The problem for us is that we have failed to settle our sanctions responsibility to the degree that we should have. There are huge problems over the shadow fleet, as has been mentioned, and over individual sanctions, which we should have been using on a number of occasions. It is remarkable that with the one thing we had complete control over—the sale of Chelsea football club—£2.5 billion has sat there for three years, because we defined the ability to use it so poorly that there is now a dispute as to whether Abramovich’s own companies have a right to use the money, or whether we can seize it. We have to deal with this. If we cannot deal with that one issue, it shows how bad it will be for us in seeking reparations across the board.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Do we think for a moment that Russia would pause seizing any assets it could to fund the conflict? Is it not ironic that the Russians use the rule of law against us, despite the fact that they have no respect for it themselves?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
It is, of course, a fact that we stand by the rule of law and teach others to do so, but the reality is that this whole problem could be resolved if there was greater resolve—by the way, this is a criticism not just of the present Government but the previous one—in the Foreign Office and the Treasury to leave no stone unturned and resolve this matter by seizing the money.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The will is non-existent.
I will conclude by simply saying that Ukraine should not be written off. The issue is not whether Ukraine has to make a deal now because it cannot win. Winning, for the Ukrainians, is getting back their land, their rights and their country. It is written into the constitution of Ukraine that the land that Russia occupies is theirs. People talk glibly about handing over territory as a way of resolving the conflict, but this would only lead, as has been said previously, to Russia moving again within a matter of months or years and seizing the rest of Ukraine. Putin does not care about territory; he cares about Ukraine. He believes Ukraine should be part of Russia, and he will never stop. If we show weakness by agreeing to some stupid 28-point plan, which would sell the Ukrainians down the river, Putin would come back. We would walk away and say, “Well, we did our best.” That is not good enough.
I urge the Minister to make it absolutely clear that we do not agree with any of the 28-point plan, which would sell territory for peace. But it would not be peace; it would be a short-term abdication of responsibility that would lead to the death of many millions.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on a fantastic speech, and on taking the initiative to get the Backbench Business Committee to agree to this debate. It is good to see the strong cross-party support continuing.
I appreciate the support that the UK Government have given and continue to give to Ukraine, but we are now at an absolutely critical time for the country. It is vital that we continue and intensify our support for Ukraine, because Putin cannot be allowed to get away with his illegal invasions of Ukraine and his evil programme of seeking to eliminate Ukrainian identity altogether.
A strong show of western solidarity and support for Ukraine is essential, not just to restore peace to Ukraine but to deter Putin from further aggression that would ultimately affect the security of the whole of western Europe, as hon. Members have said. It is not just the countries closest to Russia that are affected; we have already witnessed numerous Russian-provoked incidents across Europe, involving a range of hybrid warfare techniques.
I applaud my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his efforts in setting up the coalition of the willing and encouraging support for Ukraine, but I would be grateful if the Minister addressed some specific issues. First and foremost is the issue of finance, with external funding for Ukraine secured only from 1 March 2025. There is real concern about the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the EU’s ability to issue guarantees that are backed by frozen Russian assets—most of which are located in Belgium—making Ukraine’s military and political planning extremely difficult.
Will the Minister enlighten us on the contingency measures being developed to mitigate a potential funding gap? How might the United Kingdom contribute more actively, particularly given the £25 billion in frozen Russian assets, as reported in the annual review by the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation? If the guarantees are not approved in time and the financial situation is not resolved, how does the Minister anticipate Ukraine’s strategy would need to evolve?
In the meantime, while Ukraine is facing uncertainty about future funding, Russia, as many Members have referenced, continues to find ways around sanctions. As just one example, Ukraine’s military intelligence—the HUR—recently published a detailed breakdown of the industrial network behind Russia’s Iskander-M ballistic missiles, and noted that 13 of the 49 companies involved in the Iskander supply chain are not currently sanctioned, even though they are directly contributing to the production of weapons used against civilian targets in Ukraine.
Once the components reach Russia, where do they go next? Ukraine’s intelligence service has highlighted that Moscow has already helped North Korea upgrade its KN-23 and KN-24 missile systems. I appreciate that the UK has already done a lot to strengthen sanctions, but in the light of such an example, as well as the use of the shadow fleet and third parties, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), will the Minister look at what more we can do to stop sanctions being flouted and to work with allies to make sanctions as effective as possible? Strengthening sanctions is a key way of helping Ukraine, especially as financial pressure remains a core pillar of Ukraine’s resilience strategy.
Continuing on the issue of resources, it is very worrying that Italy has announced a temporary suspension of its participation in NATO’s PURL—prioritised Ukraine requirements list—programme for procuring US weapons for Ukraine. According to the Italian Foreign Minister, Antonio Tajani, this pause is linked to ongoing peace discussions and the premise that, in the event of a ceasefire, security guarantees, not weapons, will become the central requirement. However, this announcement creates yet more uncertainty for Ukraine, and obviously has serious implications for allied burden sharing within PURL. What assurances can the Minister give about UK support for the PURL programme to support Ukraine, and what contingency plans are there to make up any shortfall caused if the Italian withdrawal from the programme becomes permanent?
On security guarantees, General Zaluzhnyi, the former commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian armed forces, wrote recently in The Telegraph:
“We Ukrainians strive for a complete victory, but cannot reject the option of a long-term end to the war… But all this is impossible without effective security guarantees.”
He went on:
“Such security guarantees could include: Ukraine’s accession to NATO, the deployment of nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory or the deployment of a large allied military contingent”.
Again, what is the current UK thinking about the scale of the security guarantees necessary to give Ukraine the security it would need in any form of peace?
As we know, there are many aspects to the Ukrainians’ resilience, and we witnessed them on a recent visit to Ukraine. We have all heard about the appalling suffering on the frontline and the terrible plight of those living under Russian occupation, but the impact on the rest of the country is of course enormous. The Ukrainians are tackling so many challenges, such as the damage done by drone attacks night after night to both buildings and morale, and dealing with the internal displacement of people. We visited the town of Vinnytsia, a city the size of Swansea, which is welcoming 17,000 internally displaced Ukrainians. Vinnytsia is also welcoming the businesses and factories re-establishing themselves there and a university that has moved en bloc from the occupied area.
There is also the challenge of getting online Ukrainian education through to children in the occupied areas. As the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned, there are the challenges faced by seriously injured soldiers. They are picking up their lives again and showing huge resilience, as so many Ukrainians have done. There is the challenge of getting back the stolen children. There is the challenge of finding the ingenuity to develop drones, automated vehicles and anti-drone technology. There are the challenges of rehousing projects, attracting foreign investment and getting appropriate insurance. Again, what further help can the UK Government give? I would like the Minister to respond on these specific challenges. I think we all agree that we really must support Ukraine now, before it is far too late.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for bringing this very important debate to the House.
It is very disappointing that the Chamber is not full and that we do not have the Prime Minister sitting there. I cannot think of a more important subject for us to be debating in the United Kingdom—the almost certain outbreak of war, as far as I am concerned. I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is not here to tell us his view on Russia. I think we would all be very interested in what he had to say.
Ukraine is defending the western world against Russia. There is no doubt about that. The Baltic states, Finland, Moldova, Poland and Estonia are all building up their military forces. They expect that Putin has territorial ambitions on their land, too. In the meantime, all over Europe Russia is conducting sabotage: rogue drone flights, towing anchors over our power lines and data links, cyber-attacks, exploding packages in courier flights and even assassinations in the UK.
In the previous Government, even Boris Johnson was much more supportive in his response than our current Government. France and Germany are very much leading the way now, with Britain timidly following on. The Chancellor raised £28 billion in the recent Budget and £40 billion this time last year, yet we have a target to increase defence spending from a very modest 2.4% of GDP to only 2.5% by 2026. Whether our Prime Minister or Chancellor will admit it, we are at war with Russia already. Surely the Budget would have been the perfect time to have announced a substantial new contribution to Ukraine to help it fund the defence of western Europe?
Why is our Prime Minister being so timid in his support for Ukraine? Is he still hoping that President Trump will stop his flip-flopping and actually firmly support Ukraine? Is he not upset that the United States no longer donates arms to help Ukraine, but sells the arms to Europe? Just yesterday, Trump boasted that Ukraine is forced to pay “top dollar” for weapons to give to Ukraine. This is war profiteering. Does our Prime Minister read the Wall Street Journal, where he will have read a detailed report on Steve Witkoff and Trump’s own son-in-law, Jared Kushner, meeting the Russians to carve out multibillion dollar deals for the benefit of themselves and major American companies? Donald Tusk declared:
“We know this is not about peace. It’s about business.”
Did the PM see Steve Bannon stating that Russia was America’s true ally in world war two and that they should be allies again? Did he read the press yesterday where a German general, Christian Freuding, said that he no longer has peer group contact with US generals and that channels had been
“cut off, really cut off”.
My mother is American, from a long line of Republican supporters. She is appalled that the party of Reagan and George Bush has decided to ally itself with Russia, rather than its traditional allies of Britain, Germany, Canada, Japan and its many other old friends. I appeal to our Prime Minister to grow a bit of backbone with Trump, side firmly with European nations and once more ensure Britain is the leader of the world’s civilised countries in supporting Ukraine.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
I add my commendation to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for securing this important debate. Hearing the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) speak reminded me of our trip to Ukraine earlier in the year. Thinking of surreal moments, it cannot be more surreal than being on a road outside Kharkiv watching him try to fix a car that was not working properly.
In recent weeks, it has become painfully clear that many of us underestimated the sophistication and intent behind the Trump Administration’s manoeuvres regarding Ukraine, Europe and Russia. What at first seemed like a genuine pivot towards supporting Ukraine now appears, in retrospect, to have been a carefully orchestrated performance designed to protect Russian assets, pave the way for future business dealings and shape a narrative in which Ukraine’s defeat was treated as inevitable.
At the heart of that strategy lies the $300 billion in frozen Russian sovereign assets that hon. Members have mentioned repeatedly this afternoon. For many years, including in this place, we have debated whether those assets should be used to help Ukraine defend itself and rebuild. But we now know from reports that US officials have been placing intense pressure on European Governments to leave those assets untouched, and indeed insisting it is their view that they be returned to Russia after any peace deal, while feigning, for months, a willingness to ramp up support for Ukraine.
That illusion was crucial, because the more Europeans believed that Washington might still back Ukraine, the less likely European Governments were to take unilateral steps, including seizing or repurposing those Russian assets. It was a calculated sleight of hand, and it succeeded. Even now, European leaders remain hesitant, while Washington has now made its position unmistakably clear that Ukraine is expected to accept a settlement that has been shaped by Russian interests—because, I believe, it is Trump’s assessment that Russia will ultimately prevail.
We have to face the facts: the September-October pivot, when Trump and Vance claimed that Russia was losing and Ukraine could win, was most likely theatre. Trump has always accepted the Russian narrative of inevitable Ukrainian defeat, and once the pretence ended, US officials made their message clear to the Ukrainians: “Accept a deal now or face a worse one later. Russia can fight indefinitely; Ukraine cannot.” In my view, this is not diplomacy; it is coercive pressure on Ukraine, and it carries an unmistakable message that the United States Administration are now structuring their policy around the assumption of a Russian victory in the long term. Many of us will be incredibly worried that Trump will pressure Ukraine into giving up territory and ultimately fail to give any meaningful security guarantees. It is for Ukrainians who have paid a price in blood to decide for themselves what price they are prepared to pay for peace.
What does this mean for Europe and for Britain? First, it means that we must accept the truth that if Ukraine is to resist Russian maximalist aims, we must step up now, not in six months or in two years. Secondly, it means that the fate of Russian sovereign assets is not a technical financial matter but a strategic one, and every delay, hesitation and concession on this issue weakens Ukraine and emboldens the Kremlin. Thirdly, it means we must recognise that 2026 will likely be the decisive year in this war. Yes, Russia faces mounting economic difficulties, fuel shortages and internal discontent, and the Kremlin still insists on its war aims, but its capacity to sustain the war is not limitless, and a sense of futility in Moscow is a necessary condition for peace. Ukraine’s ability to hold the line, supported through European unity, is central to bringing that moment closer.
I do not think that we have touched this afternoon on the fact that Ukrainian resilience is not endless either. There are hundreds of thousands of cases of desertion—a stark measure of exhaustion and eroding morale among frontline soldiers. Many units are under-strength and increasingly reliant on poorly trained conscripts rather than experienced volunteers. Some brigades operate without adequate rest, rotation or munitions. Commanders describe troops who are physically depleted, mentally exhausted and losing confidence in the strategic direction of the war. The result is a brittle front, with units stretched to breaking point, lacking resilience and vulnerable to sudden local collapses. Without substantial support, I really worry that the Ukrainian military could face a cascading breakdown as Russia continues to pile on the pressure.
The strain on Ukraine’s civilian population is equally acute. After three years of missile and drone attacks, millions of Ukrainians endure repeated power outages, damaged infrastructure, deep psychological trauma and limited access to heating, electricity and clean water. Mental health support has deteriorated sharply, especially as winter approaches. Displaced families have exhausted their savings, livelihoods have vanished, and the cumulative stress of air raids, mourning for the dead and uncertainty has driven a marked rise in depression, anxiety and long-term trauma. Communities live in a cycle of destruction and partial recovery, eroding resilience with each passing month.
We should be clear-eyed about our own position. We had warning after warning, but we never did enough—the invasion of Georgia in 2008, the annexation of Crimea in 2014, and the full-scale invasion several years ago, yet still we did not ramp up defence spending. The British armed forces have experienced years of hollowing out, cuts to troop numbers and chronic under-investment. Only now are we finally beginning to reverse some of that decline, but can we honestly say that the pace is adequate to the threat we face?
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
I am struck by what my hon. Friend has just said. About eight years ago, during Trump’s first term, I was in the United States with a group of Latvian MEPs. I remember being almost bemused by how often the Latvians wanted to turn whatever discussion we were having to defence. To some extent, it was kind of annoying me by the end, but now I realise that I was completely and utterly wrong; they knew what they were doing in that instance and I did not. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to sell this concept of a peace dividend? I was really sold on it, but it did not exist at that moment, because investment is required first in order to get peace in the long term. What we are really looking for is peace in Europe in the long term, so once again we genuinely do need a peace dividend.
Tim Roca
I completely agree. As the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) raised earlier, it is the Baltic countries—Poland, Finland, those that have had direct experience of Russian aggression—that are most clear-eyed about the Russian threat. We do not want a wishy-washy peace that does not deliver genuine security. There has to be genuine security as the basis of any peace.
We in this House must not dodge. We are building a coalition of the willing, and in any peace agreement we may potentially be asked to agree to put British troops on the ground and contribute to maintaining ceasefire lines or to deter Russian aggression. We have to be honest about where the British public are at, and I am not convinced that the British public are yet psychologically in the place they need to be in for that commitment. We all have a duty to contribute to the understanding of the threat that Russia faces to our security here at home. We must speak honestly with the country about the risks that we face, the commitments we may be asked to make, and the moral and strategic imperative of ensuring that Russian aggression does not succeed. If Ukraine falls or is coerced into a settlement that gives the Kremlin what it could not win on the battlefield, Europe will not be safer.
An essential truth that has been revealed in recent months is that Ukrainian resilience is not infinite. Its morale depends on it knowing that the world has not forgotten it. Every air defence system, shell, economic sanction on Russia and measure to support Ukraine and its statehood matters—not just materially but psychologically. Every equivocation, delay and wavering signal emboldens Putin and his gang of thugs. We are clear that Ukraine is fighting not only for its freedom but for the principle that aggression should not be rewarded. I believe that Members of this House agree with those principles. Therefore, we must act with urgency, clarity and resolve.
I think there have been two references by hon. Members this afternoon to Munich. We are 87 years on from what was described as a “total and unmitigated defeat”. Today, I do worry that the Trump Administration’s push for peace, shaped by Putin’s interest, risks making the same mistake in pressuring Ukraine to accept a settlement that serves the aggressor rather than justice or security. Let us be clear in this place that we stand with Ukraine to uphold its sovereignty and security, because we do not want to repeat the errors of the past.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on securing this debate and setting out so many key points in his opening speech.
It has been 1,379 days since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in Ukraine—1,379 days of Ukrainians fleeing for their lives, 1,379 days of Ukrainians forced from their homes, and 1,379 days of Ukrainians fighting for their country and for Europe. As we stand in this House and debate today, the devastating war continues. The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine has reported that the total civilian casualties from January 2025 to October 2025 are 27% higher than during the same period last year. The number of casualties for the first 10 months of 2025 has already exceeded the total for all of 2024. Since the full-scale invasion began in 2022, there have been over 53,000 civilian casualties and 14,500 deaths. Alongside civilians, the number of military casualties stands at around 400,000 for Ukraine and over 1 million for Russia. It has been a complete loss of human life.
I begin with those horrific statistics not to overwhelm Members with numbers but to confront us with the brutal reality that they represent. Each figure we cite serves a purpose. They help us to understand the scale of the suffering in Ukraine and the enormity of what is at stake. We must never let statistics blind us to the truth behind them, which is that these are people just like us—parents trying to protect their children, the elderly refusing to abandon the homes that they built, and young people who only ever asked for the chance to live in people. Lives full of hope and routine have been interrupted and devastated by a barbaric war that they did not choose, yet they fight. As we consider these numbers, let us remember the Ukrainians whose stories we cannot fully capture and let that guide the seriousness of our debate.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is not only an assault on a sovereign nation, but an assault on democracy itself and a flagrant violation of international law. Yet despite this brutal aggression, I know that Ukraine remains unyielding in its fight for freedom. When I visited Ukraine in October, I witnessed the resilience of a nation at war. I was told that, just hours after bombs tear through towns and cities, shattered buildings are boarded up, not simply to hide the destruction, but so that children, families and ordinary citizens can wake the next morning and try as best they can to live their lives, striving for normality in the shadow of war.
Every day, the world is witness to military vehicles rolling through towns and cities, missiles striking innocent civilians and drones patrolling the skies with the intent to kill both military and civilian personnel. This is a war without morality, driven not by principle but by a hunger for territory and the attempted annihilation of Ukrainian identity. Amid the rubble, the grief and the dust lies another, silent and enduring threat. When I was in Ukraine, I saw at first hand the immense challenge of explosive ordnance contamination. Ukraine is now the most heavily contaminated country on earth, with 139,000 sq km polluted by unexploded ordnance.
This is a nation that once fed much of Europe. Before 2022, 71% of Ukraine’s land was agricultural, more than half of it arable, the highest proportion of any European country, but today farmers cannot work their land. Their fields, once the breadbasket of Europe, have become battlefields. In one extreme case, I learned of a farmer going out to farm his land in the tractor while his son was on the lookout at the side, shooting down drones to protect him. Farmers are so desperate to reclaim their livelihoods that they try to clear the land themselves, with horrific consequences. Children, tragically unaware, pick up pieces of unexploded ordnance, believing them to be toys. Save the Children’s recent blast injury report cites the figure of more than 3,000 children having been killed or injured by explosive weapons in Ukraine since 2022, while the number of children maimed surged by 70% in just one year, from 339 in 2023 to 577 in 2024. There can be no greater tragedy and no greater moral failing than a war in which the innocent and the vulnerable, our children, become its casualties.
The cost of explosive ordnance is not only human. A joint report by Ukraine’s Ministry of Economy and the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change estimates that landmine contamination is costing Ukraine an estimated $11.2 billion annually, the equivalent of 5.6% of its pre-war GDP. What further exacerbates the issue is Russia’s errant use of anti-personnel mines. Human Rights Watch has reported that Russian forces have used more than a dozen types of anti-personnel mines since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began. In Ukraine, I was shown the POM-3. This device is barbaric. Once delivered and deployed, the mine operates on the seismic principle, which means that once it detects a human footstep, it will detonate. These mines cannot tell the difference between a soldier and a civilian, and Russia does not intend them to. Innocent civilians are at risk from mines that they cannot even see.
The Ottawa treaty, which Russia is not party to, prohibits the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of these weapons, and requires action to be taken to prevent and address their long-term effects. In recent months, five European states have formally withdrawn from the convention entirely, and in July Ukraine communicated its intention to introduce a suspension. Countries including Austria, Belgium, Norway and Switzerland have formally objected to the suspension, while others are still considering such steps. It risks seriously undermining the convention’s object and purpose, as well as broader international humanitarian law instruments, by suggesting that states can opt out of humanitarian obligations during war.
I stand unequivocally with Ukraine, and I recognise that there are no easy decisions when states confront the terrible reality of war, but I remain deeply concerned that any step away from international conventions risks further harm to civilians. As the Mines Advisory Group has warned:
“International Humanitarian Law…including the Ottawa Convention, is designed precisely for times like these.”
International law is not a luxury for peace; it is the foundation of humanity amid conflict. The UK must lead in its commitment to international law and uphold the standards that the world will depend on in future conflicts.
Alongside sustaining the international pressure, we must look to our own responsibilities. With global mine action programme funding due to end in 2026, the Government should commit to allocating a proportion of the UK’s de-mining assistance through the Ministry of Defence budget and should recognise eligible mine action activity as contributing towards relevant defence spending targets. Given the ever-dwindling humanitarian funds in the FCDO, utilising the MOD budget would safeguard continuity beyond 2026 and maintain the operational tempo necessary to confront the largest explosive ordnance contamination that Europe has faced since the second world war. I hope the Minister will address that later.
Surrey Stands with Ukraine is an amazing charity in my constituency. It provides medical aid and supports physical and mental rehabilitation for Ukrainians. It has told me of the urgent need for a register of trusted UK-Ukrainian humanitarian aid organisations, so that people can see instantly that they are credible. The charity has received medical kit from Government organisations and private companies, but if it was on a trusted list, that would empower more businesses to come forward and support its work. So far, it has shipped an incredible 168 vans of aid, £4 million of medical aid, a long-reach-ladder fire engine called Dinah, and 250 generators to communities in Ukraine. Anything that this Government can do to empower businesses to offer support, and encourage individuals to donate, would make a difference to the lives of the thousands of people affected by this war.
While we wait with bated breath for a peace plan that delivers for Ukraine, this Government must continue to support Ukrainians. The proposed Ukraine-UK health collaboration would help those providing vital services, such as the Superhumans clinic, which offers free prosthetics and reconstruction to children, civilians and military personnel affected by the conflict. When I was in Ukraine, I met Zakhar Biryukov, a former member of the Ukrainian special forces. Zakhar had been warning civilians to stay away from mined areas when his helicopter came under fire. He lost both his legs and an arm, and suffered severe facial injuries. Zakhar now dedicates his time to supporting new amputees arriving at the clinic, telling them that everything will be okay. His hope, courage and optimism, his refusal to be broken, and his will to never give in to the Russians is something that I will never forget. He left a deep impression on all of us who met him. A health partnership would also deliver experience, knowledge and relationships. It would greatly support UK conflict preparedness and NHS resilience to related shocks and mass casualty incidents.
Russia is becoming increasingly aggressive across Europe and even more bold in its quest for knowledge. The former leader of Reform Wales was recently jailed for accepting bribes to help pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
That former leader in Wales of Reform UK was a constituent of mine. We have been calling on the Prime Minister for an independent review and an investigation into Russian interference in our democracy. Does the hon. Member support that?
Helen Maguire
I do, wholeheartedly, and thank the hon. Member for intervening on that important point.
In 2020, a delayed report into Russian interference in the UK led the then Foreign Secretary to tell the House that it is almost certain that Russian actors sought to interfere in the 2019 general election through the online amplification of illicitly acquired and leaked Government documents. This trend of Russian interference is only increasing. Yesterday, I read a report from GLOBSEC on how Russia is using criminality as a tool of hybrid warfare in Europe. If Members have not already read it, I urge them to do so. The brazen and dangerous act of the Yantar ship endangered the lives of RAF pilots and showed the lengths to which Putin will go to ascertain his military power and undermine Britain’s defence. Tomorrow is too late; this Government must act further today. They must stand up to Putin’s belligerence, seize the £30 billion in frozen Russian assets across the UK, and funnel those into Ukraine’s defence.
I have the highest hopes for a peace deal, but am concerned about Trump’s deal. The President treats this deal as if it is a business transaction; he is throwing out the international diplomacy rule book and ignoring history. Trump’s plan would displace thousands, rip territory from Ukraine and weaken Ukraine’s military capability. With Putin rejecting the latest peace proposal, the stakes are higher than ever before. There can be no deal that impinges on Ukrainian sovereignty. Russia is the aggressor here. Russia lined up its troops at the border and launched an illegal invasion. There was no provocation by Ukraine. The UK must lead on the robust defence of Ukraine in considering any peace plan that now comes forward. A peace plan for Ukraine cannot weaken its defence capabilities, cede territory to Russia or refuse Ukraine NATO membership.
Putin has already said that he is ready for war with Europe, and as we speak, Russia is provoking our maritime ships, attacking our cyber-security and destroying undersea cables. Ukraine has already experienced what happens when it is weakened and is forced to give up its nuclear weapons. Let us ensure that that does not happen again. It may be 1,379 days since Russia invaded Ukraine, but that is also 1,379 days of solidarity. We stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine. Slava Ukraini!
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
One of the advantages of being called at a late stage of the debate is that I can put my hand on my heart and truthfully say that every single speech in this debate so far has been outstandingly good. I have agreed with virtually every word of every one of them, and looking at the calibre of the remaining people, including all three Front-Bench representatives, I have every confidence that the standard will be maintained till the end.
A former occupant of your chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, used to give courses in good public speaking technique. He always said, “If you wish your speech to have any useful impact after the event, it should not contain more than one, or at most two—and that is stretching it—key points.” So here is my one key point, which, I am delighted to say, has been touched on very effectively by the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), among others: any settlement that does not have a military presence on the ground of unoccupied Ukraine from the country or countries offering a security guarantee will be a disaster. I ask the House to consider Europe at the end of the second world war, when the tripartite alliance had largely broken down, and Stalin was in occupation of eastern Europe and, of course, the eastern half of Germany, which his troops had conquered. The west was in occupation of the remainder of the European continent—literally, in the case of West Germany.
What would have happened—knowing what we know now about the nature of Soviet communism—if, instead of the victorious western allies maintaining a very large military presence in occupied western Germany, they had said, “Right, we’ll demilitarise this and clear out, but we’re going to give the West German politicians who follow a security guarantee that if any trouble happens, we will stand by them”? The only thing that stopped a conflict breaking out between the Soviet occupying forces and the western world was the fact that, right up against the dividing line between Soviet-dominated East Germany and the rest of Germany, there were western allied troops, and it would have been impossible for the Soviet forces to move against West Germany without immediately triggering a major military counter-action.
I have often said—and I make no apology for saying it again—that it is worth looking at the two halves of the 20th century. In the first half, we had two global conflicts—two world wars. In the second half, despite the intense ideological and military rivalry between the communist world and the democratic western world, we had no global conflicts—no third world war. I put that down to two factors. One was unprecedented: the nuclear balance of terror. But it was not enough to stop all forms of conflict, because it is possible for conventional conflicts to go ahead under the threshold of the nuclear balance without necessarily triggering Armageddon. That is why we have to have strong conventional deterrent forces, too.
So, what was the other factor preventing the cold war from becoming the third world war? It is quite clear that it was the most successful alliance in history: the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It grieves me to say that because of some of the occupants of high office in the capital of our ally the United States, the future of the NATO alliance—and therefore the future of world peace, frankly—is hanging by a thread.
It was the chief staff officer and representative on the war time chiefs of staff committee of Winston Churchill, General Sir Hastings Ismay, who became the first Secretary-General of NATO. He is credited with having made the rather pithy but nevertheless very accurate observation that the purpose of the alliance at the time it was founded was threefold: to keep the Americans in, to keep the Russians out, and to keep the Germans down. That third element fortunately became redundant as West Germany developed into a democracy—so quickly, in fact, that in May 1955, 10 years virtually to the day from the surrender on Lüneburg heath of the Nazis to General Montgomery, Germany itself was admitted to the NATO alliance.
I ask people to take another counterfactual look at history. If the Kaiser had known in 1914 that if he invaded neutral Belgium, he would immediately be at war with the United States of America, would he have done it? I think the answer is no. If Hitler had known in 1939 that if he invaded Poland, he would immediately be at war with the United States of America, would he have done it? I think the answer very probably is no to that as well. Therefore, the secret to keeping the peace in the world is to keep America engaged with the security of Europe.
America is going through a phase at the moment—which seems to hinge on a number of personalities who hold power in that great democracy, apparently with the approval of a majority of the electorate—in which its commitment to European and thus world security is in doubt. This is the chance for Europeans, whether inside the EU or, like us, outside it, to show that we can do our bit. We have to keep the show on the road until America once again stands up for the policy of the second half of the 20th century, which stopped the third world war, rather than it reverting to its policy of isolationism from the first half of the 20th century, and standing by, which caused two global conflicts that could have been prevented.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on setting the scene incredibly well. As the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said, all the speeches have been incredible, and the ones that follow will be equally good. We are here for a purpose, and it has been good to hear Members’ comments.
We are almost four years into the war in Ukraine, and we continue to hear of the devastation impacting people there. I want to focus today on one issue: the atrocities and war crimes carried out by Russian soldiers, and accountability for them. I told the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex yesterday that that would be the subject matter of my speech. I want this to be a reminder of the vicious attacks that the people of Ukraine have been subjected to. This Government, in conjunction with the US, must do more to seek peace and support those most in need. I do not doubt whatsoever the commitment of our Government, our Prime Minister and the Labour party—that is never in doubt. This House is united in support of Ukraine.
Thinking back to the early months of the war in 2022, I remember the efforts of all our constituents, who filled bags and bags of clothes, blankets, hats, scarves, wash items and so on to be sent to Ukraine. I remember well the collective efforts of all the churches, who organised lorries-worth of donations to support the people of Ukraine after the attacks inflicted by Russia—those who lost their homes, workplaces and livelihoods, and the hundreds of thousands of people who fled to Poland for some sort of safety. I had an opportunity to meet some of them, and the desperation, loneliness and desolation of those who were displaced was something I have remembered many, many times. The pictures and videos that were released of the attacks were heartbreaking. I for one will not forget those; I do not think anyone will.
I remember hearing about one of the attacks early on in the conflict. The Russian army column going towards Kyiv was held up on the road by Ukrainians using shoulder-held next-generation light anti-tank weapons—NLAWs—that are made by Thales in Northern Ireland. I know that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), knows Thales well, because he has been there many times. So that early in the war, this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland had already committed to helping Ukraine. The extra money given by the Government to the defence sector has created 200 more jobs in Northern Ireland, including at Thales.
To return to the subject of crimes that have taken place during the conflict, I remember the story that when the Russians advanced, they came upon a forest house. They shot the husband, who was trying to ensure that nothing would happen to his wife, and then they violated her, while the wee boy sat and watched it all.
Alex Sobel
The hon. Member is giving a typically impassioned speech about the horrific nature of the aggression against Ukrainian children by Russia. We have heard about that happening in many different ways. Last week, MPs attended a screening of “We Are Home”, about Ukrainian children who have been displaced within Ukraine and who have had to leave their homes because of the Russians. We all know about the Russians abducting Ukrainian children. Does he agree that we need to see the strongest possible action on returning those children from Russia and on the prosecution of the perpetrators in the international courts?
Jim Shannon
Yes, I agree with that. I wish that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) had been able to be here today because she has spoken valiantly in this House about bringing back the 30,000 children who have been kidnapped and undergone Russification. The Russians are trying to make them Russian and make them fight for Russia against Ukraine—it is obscene and it really bothers me greatly.
I have no idea about the name of the family I mentioned, but the reason that I remember that case is because I think about that wee boy, whose mother was being violated, and her screams—
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The hon. Member mentioned the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter). Recently, she was good enough to organise an extraordinary showing of a film called “Children in the Fire” in one of the Committee rooms. It explained in detail, through some very personal stories, the devastation that children have faced during the conflict, and we had the privilege of meeting some of the children, some of whom had been previously abducted and had escaped Russia. It was an extraordinary moment that was deeply revealing and emotional. I am grateful to the hon. Member for paying such close attention to the plight of children in this conflict: it is a horror that none of us should accept.
Jim Shannon
We all appreciate and understand that horror that children have had to endure.
The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and I were among the first in the House to wear the Ukraine ribbon. I have worn it every day since then and I will wear it until the war is over—I may even wear it after the war is over, in solidarity with the Ukrainians. I will always plead their case in this House, as other hon. Members do, and no sanction from Putin will ever stop me from doing that.
The monitoring by the United Nation’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights reports that some 50,000 civilians have been killed or injured in Ukraine since February 2022, with thousands of verified civilian deaths. Many have also reported that the death toll could be significantly higher. I am prepared to be proved wrong, but due to the lack of reporting, I suspect that it probably is higher. Roughly 5 million to 6 million people are registered as refugees abroad, with a further 3.5 million internally displaced within Ukraine.
The human rights monitoring mission in Ukraine stated that since 24 February 2022 there have been hundreds of cases of conflict-related sexual violence. Girls from as young as eight to women as old as 80 have been violated by Russian monsters who think that they can do whatever they want. I want to see justice for those families. When the war ends, accountability for the actions of those who have murdered and killed across Ukraine has to be a part of the peace that comes. The Ukrainian ombudsman referred to 292 cases of sexual violence—how many have gone unrecorded?
I remember—we all do—the case of Bakhmut. Whenever the Russians retreated, left or were forced out, a mass grave was found of over 200 men, women and children who just happened to be Ukrainians. The Russians thought they could murder them. Accountability? I tell you what: I want to see accountability for that.
Sir Julian Lewis
Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that point 26 of the 28-point Witkoff plan is a general amnesty for everyone? That would mean that whoever committed the most atrocious war crimes would never be held accountable at all.
Jim Shannon
I did notice that. I want to be clear to the right hon. Gentleman and everyone in the House that we will never sign up to that. These people think they can get away with it. Of course, being a Christian, I know that they will suffer in the next world—it will be damnation for them—but I want to see them getting it in this world. They can get it in the next world as well.
Abuse has included torture, sexual torture, humiliation and sexual violence. Videos are going about where Russian soldiers have filmed themselves torturing—cutting off limbs and, in some cases, private parts of the anatomy —and then they have shown it around all their friends as if that is something to be proud of. Amnesty? I don’t think so. It is time to make them accountable for it all.
Churches across eastern Ukraine in Donetsk and Luhansk have been destroyed. Pastors of the Baptist church—I happen to be a member of a Baptist church—went missing in the early years of the war, and there has not been any account of where they are; they have disappeared. It is about accountability—what has happened to them? I suggest that the Russians have been involved in that as well. There is no accountability.
Members have referred to the nightly attacks on civilian targets—apartment blocks, civilians, children and women—not military targets. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex referred to that in his introduction and the thinking behind it. There has to be accountability for all the things that are happening. It is horrifying to think about the reality of the situation.
According to the Institute for Religious Freedom, by early 2023 at least 494 religious buildings had been destroyed, damaged or looted because of war; by late 2023, the total number of religious sites affected had grown to 630. There is a systematic campaign by Russian soldiers and by Putin himself to go against the evangelical and Ukrainian Orthodox churches right across Ukraine. The all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, which I chair, has undertaken incredible work on this matter so that all religions and communities can be represented. Damage has affected Orthodox churches, Protestant churches, prayer houses, Jehovah’s witness kingdom halls, Catholic churches, mosques, synagogues and others in a systematic campaign by Russia against religious churches and freedom of belief, which we all believe in. [Interruption.]
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am conscious of the time, so I will conclude. I look towards the United States of America for greater intervention. President Trump has done great when it comes to Israel—nobody can deny that he was probably the motivator for that—but he does not seem to be doing the same thing with Russia; his bias is clear. After five hours of talks yesterday between Putin and Trump’s senior negotiator, we are still no further forward as there was no breakthrough on securing a peace deal. It is time for President Trump to join the EU, European countries and NATO to ensure that Putin is forced to the table of negotiation and the table of peace.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for bringing this very important debate to us today. It is an opportunity for the House to condemn the evil actions of Putin in his illegal invasion of Ukraine and to assert our strong support for President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people. Our support is even more important now, as it is clear that President Trump’s support is constantly wavering. It is so sad that President Trump is ready to once again sell out Ukraine and its people and to agree a carve-up of land with President Putin. This is a Putin who openly says that he is ready for war with NATO.
Residents in Wokingham regularly write to me expressing their disgust at Putin and Trump, and they call on the Government to do more to support Ukraine. It is painfully obvious that we cannot rely on Trump to defend European freedoms. For that reason, the Government must continue to focus on defending British territory and playing a leading role with our European neighbours to defend Europe from the Russians. We must build trust with Europe; it is in our national interest. It is also in Europe’s interest that it should work with us—a fact that I am sure is not lost on many Europeans.
Our Government must continue to offer support to President Zelensky, along with France, Germany and NATO. They must join him in future negotiations with President Trump, so that Europe can show a strong and united front against the Russian aggressor and against any bullying tactics from President Trump. Trump so often looks more like an appeaser from the 1930s than an important leader in the most successful alliance, which has defended our freedoms in the west, including the USA, for much of the last 30 years.
I hope the Minister will reject the joint plan of Putin and Trump and will continue to stand up for Ukraine.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I was in Ukraine in September with colleagues from the Labour Benches—I was the lone Liberal in a Government delegation. Against what seemed to be mountainous odds, the Ukrainians have defied a superpower that has unleashed a torrent of wanton death and destruction. In war, truth is often the first casualty. Propaganda, misinformation and disinformation swirl, but Ukraine and Ukrainians have truth on their side. Their weapon is truth, and their cause is their very survival.
Some wish to muddy the waters on this matter. As if it was not clear enough who the good guys and the bad guys are, the Russians have been engaged in a campaign of the systematic abduction of Ukraine’s future—its children—who have been swallowed up into re-education camps, where they face psychological torment and indoctrination. It is a process of de-Ukrainianisation, and some estimates say that up to 40,000 children have suffered that fate. This is rancid and wicked; it is an attempt to go beyond the dismantling of a state and to delete the identity of a people.
Britain has a proud history of standing up to tyranny and leading the fight—a glance at any 20th century history book tells us that—but we in the west could have gone harder and faster. Western Governments spent the first weeks and months of the war establishing what weapons systems could be sent; all the while, Ukrainians were being slaughtered in Russian shelling. Weapons systems that were deemed too provocative and escalation-inducing in the spring were flowing to Ukraine by the winter, while thousands perished in bitter fighting. The frontline is a horrifying meat grinder—a graveyard on the very edge of our continent.
It was Churchill who said:
“You cannot reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth.”
Today, Ukraine is on the frontline not by choice, but by the accident of geography. I do not believe Putin will stop at Ukraine; it is Ukraine today, and it will be somewhere else tomorrow. He has had his sights on Georgia for almost two decades. In 2008, we watched on our television screens the Russian tanks roll through Georgia. Ask the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania; ask the Finns and the Swedes, for that matter, both of whom departed from their long-standing doctrine of neutrality and secured accession into the NATO club. Ask the Poles, who have ramped up their defence spending because they see that their history with Russia is rhyming, and are not prepared to take any chances. This has all come in response to the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine and its perpetual neighbourhood sabre-rattling; anyone comfortable enough to suggest otherwise is either naive or mendacious. Have we not learned the lessons of the last century? Be deeply suspicious of those who characterise Ukraine’s independence as a provocation—some act of NATO encroachment, or poking the Russian bear. There is a very simple reason for ex-eastern bloc countries tilting west: it is because we are free. We are not societies in which those who criticise the regime go missing—where dissent ends in disappearance.
While many hailed Trump’s return to the White House as a potential turning point in this war, believing he held the key to bringing Putin to the negotiating table, any hints of Russian overtures have thus far been vanishingly hollow. During the furore in the Oval Office back in February, which made for very uncomfortable viewing indeed, the noises coming out of the White House were particularly troubling; it truly felt as though the President of the United States was playing to a Kremlin gallery. Branding Ukraine’s elected wartime leader a “dictator” was just one peevish outburst in a maelstrom of absurdity, and as Washington’s stance spins capriciously on a dime, Putin becomes even more emboldened by this weird game of cat and mouse. It was Theodore Roosevelt who said:
“Speak softly and carry a big stick”.
The problem is that although Trump may be speaking softly with Putin, his stick—or other such euphemistic accoutrement—seems to be very much holstered. In 1994, Britain signed the Budapest memorandum, and I remind the Administration in the White House that the United States was also a signatory to that agreement. Among other things, it represented a commitment to respect Ukrainian sovereignty. To rewrite history, or to conveniently forget it, would be to bend to despotism.
Let us not overlook the broader picture, either. Other potential foes are watching and manoeuvring to see if we and our allies across the free world have the resolve, resilience and ability to respond decisively and in a co-ordinated manner. This is a litmus test of sorts—a barometer for future engagements to see whether we will stand by our partners. Do we seriously think that China’s assertiveness around Taiwan or the way it has behaved with Hong Kong has no correlation whatsoever with the war in Ukraine? I, for one, have very serious objections to the proposed Chinese super-embassy, very close to home indeed—a foreign fortress in the heart of our capital that could serve as a base for nefarious activities on British soil, including espionage, sabotage and coercion, not to mention Russian rapprochement with the North Koreans.
The stakes could not be higher. Irredentism is on the march, and the international order established after 1945 hangs in the balance.
Rachel Gilmour
I am going to finish—sorry. We risk returning to a brutish bygone era in which tyrannical thugs take what they want. Who wants to live in such a world? We all want peace, but appeasement of the Kremlin is not the chess move of a pacifist or an anti-imperialist. It is not anti-war; it is the acceptance of revanchist thuggery over the will of a people to live free from an occupying power. Peace cannot be on the aggressor’s terms, and Ukrainian submission cannot be on the table. After all, peace is not just the absence of war; without justice, there is no peace. Slava Ukraini.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for securing this very important debate. There have been plaudits and praise enough for all the speeches made by Members across this House—they have been an extraordinary collection of speeches and thoughtful interventions that show intellectual clarity and deep emotional connection. I am grateful to all Members who have spoken.
It is absolutely clear that Vladimir Putin poses an existential threat to Ukraine and a once-in-a-generation threat to European security. For far too long, he has been allowed to wield grotesquely disproportionate influence over global diplomacy and security, and the consequences have been catastrophic. While the global geopolitical scene may have been shaken and upended by his imperial ambitions, the true cost of this war—the fullest cost—has been borne by the people of Ukraine, in the form of the atrocities committed and the suffering of the Ukrainian families who are the direct victims of his malicious and destructive impulses.
Today in Ukraine, there is active hand-to-hand combat, the military lines are active and volatile, and Ukrainian cities face relentless bombardment. Critical infrastructure is targeted, civilian lives are under constant threat and the human toll grows. Since February 2022, Ukraine has reported more than 14,000 civilians killed and more than 38,000 injured. More than 1 million Russian personnel have been killed or injured, and the Ukrainian military toll is more than 46,000 killed and 380,000 wounded. How many more lives need to be lost?
This war did not begin in 2022, with Russia’s full-scale invasion. As we know, it began in 2014, with the illegal seizure of Crimea. That annexation set the stage for the violence, brutality and inhumanity we see today. Russia’s aggression now threatens European security as a whole. Millions of Ukrainians have been displaced from their homes, entire communities destroyed and the social fabric torn apart, leaving trauma that will span generations.
As we have heard several times today, the most harrowing horror of all is the systematic abduction of Ukrainian children. At least 19,000 children have been taken, stolen, cynically and evilly—abduction and exploitation as a most appalling weapon of war. A moral red line has been crossed, and crossed again. This vile human injustice is yet another cost that Ukraine has had to bear. Against that backdrop of human suffering and strategic fragility, we must give Ukraine the leverage it needs in any negotiations and support its efforts to push Russian forces back.
Let me be absolutely clear: Trump’s original 28-point proposal was not a peace deal; it was a horrific geopolitical compromise—a foul capitulation that would serve only to embolden the aggressor. It would force Ukraine into neutrality; limit Ukraine’s ability to defend itself; ban NATO deployments; lock Ukraine out of NATO; recognise Russian sovereignty over Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk; lift sanctions on Russia; invite Russia back into the G8; and even force Ukraine into elections within 100 days. That is not peace—not even close. It rewards and legitimates Russia’s decade-long aggression, and signals to every authoritarian regime around the world that conquest works.
Yes, peace talks have taken place, and the Liberal Democrat position is clearer than ever. First, emergency legislation is vital to seize frozen Russian assets and repurpose them to fund Ukraine’s defence, reconstruction and humanitarian rehabilitation. Secondly, the return of every abducted Ukrainian child is a non-negotiable red line. Thirdly, there must be no reward for Putin: no G7, no G20 and no rehabilitation into the international community. Finally, no settlement can force Ukraine to concede territory. If lands are ceded, one question will echo loudly: what about the children stolen from those territories? Russia already claims them as Russian, and ceding territory may be taken as tacit confirmation of that appalling logic.
That is precisely why peace cannot be built on appeasement directed from Mar-a-Lago. It must be justice as seen from Kyiv. It must be built on a foundation that allows Ukraine not only to survive the war, but to rebuild afterwards: rebuild its infrastructure, its communities, and its way of life as a coherent, bordered, bounded and fully sovereign state. Ukraine’s right to freedom and self-determination is immutable. Any settlement must respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity and its sovereign choice to make alliances and coalitions, free from the long arm of Russia and Putin.
This moment is about more than rebuilding Ukraine; it is about rebuilding European security. Russian aggression has made one truth clear: Europe must take greater responsibility for defending Europe. We face the greatest challenge to European security in several generations. The United States has, regrettably, shown itself to be unpredictable and capricious. At any moment, President Trump could shift his attention, whether by choice or necessity, towards the genuine threat of China or the somewhat more local distractions that he sees in Venezuela, Mexico, Greenland or, dare I say it, even Canada, leaving Europe exposed. That is a strategic reality that we cannot ignore. Multipolarity brings both opportunities and new responsibilities. Europe can and needs to act collectively. Europe can and needs to co-ordinate defence procurement, intelligence sharing and economic solidarity. Europe can and needs to step up to the moment, and the United Kingdom can and needs to take a leading role.
We are living through an unusual moment in geopolitics. We can see the future with rare clarity and certainty. Our Prime Minister and Chancellor have hinted repeatedly, particularly in the lead-up to the recent Budget, about the need to rebuild bridges with Europe for the sake of our productivity and our economy. To that, I would add Europe’s collective security, defence, resilience, military-industrial procurement and innovation. Yes, it is a challenge and it requires political courage, but the UK should keep pursuing the deepest possible participation in Security Action for Europe, deepen co-operation, strengthen shared defence planning and align ourselves once again with the partners who share our values and our security.
Those in Europe who are dragging their heels need to lift their heads to the horizon and see the bigger picture. We face a generational challenge. We are stronger together. If we fail to act now, we will be judged by history as the generation who allowed these atrocities to take place, who allowed invasion and occupation by violence to redraw Europe and reshape the future, and who failed to put national self-interest aside to secure the cause of freedom, liberty, democracy and the international rules-based order.
To conclude, we cannot afford to be bystanders in this fight. Justice is what we owe Ukraine and what we now must deliver.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
May I begin by congratulating my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on securing this important debate, together with his co-signatories, the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale)? All four are long-standing stalwarts and champions of the great cause of defending Ukraine. I congratulate them not only on securing this debate, but on their timing, enabling us to scrutinise the evolving situation amid a flurry of reports about the peace talks, frozen assets and continued wild rhetoric from Vladimir Putin.
When it comes to those talks, we all surely want peace in Ukraine. We all want an end to the fighting and the bloody slaughter of civilians and military personnel at a scale not seen in Europe since world war two. No one wants or deserves that more than the people of Ukraine. When we say that it must be a lasting peace, it is because the long-term security of Ukraine cannot be sacrificed for an illusory short-term cessation of hostilities on unacceptable terms, and certainly not for some kind of transactional economic gain for other nations, least of all Russia. We have constantly stood shoulder to shoulder with the Government, not just in supporting Ukraine as they did in opposition, but in being clear that the only tolerable peace is one secured on terms acceptable to the Government in Kyiv. We stand by that position, in total solidarity with Ukraine, for moral and practical reasons.
Morally, this war has a clear and flagrant aggressor—Putin’s Russia—which invaded a free and sovereign democracy. That is contrary to those who have echoed Putin’s own propaganda and blamed NATO for provoking this invasion. We are also clear that this invasion was wholly unprovoked and motivated by what my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex described in his excellent speech as the inherent nature of the Russian regime—its rejection of our democratic values and its desire to restore former glories by abolishing Ukraine’s independence.
On the practical side of the argument, supporting Ukraine is self-evidently an act that strengthens our defence, checking Russian expansionism. Indeed, I remain deeply proud of the last Government’s decision to rapidly arm Ukraine from the weeks prior to Russia’s invasion in February 2022, which helped Ukraine’s brave armed forces to avoid an early capitulation that would have left the Russian forces rampant, directly threatening ourselves and the rest of Europe.
The devil’s advocate might argue that if, morally, peace is the right way forward, and if we are also applying practical common sense, that speaks to seeking a compromise that may be painful for Ukraine but unavoidable if we are to see an end to the fighting, because surely Russia needs to be satisfied with the terms if there is to be a mutually agreed end to the war. To that, I would make the argument, as I have from the outset, that the most important moral and practical reason that as a nation we should all be cautious in welcoming any kind of uneasy peace deal, is that Russia gaining from its flagrant aggression would send a message that emboldens all our potential strategic adversaries, ultimately making the world less safe for us and all our allies.
With Putin unsurprisingly rejecting any compromise and showing the reality of his position by launching another massive drone attack on Ukraine, what exactly can be done? First, despite Putin’s cynicism, it is clearly important that all possible diplomatic efforts are made to support Ukraine, and we would be grateful if the Minister could update us on the latest developments. Secondly, we welcome the sanctioning of the GRU, which we heard about from the Security Minister, and support using all possible economic tools to pressure the Russian regime.
On the issue of economic tools, it has been reported that the European Commission is proposing the use of Russian assets to provide €90 billion to Ukraine in the form of a reparations loan. Further to the question from the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley, who made an excellent speech, can the Minister confirm whether the UK will pursue a similar or different approach? What legal solutions are the Government currently pursuing so that we can move beyond using just the profits from sovereign assets, and will we prioritise mobilising those assets for the immediate war effort?
Thirdly, echoing the comments of the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) and others—we are at war, as he said—and the reminder from the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) about Putin’s comments this week about his being ready for war with Europe, we must ask about our own readiness. On the crucial matter of defence spending in the UK, and given the concerns expressed yesterday by no less than Lord Robertson, the author of the strategic defence review, who questioned how seriously the Chancellor takes the need to increase defence spending, I have a specific question for the Minister: in what financial year will UK defence spending start to rise beyond the NATO-declared figure of 2.6% of GDP in 2027? That is a crucial question.
I turn to the other points in the many excellent speeches made in our debate. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke movingly about the atrocities in the war. Of course, he reminded us that one of the reasons we stand by Ukraine so strongly is because of the sheer brutality of the war, which was forced, unprovoked, on the people of Ukraine.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) made an excellent point when he said that surely it is in the economic domain that, in the long term, we can exert the greatest pressure on Russia, not least given the economic mismatch at play against the west.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) made a brilliant speech. She and the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) both compensated for the absence of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who has led an amazing campaign, by reminding us about the terrible Russian war crime of child abduction. I join the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South in welcoming any sanctions that target those involved, which is a very good point.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) asked an interesting question, which is entirely hypothetical, as to whether the invasion would have occurred had Ukraine still possessed nuclear weapons, which of course it gave up, in good trust, through the Budapest memorandum. I wonder whether he is aware that in July 2016, during an historic debate on the renewal of the nuclear deterrent, the first intervention on the then new Prime Minister, Theresa May, was from our former colleague Andrew Selous, who asked exactly the same question. He asked it after the annexation of Crimea, and it is a question that we must still ask. It was answered brilliantly today by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who has cared about these matters for a long time, when he reminded us that there was no third world war. There were conflicts elsewhere, but we did not have a repeat because of the deterrents that the two sides had. The conclusion we draw is that we must learn from that ourselves and always continue to invest to our own deterrent, despite the fact that it is extremely expensive.
Along those lines, the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) asked a very important question about security guarantees. I hope the Minister will respond to that and set out his thinking on the sorts of security guarantees that would be involved if there were to be a lasting peace.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) said that he feels that 2026 may be the decisive year of the war, and I am sure he is correct. It is going to be decisive, one way or the other. As such, it is quite clear that we must continue to provide all possible military support and so on.
The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), who was always a very good contributor on these matters from the Liberal Democrats Front Bench, made the very good point that unexploded ordnance poses a threat not just to civilians, but to farming and food production. Many Members made excellent speeches, and it is a real privilege to join them in speaking today.
To conclude, I know that, like me, the Minister believes passionately that the UK could be a leader in uncrewed warfare, and one way we can do that is by partnering with Ukrainian companies. As such, it was a real privilege recently to visit the new factory being set up in Suffolk by Ukrspecsystems, a cutting-edge Ukrainian drone company. It is committed to producing such equipment here in the UK and creating jobs in my county of Suffolk. It is a reminder that our two nations’ deepening co-operation covers everything from military capability to acting in concert with allies on the diplomatic front and looking to the future with the 100-year partnership first proposed under our Government.
However, the most important aspect of our partnership is our values. We are both democracies facing a shared threat from Putin’s despotism, and it is a shared threat. The Novichok inquiry has today described Putin as “morally responsible” for the death of a British citizen on our home soil as a result of a nerve agent. We also see Putin as unambiguously morally responsible for all the suffering he has inflicted, without provocation, on the people of Ukraine. As I say, it is a shared threat. We support the Government in seeking a lasting peace acceptable to the Ukrainians, and I hope that the shared message of cross-party support for Ukraine sent from this Chamber today will provide some comfort to its people amid the horrors of war.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Al Carns)
First, I express great thanks to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for pulling together this debate. I have listened to the truly outstanding speeches and contributions from all Members on both sides of the House, but I would like to begin by paying tribute not to us, but to the brave men and women of the Ukrainian armed forces who, day in and day out, are fighting for national survival. They are fighting for freedom, for justice and for the right to self-determination, and I believe there is no more honourable thing to be doing.
Today in this House we have sent a clear and resounding message to Vladimir Putin that no matter how he tries to justify his illegal war in Ukraine, no matter how he blames other countries for conflict that he alone is responsible for, and no matter how he thinks he can intimidate Europe—with drone incursions, spy ships and reckless activity—we see him and we know exactly what he is up to.
My hon. Friend the Security Minister updated the House earlier on the consequences of Putin’s reckless and despicable activity here on the British mainland. Dawn Sturgess’s needless death was an unspeakable tragedy that will forever be a reminder of Russia’s reckless aggression. That is why he today announced in the House sweeping measures to include sanctions on the entire GRU—the Russian military intelligence agency—and 11 actors behind Russian state-sponsored activity.
The UK will always stand up to Putin’s brutal regime and call out his murderous machine for what it is, which is why we are united in our determination to support Ukraine for as long as it takes to achieve the just and lasting peace that the people of Ukraine fully deserve, to keep tightening international economic sanctions on his economy and to keep working with our partners to protect Europe from the threats he poses.
I thank Members on all sides for their speeches, and I would like to reflect on some of the comments and themes. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) mentioned many valuable points. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) mentioned a really useful saying about NATO, and we may want to think in a similar way about these negotiations—keeping the US in, keeping the Ukraine at the very centre and keeping Europe focused. It is on the diplomatic points that were mentioned that I personally believe the Government have driven—we had a leading role in ensuring that the 28-point peace plan is relevant, has Ukraine at its very centre and has Europe all pushing together in a unified manner. Our Government and our Prime Minister have done a fantastic job in that regard.
When we talk about assets—I will talk about them in a bit more detail later—I am quite confident that by the end of the year we will, hopefully, collectively with Europe, have unlocked a huge amount of assets to apply more pressure on Russia and to fund Ukraine’s defence. For clarity, on our own readiness, by 2027 we will be spending 2.6% on defence.
The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex mentioned that the war in Ukraine has spread, and the argument has been made across the House that we are at war. I would argue that the war in Ukraine is geographically constrained, but the conflict is not. We see that moving across and around all the conventional themes of war, specifically in the cyber domain, the influence domain right here in the United Kingdom, and, of course, in the political domain, with the funding of political parties to cause division and strife across the political divide.
The hon. Member also talked about whether Ukraine was losing. I am a firm believer, at the strategic level, that Ukraine and NATO are absolutely on the front foot. Sweden and Finland have become part of the greatest defence alliance the world has ever seen. Russia has taken 1 million casualties. It is just worth thinking about that: 1 million casualties. It is almost the population of some eastern Baltic states. It is more casualties than America took in the entire second world war. In a lot of cases, we have isolated Russia from the west. Its economy is under significant pressure and just this year it has taken 380,000 casualties on the frontline.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his response to the debate. I know his personal commitment to these issues is very strong indeed, but may I just take him back to the point he makes? He pulls back from the idea that we in the NATO countries are already in a kind of war with Russia. I have to tell him that there is a tendency to try to sanitise the severity of the threats we face. How effective does he think is the Government’s “conversation” with the British population about the threats we face? How successful does he think that is? A lot of us feel that we are not seeing it at all. The Government are not leading this conversation. Indeed, it is almost being shut down because of the pressures of domestic politics, and the lack of support from the public for having such a conversation makes it very difficult. Will he comment on that, because it was in the strategic defence review?
Al Carns
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. It absolutely was front and centre of the strategic defence review. There will be a couple of announcements coming in the next couple of weeks about how we hope to change the narrative and better explain, in a relatable manner, the threats or crises that take place away from our shores and how they impact us here in the UK. A small example, although attribution and where it came from is still to be understood, is the £1.5 billion bail-out for Jaguar Land Rover. That is half the two-child benefit cap for a year. That relatable statistic suddenly hammers it home to individuals in all our constituencies. They may not be focused on international policy, but they understand the ramifications for the way we live here.
Energy prices and the cost of food—one of the biggest impacts on the cost of living—are caused by the war in Ukraine. More people were plunged into poverty across the globe because of the war in Ukraine. We need to make more of a conscious effort, collectively, to describe these threats, and how they resonate here and globally, in a more forceful manner, so that people understand why taking an active stance on some of these conflicts is equally as important not only for the countries involved but for the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex also mentioned, in his fantastic opening speech, NATO and whether we are ready. Another description is required when we talk about the UK and our readiness to defend. We are a part of NATO. Statistically, when we look at the scale of NATO forces available, we see that we outnumber Russia by a significant amount, whether in the air force, maritime or land domain. I agree with his comments about the remarkable unity that Europe and the UK have shown when engaging with the 28-point peace plan—in some cases rejecting it and changing it to ensure that Ukraine is at its very centre. European and UK leadership has been second to none in that space.
One subject that has resonated across the House today is the issue of the abducted children. My hon. Friend the Members for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who could not make it here today, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) have all mentioned the impact on families and children in particular. This is not new. It is part of Russian doctrine. It was used in Afghanistan. In every conflict, they round up the children, move them to Russia for re-education and indoctrination, then bring them back. We are seeing an appalling abduction of Ukrainian citizens by Russia on a scale that is described by the Yale Humanitarian Research Lab as the largest wartime child abduction since world war two. It is absolutely shocking and despicable.
The UK has raised this issue at the UN and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and I pay tribute to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South in highlighting the OSCE officials in Russian custody: Dmytro Shabanov, Maxim Petrov and Vadym Golda. We have committed £2.8 million to help Ukrainian children come back, and have been an active member of the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children throughout. Since the beginning of September, the pilot tracing mechanism has already identified over 600 additional children who were deported to the Russian Federation or relocated within the temporarily occupied territories.
I agree with the view that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) holds of Zelensky. His leadership, courage, determination and conviction are an example to not only the Ukrainians but the world of how a state that in some ways is dwarfed by Russia has stood up against one of the biggest militaries in the world. I also agree, being relatively self-critical of the west, about there being some institutional arrogance when it comes to defence technology. That links to the point made about Ukrspecsystems. There are false lessons from Ukraine, but there are many more real ones that we need to adhere to, learn and integrate into our armed forces—in particular, about the integration of uncrewed systems data and electronic warfare. This point will be made throughout the defence investment plan. To be clear, we did not agree with the 28-point peace plan, and have worked very hard to change it, to put Ukraine at the very centre of it, and to look at what is acceptable. I hope to discuss some of the implications of that later.
The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) brought up a really good point about unexploded ordnance and the use of landmines in the conflict. There are millions of landmines, now rendering large swathes of Ukraine inaccessible to the farmers or families who once owned the land. It will be a generational problem to solve, and one that Members from all parties will need to deal with collectively.
From my perspective, our support for Ukraine is unshakeable. I say to the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) that, from my perspective, we are doing the most we can to support Ukraine. We are spending £4.5 billion on military support to Ukraine. We are leading the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, which has already delivered and harnessed £50 billion-worth of support for Ukraine. To make that more tangible, that is 5 million rounds of ammunition, ranging from 60,000 rounds of artillery all the way through to 100,000 drones this year alone and 140 lightweight missiles. There is much more to do. The defence industry is powering up across Europe. If we look at our defence industrial base, and our societal resilience in dealing with this conflict, I think we can see that we are waking the sleeping tiger in Europe.
I also think that the constant threats and hyperbole from Vladimir Putin are a direct consequence of significant pressure, and of him having to live with the moral indignation of being responsible for over 1 million casualties and the devastation of large swathes of Ukraine. Like the right hon. Member for Gainsborough, I personally do not think that there is division in the UK; we are unified across the parties. I do not think that there is division in Europe, particularly among the large players in this space. I believe that we have unity when it comes to the 28-point peace plan and putting Ukraine at the very centre of that negotiation. Ukraine must keep fighting, and the UK will be with it throughout.
The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), and for Llanelli, and many others mentioned frozen assets. We support the continued pressure on the Russian assets that are fuelling this illegal and barbaric war across Ukraine, and the pressure on Russia’s economic tentacles, but we must put increased pressure on Russia. It is worth noting that we have clamped down on Russia’s war machine and economic support mechanism. We have already sanctioned over 2,900 people and companies, and with our allies, we have already put in place £450 billion-worth of sanctions, which is the equivalent of two years of fighting.
We are moving forward with plans to use the full value of immobilised Russian sovereign assets to support Ukraine. We welcome the European Commission’s action just this week to bring forward concrete plans to meet Ukraine’s urgent financial needs—plans that will support the defence of the nation. I look forward to hearing more detail on that, hopefully by the end of this year.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I want to raise a point that I have just been told about. There is a debate right now in the Bundestag about the sanctions regime, and the German Chancellor Herr Merz has given up other visits in the last 24 hours to go to Belgium to persuade the Belgians to agree to proposals on sanctions. There is pressure around this. I have just been asked to ask the Minister whether he would say that this is a very worth- while visit, and that the British Government support the intention of getting Belgium to enter into the scheme with the lion’s share of the Euroclear funds. That would make an enormous difference to support for Ukraine.
Al Carns
I was in Germany just last week, and when I left, I muttered, “Germany is back.” I think that representatives from Germany going to Belgium to help unlock a significant amount of resource for Ukraine can be nothing but a good thing.
Many Members mentioned the increase in hybrid conflict. The conventional war that Russia is waging is the most barbaric that we have seen since, I would argue, world war one or world war two. Nevertheless, Europe and the west must accept that this attritional, force-on-force, game-of-chequers approach is accompanied by a sophisticated chess match, the consequences of which are as deadly. I believe that Russia is probing to find weaknesses in our security and critical national infrastructure. It is manoeuvring and flanking to change opinions, both on social media and in political parties, and is seeking to circumnavigate sanctions at every opportunity, and it is doing so with like-minded autocratic regimes. We must work doubly hard to identify, expose and deter those threats, and we should have the capability to defeat them, should they prevail.
I disagree with the comments of the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) about timidity and a lack of leadership. In the foreign policy space, the UK, in conjunction with our European allies, has helped the Americans come to a more workable solution, and the Ukrainians have been put right at the heart of that—and I think that the Prime Minister has demonstrated exceptional leadership in that. We are still seen to be leading this fight. I look to the Conservative Benches. Whether it be Storm Shadow or Challenger, collectively we have led on this, from a UK perspective. I do not think that we are lacking in any way.
Sir Julian Lewis
One way in which we could continue to lead would be by giving a very firm commitment that if the frontlines are indeed frozen, a coalition of the willing would have military assets on the ground, at the invitation of unoccupied Ukraine, so that there could be no question but that a future attack would trigger a response from that coalition. Otherwise, any security guarantee is not worth the paper on which it is printed.
Al Carns
The right hon. Member makes a very valid point. We have led over 30 countries in the coalition of the willing in designing safe seas and skies and secure borders. We have a capability that is well thought-through and well-planned, and it will be ready to go, if required.
The reality is that a secure Europe needs a strong and sovereign Ukraine, and Ukraine must have credible security guarantees if it is to defend itself, as many Members have mentioned. That is why we have led the coalition of the willing; and be in no doubt: we are ready to deploy and deliver our commitment, should the peace be negotiated to allow us to do so. We continue to put in £3 billion a year—£4.5 billion this year—and we will continue to play a leadership role in the Ukraine Defence Contact Group.
Pokrovsk was mentioned early on, and it was rightly pointed out that it has not fallen yet. The Ukrainians are holding a valiant defence of that town. It is worth mentioning, when we talk about tactical success or failure, that Russia has advanced only 15 km over the last year, equivalent to 4 metres a day, and has taken 170,000 casualties to fight its way into Pokrovsk. That is a world war two scale of casualties. Russia has suffered over a million casualties to gain only around 1% of Ukrainian territory; that brings home the impact of the conflict.
Day after day, for almost four years, the Ukrainians have fought with incredible courage, determination and ingenuity. The UK and Europe stand together, more so than ever before, and Putin’s continued aggression binds us closer together. We are collectively spending more on defence than at any time since the cold war, with more joint exercising, more joint planning and more joint capability development, because Ukraine is at the forefront of European security. If Putin opts for a long overdue ceasefire, we will continue to lead the coalition of the willing to establish credible deterrence in Ukraine. If that is not forthcoming, we will continue to work with allies to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position by upping military support and upping the pressure on Putin’s war machine.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) gave a great speech that quoted Churchill, so may I finish on one, also?
“When I look back upon the perils we overcame across the great waves, the gallant ship has sailed, we will not fear the tempest. Let it roar, let it rage.”—[Official Report, 7 May 1941; Vol. 371, c. 946.]
Ukraine will come through.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
Within the last few minutes, I read that President Zelensky is on a state visit to Dublin, but his arriving plane was buzzed by four mysterious military-grade drones. That is what we are up against, and there is not sufficient awareness of that. The fact that this Chamber is sparsely populated this afternoon suggests that this whole debate is yet to get into the mainstream of our politics and our national discourse. I emphasise again that the Government have yet to deliver the national conversation that they promised in their strategic defence review. I recognise the efforts that people in the defence community are making, and that includes Ministers, but involving the whole of Government, the whole of the Opposition and the whole of politics is what is required.
I hoped that this debate would demonstrate the unity across the House that has indeed been shown today. I thank every colleague, from every part of the House, for their contribution, and all those who signed the motion who could not be here today. The motion was intended to be a clear statement of our national intent. I imagine that it will go through without a vote, so that the signal will be sent to the world about what this country believes, and what it believes must be done. But I come back to the point that we need to underline our will and signal the force of our intent if we are to achieve what we want to achieve, and to lead our allies from the front. I believe that the United Kingdom is capable of doing that, and is to some extent doing its best to achieve it, but also that other countries are looking to us to take a stronger lead and set the best example, in line with the achievements of our history and our values. I am very grateful that this debate has taken place, and it has been an honour to lead it.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You sit in the Chair and are not allowed to speak, so many in the House may not realise your role in all this. You have visited Ukraine with me and others, and you have been a stalwart champion of all that we have been debating today, so I wanted to make sure that the House recognised the incredible attention and support that you have given.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all Members here for speaking in support of Ukraine, and for making such important speeches.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House again condemns President Putin’s war of aggression in Ukraine, which is now in its fourth year of tragedy and destruction; condemns the atrocities committed by Russia in Ukraine, in particular the abduction of Ukrainian children; supports efforts to negotiate a durable and lasting peace agreement; asserts that this must reaffirm all Ukrainian sovereign territory as recognised in international law, including any occupied territories; believes that Ukraine’s sovereignty must be guaranteed by all parties including by all NATO nations and by the EU, to mirror Article V of the NATO Treaty; further believes that Ukraine must be free to sustain capability to deter a future Russian attack; also supports increased economic sanctions further to reduce Russian revenues from the export of oil and gas; and urges the Government and the UK’s allies to accelerate military support for Ukraine, and to release frozen Russian assets for the financing of increased military spending in Ukraine as soon as possible.
Domestic Violence: Support for Victims’ Families
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
I applied for this debate so that I could raise the case of Paula Leeson on behalf of her family. I should start by reassuring all parties that this is no longer a live criminal investigation and, as well as having spoken about this case previously in the Chamber, all the details contained within have been widely reported in the media.
The Leeson family believe that Paula was killed by her then husband Donald McPherson in 2019. That Mr McPherson is currently a free man is, they believe, a damning indictment of a justice system that has badly failed them. I want to place on the record my view that the Leesons have not had the justice they deserve, and that lessons must be learned when prosecuting other acts of domestic violence and when supporting victims’ family members.
Before getting into the details of this tragic case, I want to pay tribute to the Leeson family, particularly Neville Leeson, Paula’s brother. My office has been supporting Neville in his mission to get justice for Paula since I was elected, and I cannot begin to imagine the pain he has endured since Paula’s death. Whenever I speak to him, I am struck by his love for Paula and his dedication to pursuing justice for his sister, but also his unwavering dignity in the face of such hardship.
Paula’s case is complex, and some of the details are, quite frankly, hard to believe, so I will do my best to summarise them now. In 2019, Paula, an otherwise healthy woman, died fully clothed in a shallow pool while on holiday in Denmark with her then husband Donald McPherson. Despite Paula having 13 separate injuries on her body, an initial investigation by the Danish police accepted Mr McPherson’s version of events that he woke from a nap to find Paula unconscious in the pool, and that he then failed in his attempts to resuscitate her. These attempts, he claimed, were the cause of bruising around her neck.
In the hours after Paula’s death, Mr McPherson, a convicted conman, was withdrawing money from their joint account to pay off significant financial debts. We now also know that prior to her death, Mr McPherson took out multiple fraudulent life insurance policies on Paula without her knowledge. Upon her repatriation to the United Kingdom, Greater Manchester police opened a criminal investigation into Paula’s death, and in March 2021 that case went to criminal court. The judge presiding over the case decided that because it could not be ruled out completely that the injuries to Paula were from rescue or resuscitation attempts, he had no choice but to stop the trial at the halfway point and instruct the jury to issue a not guilty verdict after just two weeks.
The Leesons were understandably devastated by this verdict, but they did not give up. They pursued a civil claim against Donald McPherson in the High Court to prevent him from claiming the life insurance policies he had taken out on Paula. In September 2024, the judge presiding over the civil case concluded that it was his “firm view” that Donald McPherson deliberately and unlawfully killed Paula Leeson by compressing her neck in an arm lock, rendering her unconscious and causing her to drown. Crucially, the civil trial heard evidence not presented in the criminal trial, including evidence from a pathologist, who said:
“It was difficult to envisage how the extent of the bruising to Paula could be caused during the attempts to resuscitate her alone.”
There was also evidence from the Fitbit that Paula was wearing when she died. It demonstrated a sharp rise in her heart rate, consistent with an adrenalin response to a violent attack. The Fitbit showed a decline in her heart rate thereafter, consistent with her being rendered unconscious, drowning and dying. The timing of the spike and decline in heart rate directly contradicted Mr McPherson’s timeline of events.
Following the verdict in the civil trial, the Leesons pursued a criminal retrial. That was a long and arduous process in which the Leesons experienced unimaginable stress and uncertainty. In September, the Director of Public Prosecutions declined the request for a criminal retrial. That was a devastating blow to the Leesons from which they have not recovered. The Director of Public Prosecutions made what he admitted was an incredibly difficult decision using parameters set by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. To put it simply, those parameters meant that he was able to grant a retrial only if there was new and compelling evidence, and it was in the public interest for the application to proceed.
The DPP concluded that neither the Fitbit evidence nor the pathology evidence were new. That is because the Fitbit evidence was available to the prosecution in the initial criminal trial, but it was not used because they felt that it would not advance their case. Similarly, the prosecution did not instruct the pathologist I have mentioned to present evidence at the criminal trial, despite having the option to do so. Evidence from Donald McPherson’s laptop showing deleted searches on both drowning and murder was also not deemed compelling new evidence of guilt because the time those searches were made could not be conclusively proven.
The Leesons believe that the prosecution made a significant error in not using the Fitbit or pathologist evidence in the initial criminal trial. They believe that that error has now prevented the DPP from granting a retrial that they believe could give them justice for Paula, and I am inclined to agree with them. I ask the Minister whether we might consider some flexibility in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, so that a potential mistake from the prosecution at an initial trial does not then rule out the possibility of a retrial ever being granted. Can the bar that must be met for a retrial be reassessed in this context? The Leesons understandably believe that the parameters set by the Criminal Justice Act are now preventing it from doing the very thing that it was designed for. I appreciate that this is a complex issue, and that Paula’s case is in many ways unique, but it would bring great comfort to the family if the Minister and the Government considered that specific issue, and Paula’s case in a wider context, to see what lessons can be learned.
I will end my remarks by sharing what Neville said to me yesterday:
“Once again, we find ourselves alone having to fight for justice for Paula because of the failures of the criminal justice system and a Criminal Justice Act 2003 which works very hard to help the criminal over the victims and their families.
Neither Paula nor my family are responsible for all the failures of the criminal justice system for Paula, and yet we are expected to endure the consequences of their failures for the rest of our lives. Is Paula’s life worth less than anyone else’s life? It shouldn’t be this way.”
I agree—it should not. If that is the consequence of our current legislative framework and settlement, I say to the Minister that the current framework, and the parameters that it sets, do not feel right to me.
I sincerely hope that there is something we can do to bring the Leesons some comfort after the horrific ordeal they have endured. I hope that bringing this debate to the Floor of the House, to make this a matter of public record for ever, will be of some small comfort to them, too.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) on securing this important debate. I would like to start by sending my sympathies to the family of Paula Leeson and responding to Neville, who spoke in this Chamber through his MP, by telling him that he is not alone; he has a fine champion in his Member of Parliament, who has brought this issue to the House. I can reassure him and the House that I am seized of this matter and will certainly be looking at all the issues raised in my hon. Friend’s speech.
The tragedy that the Leeson family have suffered is simply unimaginable. They continue to campaign in Paula’s memory with extraordinary dignity and courage, and I commend them and their MP, my hon. Friend, for bringing this matter to the Government’s attention. As they will no doubt be aware, the legal decision at the heart of their case is a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service, which is rightly independent of Government. Members will be aware that I am unable to comment on the details of that specific decision by the DPP, but I am very happy—indeed, I am keen—to meet my hon. Friend’s constituents to discuss this case in more detail, if they would find that helpful. I have made inquiries this afternoon and am informed that the Director of Public Prosecutions would also be happy—indeed, keen—to meet my hon. Friend’s constituents to discuss the case.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 clearly has to strike a balance between ensuring there is finality in criminal proceedings and, as the Act attempts to do, offering a recourse to look again when it is appropriate. I am happy to have that conversation and look again at whether that legislation strikes the right balance.
Before I go on to speak about wider Government initiatives to assist victims of domestic violence and abuse, I want again on behalf of the Government to send my deepest condolences to all those who knew and loved Paula Leeson. That the justice system has seemingly confounded their pain and suffering is deeply regretful, and I assure them that I will look into any aspect of our system to make sure that this cannot happen again. As I said, I am aware that the DPP has been in touch with the family and is very happy to meet again to discuss the details of this case.
Let me be abundantly clear: this Government are committed to putting victims at the heart of the justice system, especially when it comes to confronting the scourge of violence against women and girls. Working with Home Office colleagues, we at the Ministry of Justice will always keep victims at the forefront of our mind, investing in more support, reforming our justice system to ensure justice is served—and served expeditiously —and clamping down on the tools that too often allow those who abuse women and girls to thrive.
When the history of this Government is written, it will speak of the incredible work done by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), on the violence against women and girls strategy—ambitious but practical, reforming the fundamental injustices that too many victims face in our law and order system and protecting those women and girls who need protection.
I know that the domestic abuse and violence that was suffered, or allegedly suffered, by Paula Leeson has an impact on entire families, not just the direct victims, so I want to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West about some of this Government’s initiatives to support victims of domestic abuse. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 already recognises the profound impact domestic abuse can have on children. Section 3 makes clear that where a child sees, hears or experiences the effects of abuse perpetrated by or against a parent or relative, that child will also be treated as a victim of domestic abuse. That is an important measure, making it easier for children to access support such as mental health services.
Domestic abuse can have lifelong impacts on victims. Victims and, where appropriate, their families need vital support to help them cope and rebuild their lives and engage with the criminal justice system. Ensuring victims receive the right and timely support is a key part of this Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls. That is why the Ministry of Justice will be investing £550 million in victim support services over the next three years—the biggest investment in victim support services on record. We will be increasing funding for victim support services year on year over the course of this Parliament, recognising the need to meet the rising cost pressures of delivery, to ensure that these vital services can continue to offer victims the support that they need.
We know that many police and crime commissioners use the funding that we are giving to commission specific support for victims and their families in their areas. Some areas use wider sources of funding and work in collaboration with local partners, such as the South Yorkshire, Cleveland and Essex police and crime commissioners who have commissioned outreach work in schools with child victims of domestic abuse.
Police and crime commissioners also have a current role funding vital victim support roles, such as independent domestic violence advisers who provide emotional and practical support to victims of domestic abuse. Earlier this year, we published statutory guidance on IDVAs, which aims to improve the consistency of support delivered to victims and raise the profile of the IDVA role. We recognise the important work that police and crime commissioners and mayors do to commission vital support services for victims and witnesses. Ensuring ongoing support to victims in future governance arrangements will be a key priority for this Government.
The MOJ has commissioned national services, such as the 24/7 live chat service, which can be accessed anonymously and provides 24/7 support to victims of all crimes, and the My Support Space platform, which provides informative guides for victims and those supporting them. In the tragic case of bereavement by homicide following domestic abuse, the National Homicide Service, delivered by Victim Support, can provide emotional, practical, specialist advocacy and peer support.
We are taking steps to improve the justice system’s response to domestic abuse and violence, from the first time someone calls the police, to court, all the way through to the way that perpetrators are managed after sentence, which is the issue that my hon. Friend has brought to the House. We have introduced domestic abuse specialists in 999 call centres in selected areas so that, when a victim calls the police, specialists can support first responders to properly and rigorously assess the risk, and ensure that there is an appropriate response. The Sentencing Bill, currently making its way through Parliament, will create a new domestic abuse flag at sentencing. This will help prison and probation services manage offenders effectively and will ensure victims that are better supported.
We are taking action to ensure that survivors of domestic abuse and their children are better protected in the family courts. We are expanding the pathfinder courts, which are helping to ensure that more children’s voices are heard and victims are better supported. Under the pathfinder model the proportion of children seen by social workers increases from around 30% to 80%. That means their wishes and feelings can be ascertained directly and in a manner of their choosing.
Tackling domestic abuse is important right across Government. The Home Office has invested a further £19 million to provide vital support to victims of violence against women and girls. That includes over £6 million for the national helpline supporting victims of domestic abuse, honour-based abuse, revenge porn and stalking, and £450,000 to provide additional advocacy to families who have been bereaved by domestic homicide, as well as suicides and unexpected deaths that have taken place following domestic abuse.
I hope that my remarks setting out the broad policy agenda that this Government are pursuing have reassured hon. Members and those watching that this Government take this issue particularly seriously. We are committed to making sure that the right support, help and protections are in place for victims of domestic abuse and violence and their families.
Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West for raising this case, which he has raised repeatedly in the House since he was elected last summer. As he accepts, it raises complex issues around our criminal justice system, which I will continue to look into. I will conclude where I started by sending my profound condolences to those who have lost loved ones connected to the debate and commending all those who fight and work for change.
Question put and agreed to.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Fifth sitting)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 11, page 9, line 33, leave out paragraph (b).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 52, in clause 11, page 10, leave out lines 28 and 29.
Ian Byrne
Good morning, Sir Roger. The offence of misleading the public is aimed at deterring wrongdoing related to the system, rather than to individual gain or loss, which is adequately covered by the offences under clauses 12 and 13. I feel that proof of harm is therefore inappropriate and will render clause 11 potentially ineffective in a number of contexts.
The provision of this new offence and of the clause 5 offence dealing with the duty to assist are vital in making a duty of candour practical and effective, rather than merely aspirational. It is important to recognise that they are different from the codified misconduct in public office or MIPO offences under clauses 12 and 13. The new offences will enforce the proper functioning of public authorities and official investigations, and prevent cover-ups. That is crucial to what we are trying to do with this legislation.
The MIPO offences deal with individual wrongdoing by the misuse of office for personal gain, or by causing detriment through gross negligence. The new clause 5 and clause 11 offences are therefore complementary to, but distinct from the MIPO offences, in practice and in principle. Subsection (3)(b) inappropriately and unnecessarily adds the ingredient of “harm” to a victim, but the fact that it is contrary to principle is not the central objection.
The real problem is that subsection (3)(b) significantly reduces the effectiveness of the provision, which aims to deter cover-ups rather than punish actual harm to identifiable individuals, although harm to victims may in fact be caused. In some cases, that will not be problematic, but it will negate the provision in other cases where it absolutely should apply: for example, the falsification of crime statistics or the false denial of something previously admitted by state agents to the media concerning a matter of substantial public interest—both actual, real-life cases. That is why I have moved the amendment, and I hope the Minister will recognise that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
It is a privilege to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby for outlining his concerns. I hope I will be able to reassure him as to the Government’s intent.
Clause 1 of the Bill clearly sets out that public authorities and officials are expected to act with candour, transparency and frankness at all times. Criminal sanctions should be reserved for the most serious cases. The condition that an act has to have caused, or had the potential to cause harm will achieve that effect. It will not be a bar to prosecution in those cases, and I hope to explain why.
The definition of harm is broad. It includes physical harm, psychological harm, including distress, and economic loss. I reassure the Committee that distress was added on the suggestion of Hillsborough Law Now. That is a non-exhaustive list and it can include other types of harm. The condition includes harm or the potential for harm. The offence does not require there to be proof that the act has caused harm to an individual. In cases such as Hillsborough and Horizon, evidence of harm caused by cover-ups is clear and apparent. We have designed the offence with historical incidents of state failure in mind where, at a minimum, potential distress could be identified and in many cases much more serious harm.
The requirement for an act to have the potential to cause harm is a key condition to ensure that the offence applies only to serious cases. The harm threshold ensures that the public, the police and prosecutors are able to distinguish between those actions that meet the threshold for criminal sanctions and those that should be dealt with through other routes, such as an organisation’s complaints process, or covered by other aspects of the law. The nature of public life is that it is not uncommon for public officials or officeholders to be accused of being untruthful when going about their daily tasks. If it is used to trigger police investigations into vexatious claims, or to engage in political lawfare, rather than for the grave examples of state cover-ups that the Bill was meant to deal with, it risks undermining the offence itself, as well as the intention of the Bill.
The creation of an offence of this kind is a bold step. Hillsborough families spoke of the importance of individual accountability, and we listened. It is clear from our engagement across the public sector that such a strong new measure will—as drafted and when properly implemented—have a serious and real deterrent effect. We are confident that it and every other measure in the Bill will drive forward a culture of candour and truthfulness. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby, and I request that he withdraws his amendment.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 11, page 10, line 4, leave out paragraph (b).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 5.
Amendment 53, in clause 11, page 10, line 33, at end insert—
“’journalism’ means articles for media outlets and news sites. It does not extend to press statements, commentary and social media posts.”
Tessa Munt
It is a pleasure to serve with you as Chair, Sir Roger. Amendment 30 removes the exemption for journalism from the offence of misleading the public, showing that no one, including journalists or public officials writing in a journalistic capacity—including in internal newsletters—can avoid accountability for knowingly or recklessly providing false or misleading information. The purpose of tabling the amendment is to close the loophole that might allow public officials to evade that accountability by presenting misleading information under the guise of journalism. The rationale is to strengthen public trust in Government communications, ensure consistency in applying the law regardless of the medium used, and prevent deliberate attempts to mislead the public through media channels.
The amendment responds to various concerns raised by accountability campaigners, transparency advocates and parliamentary scrutiny bodies that the exemption could be exploited, undermining the effectiveness and credibility of the offence. We have seen with cases that we heard about last Thursday when the Committee took evidence, and with some cases that we discussed on Tuesday, that we cannot ignore the damaging role the media has played in many situations. Some of those examples shed light on public servants using the media to set the narrative, with some of the most awful and damaging consequences for people’s lives and for shedding light on the truth.
We know that—appallingly—the media has been used to set the narrative. With amendment 30, we are thinking about the public and how they perceive this place in particular, and the power structures that move around it. The sense is that legitimacy is key.
Ian Byrne
I want to reinforce what the hon. Lady said regarding the definition of journalism. It must be tightly defined to prevent the bogus defence that we have seen recently, as made by Stephen Yaxley-Lennon—also known as Tommy Robinson. If the purpose of this exclusion is to exempt public service journalists—for example, those working at the BBC—from scope, then it should say that explicitly. There is no reason why it cannot say that. Otherwise, public officials and servants are not journalists, and there is no reason to exempt a lie asserted in the course of writing or broadcasting.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir Roger. I rise to support the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills and to draw attention to some examples of why the amendment is important. Members will be familiar with the hacking problem that we had some years ago. In fact, I think one journalist actually served a prison sentence in relation to that. There were many others who may or may not have been involved in that affair. Members will recall how the programme on the Post Office brought huge attention to that scandal and, in fact, led to a major review of the situation. A similar programme called “The Hack”, which may not have gathered as much attention, highlighted the vast extent of the problem of collusion between journalists and the police. Members will also recall that Leveson 2 was cancelled. Leveson 2 was, as I recall, designed to provide stronger regulation for journalism and the media in general. I think we should be concerned about this very sweeping exclusion for journalism, and I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that.
Tessa Munt
I want to put on record that I recognise that journalism has an important place in shedding light on various situations. I understand that, but I am concerned that this particular wording covers everything. I write journalistically every day of my life. I suspect that I have effectively written a whole bunch of journalism in my notes. I publish stuff from my notes, speeches that I make in Parliament and all sorts of things that could be considered journalism. I am going to plead with the Minister to find a way, maybe through discussions with Members, to contain the provision in some way so that we can keep the good—we do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater—and somehow define what it is that is actually meant by journalism. I wait to hear from the Minister on that.
The Chair
Order. I gently say to the hon. Lady that Members are allowed to speak more than once, but that was an intervention.
Alex Davies-Jones
On Second Reading, we had a very healthy debate on journalism and the impact of media in state failures. It has laid heavily with me. It was a big focus of the debate, and we have taken the issue forward with colleagues across Government and the media to look at how we can best support individuals—victims, especially—when the media has such a crucial role to play.
Amendment 30 seeks to remove the exemption in the offence of misleading the public for any acts done for the purposes of journalism. The purpose of the exemption is to avoid capturing journalistic activity by public service broadcasters that might otherwise meet the definition of a public authority. That is to ensure that the offence does not impinge on press freedom or existing regimes for media regulation. Although behaviour that meets the threshold for the scope of the offence would clearly be unacceptable, we do not believe that this offence is the appropriate vehicle for determining the veracity of media reporting. Without the exemption, only public service broadcasters would potentially be subject to this criminal offence for their journalistic activities and reporting, while other broadcasters would not. The approach ensures that PSBs are still captured in respect of their other public functions—for example, an incident that took place at the BBC itself—but excludes journalistic activity. I hope that that satisfies the concerns of the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills.
Seamus Logan
Before the Minister moves on, one needs to cast one’s mind back to events that took place many months ago, when newspaper and other media reports led to a hotel housing asylum seekers being attacked. One of the rioters sought to burn the hotel down, which could have led to great loss of life. That initially stemmed from media coverage. That is why it is important to try to articulate this provision in a more sensible way.
Alex Davies-Jones
I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have spoken about the need for responsible media reporting to prevent disinformation and misinformation. This provision, however, covers only public authorities. We are therefore capturing only public service broadcasters, so the types of journalism that the hon. Gentleman describes are totally out of scope of the Bill. We would effectively be restricting the BBC, but other journalists would not be captured by the legislation. We need to raise this more broadly with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and look at it across Government. I recognise his concerns, because I share some of them.
It is very important for the Bill to define what a “journalist” is. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby, alongside colleagues at Hillsborough Law Now, has raised concerns that the exemption, as it is currently drafted, could be interpreted more broadly, which was certainly not our intention. He made a very important point about what defines journalistic activity.
In particular, there are concerns that the exemption might be considered to apply to officials who are not journalists themselves but who are involved with, for example, preparing journalistic materials, such as briefings or press releases by other public figures making public comment, who might improperly seek to use this exemption as a defence for their actions. That is certainly not our intention and I have tabled amendment 5 to provide more clarity.
Amendment 5 clarifies our intention that the exemption is limited to journalistic activity by public service broadcasters and those working for them. This is defined with reference to the Online Safety Act 2023. Because amendment 5 achieves the same aim as the amendment that my hon. Friend tabled and hopefully satisfies his concerns, I kindly request that he does not press his amendment to a vote.
Tessa Munt
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 5, Clause 11, page 10, line 4, at end insert “by—
(i) a recognised news publisher, within the meaning of Part 3 of the Online Safety Act 2023 (see section 56 of that Act), or
(ii) a person in the course of working for such a publisher.” .—(Alex Davies-Jones.)
This amendment clarifies that the journalism exemption from the offence of misleading the public only applies to media entities and those that work for them.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 2, clause 11, page 10, line 35, at end insert—
“(10) A prosecution for an offence under this section shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director for Public Prosecutions.”
This amendment requires the Director of Public Prosecutions to consent to the prosecution of anyone for the offence of misleading the public.
Dr Mullan
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Roger.
As we all know, clause 11 creates the new offence of misleading the public, which is intended, quite rightly, to capture the most serious and culpable instances where public officials knowingly or recklessly provide false or misleading information to the public. The motivations behind the clause are entirely understandable. In the past, we have seen, through scandals and tragedies, how deeply harmful it can be when institutions withhold the truth or put out statements that they know to be false.
However, there is no doubt that, as the Minister herself said earlier, this is a new area of the law. She referred to the fact that politicians often debate what does or does not count as misleading information. Members of the Committee grumbled when I raised this issue at our first sitting, using the live example of what we have been going through in the last couple of weeks, but we have also heard how contentious legislating in this area can be in relation to the media and the role they play. This is a novel area and one that we have to tread carefully in, recognising that we are not able to anticipate fully how this offence will be used, not just by current prosecuting authorities but by different actors under a different regime, or by private citizens. We also know that there have been attempts to prosecute individual politicians for offences of misleading people, so this is very much a live issue. With an offence of this seriousness that is framed in this way, we must ensure that it is applied proportionately, fairly and with great care. That is the purpose of the amendment; it is to ensure that no prosecution under the clause can be brought without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Although clause 11 sets out a structured test for what counts as being “seriously improper”, and the explanatory notes make it clear that the offence is intended to target only the most egregious conduct, the reality is that the clause interfaces with the political environment in a way that few other offences do. “Misleading the public” is a phrase that, regrettably, is used daily in our political discourse. Accusations of “misleading the public”, made fairly or unfairly, are frequently levelled in debates, campaigns and correspondence. Therefore, we need to be absolutely certain that this new criminal offence cannot become a vehicle for politically motivated complaints, vexatious charges, over-zealous private prosecutions, or attempts to use the criminal law to litigate policy disagreements. Requiring the personal consent of the DPP is a well-established constitutional safeguard in precisely this kind of context. It would ensure that decisions to prosecute are taken objectively, independently and at the highest level.
It is not only political actors that we must consider. Senior public officials, regulators, police chiefs, NHS managers or anyone else in a position of public authority might find themselves being accused of misleading the public in complex and fast-moving situations. Often, such situations involve imperfect information, operational pressures or competing obligations. The clause rightly makes it clear that accidental or inadvertent misleading of the public should not be criminalised. However, we must ensure that establishing the threshold for a prosecution remains firmly under the control of the independent prosecuting authority, and not subject to either the ebb and flow of public anger or the risk of tactical litigation.
Some may reasonably argue that the CPS would in practice be involved by discontinuing prosecutions and bringing them under the Director of Public Prosecutions, but that in itself could create a storm for an individual subject to that action. That is why we think a tighter safeguard should be required.
It is not in the amendment, but I would like to ask the Minister about what thought has been given to whether prosecution should be subject to the Attorney General’s permission. Forgive me: I do not know if that is already part of the legislation; I do not think it is, but the Minister will know. For example, when it comes to public order offences—another potentially contentious area—we ask the Attorney General to give permission for prosecution to serve as a safeguard against the inappropriate use of measures.
My final, more general point about clause 11, which we touched on earlier, is about the maximum sentence of two years. What are the Minister’s thoughts on whether there have been any common law versions of a prosecution for this sort of thing in which someone was given a sentence of more than two years? Are the Government sure that this is not unnecessarily constrained compared with the current common law position, which is unlimited? I appreciate that the offences in question are normally more to do with misconduct rather than misleading, but it would still be helpful to get that reassurance.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the shadow Minister for raising this important issue. We agree wholeheartedly with the intention behind the amendment, and I can assure him that the Bill achieves that intent. Schedule 3 makes further provision regarding clause 5 and clause 11 offences. Paragraph 2(2) sets out that,
“Proceedings for an offence under section 11 may be brought only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.”
With that clarification, I hope the shadow Minister will withdraw his amendment. Hopefully, I can answer some of his other queries as we move through the debate.
Clause 11 creates a new offence of misleading the public, which is designed to capture the most serious incidents of misleading the public, such as the behaviour seen after Hillsborough, where officials intentionally spread a false narrative to protect their reputation and caused harm as a result. That, as the shadow Minister rightly states, is punishable by up to two years in prison. We all know the harm that caused and how, three decades on, families are still fighting for justice and accountability for what the spreading of that narrative did. The Independent Office for Police Conduct report on Tuesday was clear: a lie was told; a false narrative was spread to protect reputations and avoid consequences. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that no family ever has to go through what those families went through and continue to go through. I can only imagine how hard that report was to read and the pain that they continue to feel.
The new offence will ensure that when a public official has misled the public, there is accountability. To have committed the offence, an authority or official must have acted with the intention to mislead the public or been reckless as to whether their actions would do so. By reckless, we mean a person acting with the knowledge that there is a risk that they might mislead the public and taking that risk without reasonable justification. It does not include accidental mistakes or inaccuracies. They must have known or ought to have known that their act is seriously improper.
It will be for the judge and the jury to determine whether that test has been met, but clause 11(3)(a) sets out minimum conditions that must be present: that the act—
“involved dishonesty that was significant or repeated…in respect of matters of significant concern to the public”.
That will avoid capturing minor instances of lying or misleading on trivial political or private matters. The act must have caused or have the potential to cause harm. Harm, as we have already discussed, is broadly defined, including economic, physical or psychological harm, including distress. The purpose of this is to avoid capturing inconsequential matters, such a Minister lying about where they went to university or competing in a chess tournament or a local government official overstating their council’s performance. Although these sorts of lies should entail professional consequences, we do not think they meet the bar for criminal sanctions. The individual must also have departed significantly from what would have been expected of them in carrying out their functions. This is to ensure that where it may be necessary to mislead someone as part of a person’s job—for example, as part of an undercover police operation—that is not captured.
This clause as introduced does not apply to devolved matters. We have written to all the devolved Governments to request that the offence be extended in their jurisdiction in line with the other provisions on duty of candour, which apply across the UK. The Northern Ireland Executive, the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government have all confirmed their agreement to extend the offence, and we will be extending the offences accordingly. We hope to bring forward amendments on the territorial extent on Report to ensure full coverage for the United Kingdom.
Subsection (4) also excludes any act done for the purposes of journalism. That is to avoid capturing public service broadcasters and those working for them who would otherwise meet the definition of a public official. That is to ensure that the offence does not impinge on press freedom or existing regimes for media regulation. Although behaviour that meets the threshold for the scope of the offence would clearly be unacceptable, we do not believe that this offence is the appropriate vehicle for determining the veracity of media reporting, as we have already discussed.
Subsection (6) includes a reasonable excuse defence, with specific defences for the exercise of functions by the intelligence services and armed forces on active service. That is necessary to make it clear that when officials can prove that they misled the public to protect national security or this country’s defence operations, they are not subject to criminal sanctions. I stress, however, that this will not prevent the successful prosecution of members of the security services or armed forces who mislead the public for any other purposes, such as personal gain or to protect their reputation.
This is a transformative offence that will ensure that when something goes wrong and public officials lie to the public, there are serious consequences. It will act as a powerful deterrent against the sorts of state cover-ups that we have sadly see all too often.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle asked me about offences which potentially attract two or more years in prison. I will write to him on that and come back on the specifics, as well as on his question about the Attorney General. With that, I commend clause 11 to the Committee.
Dr Mullan
I thank the Minister for explaining the clause to us. She has provided the reassurance that we are looking for, and I look forward to receiving further material in writing. I recognise that the Government are attempting to craft an offence that has a high threshold and does not interfere with the wide range of situations that people might seek to apply it to, but I worry that we might end up seeing such questions tested in the courts repeatedly before there is a settled view on what they translate into in reality. I am not sure that it will be as simple as we might think in reality. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Offences under Part 2: related provision
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Amendment 57, in schedule 3, page 44, line 31, after “section 5” insert “or section 11”.
Schedule 3.
Ian Byrne
Amendment 56 is to schedule 3, which place limits on extraterrestrial jurisdiction for offences. I am gravely concerned, because often in the history of cover-ups, those responsible have sailed off into the sunset with fat pensions, unscathed and untouched by justice. The whole point of the Bill is to close that down, but I have a real fear about the current draft of the Bill. Whether an offence is committed outside the UK should be absolutely irrelevant; it should be right within the scope of the Bill.
Paragraph 1(1)(a) and (b) is open to being construed cumulatively. If caught by clause 5 and clause 11 offences, an individual has to be both a UK national and inhabiting a residence in the UK. There have been many cases where former public officials have retired abroad and been non-compliant with official investigations, and that cannot be allowed to happen. The IOPC report showed that police officers who had been involved in the corruption of Hillsborough had absolutely got away with it, with no sanctions put on them, and lived the rest of their lives with full pensions. It really worries me that people like them could evade by justice by moving abroad.
If accepted, amendment 57 would provide that paragraph 1(2) should apply to clauses 5 and 11, to absolutely ensure that public bodies and individuals within bodies who have failed the British people can be adequately held to account wherever they are in the world. I really hope the Minister considers the amendments, by which we is to strengthen the scope of the law and make sure that those who are responsible for cover-ups and who have harmed people using the hand of the state are held accountable, wherever they reside.
Dr Mullan
Despite not relating directly to the Bill, the matter of pensions has come up in Committee a couple of times. We do need to explore that, because there are many situations where people walk off into the sunset. It seems to me that the one lever we still have over people is their pensions. Have the Government considered how such a provision might be used in the future? The Opposition will be looking at it.
Alex Davies-Jones
I will happily raise that issue with the Pensions Minister in our discussions.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby for tabling the amendments. I hope to be able to provide some clarification. Amendments 56 and 57 seek to ensure the same extraterritorial extent applies for the offences of failure to comply with the duty of candour and assistance and the offence of misleading the public.
The intended effect of amendment 56 is already achieved in the Bill as drafted. In schedule 3, paragraph 1(1), the disapplication does not apply if any the criteria of sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (b) are met. It is already an “or” list, not an “and” list. That follows the standard parliamentary drafting convention. To add an unnecessary “or” between sub-sub-paragraphs (a) and (b), when that is already the meaning, would risk putting the position in doubt in other legislation across the statute book and could cause confusion.
Paragraph (1)(2) refers only to the clause 5 offence because the clause 11 offence applies only in England and Wales. A case could not be heard by a court in Scotland or Northern Ireland. However, as I confirmed earlier, we have in principle agreements to extend clause 11 offences to Scotland and Northern Ireland, and we are working with the devolved Governments to draft amendments, which we intend to bring forward on Report, so that the offence is UK-wide.
Alex Davies-Jones
Yes, they are indeed.
Schedule 3 works alongside clauses 5 and 11 to make some additional provisions about the offence of failing to comply with the duty of candour and assistance and the offence of misleading the public. Paragraph 1 provides that an offence may be committed outside the UK only if the person who committed the offence is a UK national, an individual who habitually resides within the UK, or a body incorporated in the UK. In practice, that means that UK civil servants working abroad are captured, but country-based staff employed by UK embassies, who perform a range of predominantly administrative or maintenance roles are not. These are local staff subject to local laws and regulations instead and their exclusion is consistent with other precedents.
Paragraph 2 provides that consent from the Director of Public Prosecutions in England and Wales or from the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland is required before proceedings for the breach of duty of candour offence may be brought forward. I hope the shadow Minister is reassured on that point. The same consent is required in England and Wales for proceedings for the offence of misleading the public, which as I just said, currently only applies in England and Wales, but we are making provisions to apply it to the UK as a whole.
Paragraph 3 makes it clear that where a body commits an offence and a relevant person, for example a director, manager or partner, consented or connived, both the individual and the body are liable. Finally, paragraph 4 provides that where an offence relates to unincorporated bodies, proceedings must be brought against the name of the body.
Alex Davies-Jones
I will speak to each of the clauses in turn. Clause 12 will introduce the first of two new statutory offences to replace the common law offence of misconduct in public office. In its 2020 report, the Law Commission recommended that the common law offence should be abolished and replaced with two new offences that broadly replicate the coverage of the common law offence. In acting on those recommendations, the Government do not intend to change significantly the type of conduct the criminal law will capture. Like the common law offence, the new offences are intended to capture only wrongdoing at the most serious level.
The clause establishes the new offence of seriously improper acts, and is designed to capture the conduct previously caught by the concept of wilful misconduct under the common law offence. The seriously improper acts offence is committed when a person who holds public office uses that office with the intent to obtain a benefit for themselves or another person, or to cause detriment to someone else. They must know or ought to have known that any reasonable person would regard their act as seriously improper.
The offence can capture a wide range of conduct. “Using” an office can include both acts and omissions. “Benefit” and “detriment” mean any benefit or detriment including, but not limited to, financial gain or loss, protection or enhancement of or damage to a person’s reputation, and benefits or detriments of a physical or sexual nature, whether temporary or permanent. When we talk about protection or enhancement of or damage to a person’s reputation, we intend to capture serious situations where someone uses their office in the way that we associate with the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster: the manipulation of evidence in order to protect the reputation of a person, including an organisation, or the spreading of allegations about other people, designed to damage their reputation.
The clause is about not the usual back and forth of everyday politics, but severe abuses of power that undermine the very basis of public service. An act is seriously improper if a reasonable person would consider it so. There is a list of factors that the jury must consider to make that determination, including the extent to which the act involved an intention to mislead or be dishonest by withholding, covering up or misusing information. A defence is available if the person can show that they had a reasonable excuse for their action—for example, a public office holder has to disregard one fraudulent benefits claim to uncover a more serious, larger scale benefits fraud. The offence is indictable and carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. That puts it on par with similar statutory offences, such as bribery and fraud.
The consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be required to bring a prosecution under the offence. That is to safeguard against the risk of spurious claims against public officials, including politicians. We have already heard examples of that. It will ensure that only cases that are serious in nature and justify criminalisation are prosecuted. It does not require the personal consent of the director—consent can be delegated—so it should not cause any undue administrative burden.
The clause will ensure that serious misconduct and corrupt behaviour by those in public office will continue to result in criminal sanctions, and that those who abuse positions of public trust are held to account for their actions. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Clause 13 establishes the new offence of breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury. It is designed to capture the conduct previously caught by the concept of wilful neglect of duty under the common law offence. The new offence is committed when a person who holds public office either causes or creates significant risk of causing someone else to suffer critical harm, in breach of a duty to prevent other people from suffering such harm. They must know that they are under such a duty, and their act must fall far below what could reasonably have been expected of them in the circumstances. The offence requires that the person be under a duty to prevent critical harm that arises by virtue of the public office that they hold. That means that the offence can be committed only by public office holders whose roles inherently involve a duty to prevent critical harm—for example, service personnel, firefighters and the police. It does not apply to public office holders whose roles do not put them under a duty to protect the public from critical harm.
The offence is made out only if the public official knows or ought to know that they are subject to that duty. The breach of duty must cause either critical harm or a significant risk of that harm materialising. It will not capture cases where a negligible or insignificant risk of harm is caused. The breach of duty must also have been intentional or reckless. These are both very high criminal thresholds. To act recklessly means to proceed in full awareness of the potential outcome and in circumstances where it is unreasonable to take the risk.
Only the most serious breaches of duty are captured by the offence. The requirement that the act must fall far below the standard that could reasonably be expected of the person in the circumstances ensures that minor or honest mistakes and legitimate but risky operational decisions made in challenging circumstances will not be captured. For example, a law enforcement officer having to decide in the moment whether to take a particular risky operational decision would be caught by the offence only if they intentionally recklessly breach the duty, their act falls far below the standards reasonably expected of them in those circumstances, and they have no reasonable excuse for their actions.
The offence will be triable on indictment only and will carry a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. That is commensurate with other offences where a failure of duty leads to serious or critical consequences, such as gross negligence manslaughter. As with the offence in clause 12, the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be required to bring a prosecution under the offence in clause 13. That is to guard against the risk of spurious claims being made against public officials in this position and to ensure that only the most serious cases are prosecuted.
Clause 14 clarifies the territorial application of the new offences in clauses 12 and 13. It makes clear that a public office holder can commit the seriously improper acts or breach of duty offences by their actions either within England and Wales, or in other UK territories such as Scotland or Northern Ireland. The offences in clauses 12 and 13 may also be committed by acts done outside the United Kingdom provided that, at the time of the act, the public office holder is either a UK national or habitually resident in England and Wales. The clause ensures conduct like this could be caught by the new offences.
Dr Mullan
I want to make some brief points. I welcome the maximum sentences, which are clearer and in a more natural range, and there is not the uncertainty that I think we still have with the misleading the public offence.
I want to ask the Minister about the role of MPs, however, because she will know that our privilege to speak in the Chamber, including to make allegations of defamation, is unfettered. We can say things that do damage people’s reputations and that cause all sorts of issues, but we are immune from civil procedure. I am not sure how the common law has dealt with equivalent sorts of scenarios, but I can imagine an MP trashing the reputation of a business and that business going under, causing huge harm to an individual who then feels as though they should be able to have a say through this route.
I think we all agree that, although it can be abused, that privilege is really important to the operation of our democracy. Even if not now—the Minister may not have considered this before—it would be helpful to have a written note on the Department’s view about the potential misuse of that privilege to say whatever we want in Parliament, without restriction.
Tessa Munt
I previously asked for some clarity on coroners. I accept the position on His Majesty’s chief coroner, and the Minister confirmed about His Majesty’s area coroner. I presume senior coroners are also included in that remit, but I want to be very clear, because they are the people who very often see exactly what is happening on the ground.
Alex Davies-Jones
Yes, I can confirm that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 13 and 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Holders of public office
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient consider:
Government amendments 11 to 13.
Schedule 4.
Alex Davies-Jones
All the Government amendments relate to our measures on the offences of misconduct in public office. Government amendment 11 adds members of the Parole Board to schedule 4 to the Bill, which sets out the list of those who are considered public office holders for the purposes of the new statutory offences in part 3 of the Bill: seriously improper acts and the breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury. The amendment is not being made because there has been a change in policy; rather we have determined that making explicit reference to the Parole Board is a clearer approach than relying on paragraph 21 of the schedule to capture this body. As the offences currently extend to England and Wales only, the reference added to the schedule is only to the parole board that operates in that jurisdiction.
Government amendment 12 ensures that all those carrying out the judicial functions of the coroner are included in schedule 4, regardless of how they are appointed. A deputy chief coroner can be appointed in two ways: those qualified by being a High Court or circuit judge are appointed by the Lord Chief Justice, and those qualified by being a senior coroner are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The amendment makes it clear that we intend to capture both. It is not a policy change, merely a drafting refinement.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 17 stand part.
Schedule 5.
Alex Davies-Jones
Clause 16 abolishes the common law offence of misconduct in public office, which our new statutory offences will replace. It also sets out arrangements for the transition to the new offences, ensuring that the common law offence will continue to apply to any acts done, or begun, before its abolition. The clause also makes it clear that we are not affecting other offences, or the civil tort of misfeasance in public office.
Clause 17 and schedule 5 amend existing legislation to reflect the abolition of the common law offence and the introduction of the new statutory offences. Schedule 5 sets out the specific—and minor—changes to three pieces of existing legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 18
Parity etc at inquiries and investigations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 14 to 17.
Schedule 6.
New clause 5—Conduct of public authorities and access to legal aid for seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries—
“(1) Legal aid must be made available, without a means test, to seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries where there are reasonable grounds for believing the matter under investigation relates to the conduct of public authorities tasked with carrying out public functions, or public officials working for bodies in a public capacity, in connection with the discharge of their public duties.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the Act receiving Royal Assent, make regulations to—
(a) add civil legal services to Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 in connection with proceedings relating to seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries as under subsection (1);
(b) amend the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/104) for the purposes of providing criteria for a determination for legal representation in respect of cases under subsection (1).
(3) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause would extend civil legal aid to seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries where the conduct of public bodies or public officials is in question.
Alex Davies-Jones
Clause 18 and schedule 6 represent a milestone moment in addressing the disparity in power often faced by bereaved families and other affected persons in the inquest and inquiry system. They provide for non-means-tested legal aid for bereaved families at all inquests where a public authority is an interested person, the widest expansion of legal aid in a generation.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Clause 18(e) provides for non-means-tested legal aid to bereaved family members at inquests. The Bill is intended to introduce UK-wide legislation. I understand that the Minister has engaged in positive talks with the Scottish Government over a number of months because of the devolved nature of Scottish legal aid at fatal accident inquiries. Are we any further forward with those talks? Will the Scottish people enjoy the same access to legal aid as the rest of the UK?
Alex Davies-Jones
I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we have a strong and positive working relationship with the Scottish Government and all the devolved Governments about the Bill. The Scottish Government have written to ask us to extend the provision to Scotland. We are working with our colleagues in Holyrood and across the UK to see how we can best apply that. I will happily update my hon. Friend on those discussions, which are positive and ongoing.
The provisions in the Bill on legal aid go further, setting out a common framework of obligations and accountability for public authorities and their legal teams when they participate at public inquiries and coroner investigations. I will now get into the detail. Parts 1, 2 and 3 of schedule 6 impose a common framework of obligations on public authorities and their legal teams in respect of their participation across statutory public inquiries, non-statutory public inquiries and coroner investigations. The schedule inserts proposed new section 34A into the Inquiries Act 2005 and amends section 42 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to provide that guidance may be issued by the Lord Chancellor to set out the principles that should guide the conduct of public authorities in respect of public inquiries and coroner investigations.
Schedule 6 inserts proposed new section 34B into the 2005 Act and proposed new section 42A into the 2009 Act to place a public authority that is a core participant at an inquiry, or an interested person at an inquest, under a duty to engage legal representatives to act for the authority only if, and in so far as—this is important—it is necessary and proportionate, and to take steps to ensure that those representatives conduct themselves in accordance with the guidance from the Lord Chancellor. In our evidence, we heard how bereaved families feel at an inquest when they turn up with their legal aid-appointed person—or are sometimes not even given a legal aid-appointed person—and the public authority has an army of barristers. This measure seeks to curtail that and to ensure equal representation and parity of arms.
The schedule amends section 41 of the 2005 Act and section 43 of the 2009 Act to make provision for an “overriding objective” to be created in an inquiry or inquest. In particular, that may include objectives for, or in connection with, ensuring that relevant affected persons are able to participate fully and effectively, maintaining the inquisitorial nature of proceedings, and that they are given sufficient information about proceedings.
The schedule also inserts proposed new section 34C into the 2005 Act and amends schedule 5 to the 2009 Act to create a power for an inquiry chair or coroner to raise concerns and report the matter to the person who has overall responsibility for the management of the public authority—or such other person who has power to take action—as to the conduct of a public authority or its legal representatives. A person to whom the report is made must give the inquiry chair or coroner a written response.
Part 3 of schedule 6 makes further modifications to schedule 5 to the 2009 Act to provide that where a report is made by a coroner, a copy must be sent to the chief coroner. Part 3 also amends section 36 of the 2009 Act to add those reports and their responses to the matters that must be summarised in the chief coroner’s annual report to the Lord Chancellor. It further amends section 43 of the 2009 Act to provide that regulations made under that section may make provision in respect of reports made by coroners in relation to concerns over the conduct of public authorities. Part 2 of schedule 6 makes it clear that changes made to the Inquires Act 2005 by part 1 of the schedule should apply to relevant non-statutory inquiries, albeit with certain modifications as set out in paragraph 2(3).
Part 4 of schedule 6 makes expanded provision for legal aid at inquests. It details a number of amendments to the legislation and regulations underpinning the legal aid system. Those, when taken together, keep applications to open or reopen an inquest in scope of legal aid; set out that, where a public authority is an interested person in the inquest, non-means-tested legal aid for the inquest can be accessed by families; and provide for conditions in relation to advocacy funding.
Part 4 begins with four amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, known as LASPO. The first two amendments are technical and update references to “the Coroners Act 1988” to say “the Coroners and Justice Act 2009”, which has largely repealed and replaced the 1988 Act. The third amendment brings applications under section 13 of the 1988 Act into scope of civil legal services. Section 13 allows bereaved family members to submit a request to open or reopen inquest proceedings to the High Court. The Government recognise the importance of bringing such applications into scope of legal aid, and this amendment to LASPO delivers that. Unlike inquests, section 13 applications are adversarial court proceedings in the High Court. As per determinations for section 13 applications under current ECF—exceptional case funding—legal representation will be provided, rather than legal help and advocacy funding, and applications will be means-tested.
The fourth amendment to LASPO insert a new paragraph into part 3 of schedule 1 to the Act to set out the conditions under which an individual can access funded advocacy services at inquest proceedings. The conditions are that, first, a public authority must be an interested person at the inquest and, secondly, advocacy must not have already been made available to another family member of the deceased in relation to the same inquest or a linked inquest. Whether an inquest is linked—that is, whether it is investigating deaths stemming from the same incident—is a matter for the coroner hearing the case.
Part 4 of schedule 6 then turns to amendments to the supporting regulations. The first set of amendments are to the Civil Legal Aid (Financial Resources and Payment for Services) Regulations 2013. There are three amendments to regulation 5, in particular sub-paragraph (m) and proposed new sub-paragraph (ma). Those sub-paragraphs allow for the financial means test to be disapplied when an individual applies for legal help or advocacy at an inquest where a public authority is an interested person. The third amendment at sub-paragraph (n) is a purely technical amendment that facilitates the changes. By disapplying the means test for legal aid at inquests where a public authority is an interested person, the changes will truly make a difference for the bereaved. This will be a key turning point in rebalancing the system.
Part 4 of schedule 6 also amends the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013. The amendments ensure that not only legal help, advice and assistance but advocacy is available as an appropriate form of civil legal services at an inquest where a public authority is an interested person. They also ensure that legal representation is an appropriate form of civil legal service in an appeal to the High Court to open or reopen an inquest under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988. The amendments will ensure that the bereaved have access to the appropriate form of legal aid for the proceedings that they are experiencing, ensuring that they are appropriately supported at each stage.
Finally, amendments 14 to 17 are minor technical amendments. They amend a reference in schedule 6 to a new paragraph inserted by the Bill into schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, and relocate the position of a new paragraph inserted by the Bill into the same schedule to the 2009 Act. I commend the amendments, and the clause and schedule, to the Committee.
Dr Mullan
This is one area of the Bill where we need some clarity about how exactly it will operate. Before becoming an MP, I worked for a patient advocacy organisation, so I saw at first hand just how challenging inquests can be for patients’ relatives. I spoke to so many families who had to sit and watch while a portrayal of events, which they had no ability to challenge, was given at an inquest. I am sure that many Members have dealt with individuals who have had an experience with a coroner, outside of the big national scandals, that was not as they would want it to be. There is an underlying challenge that coroners are very different from other public bodies, agencies and office holders, because to some extent they can just do their own thing. That makes it very hard to achieve a consistent approach.
I have a number of questions. First, who exactly will decide whether the public authority’s costs are reasonable? The chief coroner was very clear that she felt that coroners were not equipped to do that, and even if they were, it would take time and resources. We all need to understand what the process will be. Importantly, will there be a mechanism for someone to challenge that? If the coroner is not personally engaged with everything that this Government are trying to do with the Bill—as we are sympathetic to—and they do not make any reasonable attempt to control a public body’s costs in line with what we are asking of them, what is the route for challenge?
I have heard concerns from people who work on the frontline of a public body. Sometimes, the reputation of the organisation is defended, but conversely, the reputation of an individual can be at risk in these sorts of situations—I go back to my experience in healthcare. We would not want a perverse scenario where the organisation throws an individual under the bus and makes no particular effort to ensure that their role is adequately explained and defended—accepting that we do not necessarily agree technically that it would be defending, but rather inquisitorial.
Complex family arrangements were raised in the evidence sessions. How exactly does it work if the parents are divorced? The Minister touched on that towards the end of her speech, and mentioned that another family member must not have applied for funding. Again, would there be a limit? Could every single individual family member get help? How would that be determined? The question that politicians always have to come back to is that of funding. Is this new funding that has been allocated to the Ministry of Justice outside of its existing budget, for what we imagine would be a significant increase in legal aid spending? Will the Minister reassure those people who have an interest in other areas of legal aid spending that they will not be reduced as a result of this new area of legal aid spending? I just want to understand where the money has come from.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am grateful for those questions. On who will police the spend, it will not be for the coroner to police it; it will be for the public bodies themselves. They will be under an obligation, because they will also be funding the legal aid for the bereaved families, depending on which public authority or arm of government it comes under. If it is health, for example, that Department will fund the legal aid costs of the bereaved families; if it is the Prison Service, the funding will come from the Ministry of Justice; if it is police, it will be the Home Office, and so on.
Alex Davies-Jones
No, there is no new money for this legislation. Therefore, we hope that the spending that public authorities carry out for inquests will match how much they have to fund for the bereaved families. We hope that this will also be a deterrent against arming up officials when going towards what should be an inquisitorial process.
Alex Davies-Jones
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a good point. This is to encourage good behaviour. It is to encourage public authorities to not come armed with many barristers, and to discourage the David and Goliath story that we have heard far too many times.
On the shadow Minister’s point about individuals within a public authority potentially not being represented, that is not something that we want to curtail. For example, a frontline healthcare worker could have representation via their union and the public authority could have representation. This is about making sure that the family has adequate legal representation too. I will come back to his other points after I take another intervention.
Tessa Munt
Does the Minister feel that this provision might actually lead to some clarity about the amount of money that is spent by local authorities on defending themselves and their position, and the actions that they may have taken? It is almost impossible to get them to cough up. They just say, “Oh, well, it’s business as usual—that’s what we always do.” I am hoping that this measure will give clarity.
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Lady is bang on the money, literally. I cannot tell her how frustrating it has been as a Minister trying to figure out a way forward on this—trying to figure out the cost to the public purse and the taxpayer—when we do not have that data. This will enable us to have the data on exactly how much is being spent by public authorities and Government Departments on legal aid.
This is taxpayers’ money. We heard evidence from the bereaved families that one of the biggest kicks in the teeth for them was that they as taxpayers were funding the legal support for the public authorities that were accused of having a hand in the death of their loved one. That is totally perverse and unacceptable.
Alex Davies-Jones
I welcome that point. We have put new powers in the Bill for the coroner to challenge public authorities if they are acting inappropriately. What they bring forward has to be proportionate and reasonable. There are powers on the coroners there. They have to compile a report and complain to the relevant bodies or those individuals with the power to take action against the public authority for not acting in accordance with the guidance set out by the Lord Chancellor or the provisions in the Bill.
Dr Mullan
But that is kind of circular, because it takes us back to the coroners. Are the coroners in a position to do that? It is not something they have to do at the minute. As we heard in evidence, judges do that—it is part and parcel of their work—but it is not part of what coroners do. What are we doing in terms of support, information and guidance, and then monitoring that they actually do it?
Alex Davies-Jones
I have a very close working relationship with the chief coroner, as the hon. Member would probably expect given my role. We work together very closely, and we have had significant conversations about how to work together going forward and about the implementation of the Bill, which will be crucial to its effectiveness. It is important to recognise that coroners, although distinct in their nature, are the judiciary. They are independent and they do have relevant expertise in this regard. I will be working closely with the chief coroner on implementation.
I am not sure whether the hon. Member heard what I said about annual reporting, but any experiences of a public authority failing to abide by the coroner’s instructions will have to be put into the annual report that the chief coroner will provide to the Lord Chancellor—all of this has to be captured—and we will not hesitate to name and shame those who are failing to abide by the duties in the Bill.
Seamus Logan
I may be misreading the evidence—if I am, I accept that—but I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the evidence given to us by Chris Minnoch and Richard Miller during the Committee’s second sitting, last Thursday afternoon. I came away from that sitting with a very distinct impression that those two witnesses were of the view that the legal aid system might need to be expanded. We find that view from Mr Minnoch, the chief executive of the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, at columns 60 and 61. He seemed to suggest that his expectation was that legal aid would be expanded in this context.
Alex Davies-Jones
We are expanding legal aid. The provision of non-means-tested legal aid for bereaved families at an inquest or inquiry where there is a public authority as an interested person is the biggest expansion of legal aid for a generation.
Seamus Logan
That is fair enough, but the Minister stated earlier that there are no additional resources as a result of the application of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
That is correct. There is no new money for this; it has to be found out of existing Government Department budgets. This is in order to, as we have debated, figure out exactly how much is being spent by public authorities and by local government departments on legal aid and on their contribution to an inquest or an inquiry. We will be working with the legal aid providers very closely and we will be monitoring this, as I am sure will the Treasury, but that is the determination of this Bill and that is the mechanism by which we will be operating.
Seamus Logan
If I interpret the Minister correctly, what she is saying is that, through the application of the Bill, there may be a need to review the position in due course.
Alex Davies-Jones
I can confirm that we are working very closely on a way forward on the framework for the legal aid mechanism of the Bill. I will happily update Members and the House as we progress on how that will be implemented, and we will be working with providers on that.
On the shadow Minister’s final point, about complex family relationships, we are alive to this issue and are working with organisations and officials to see how we can best approach it. We have made provision in the Bill for one advocate adviser per bereaved family, but we recognise that there are complex family arrangements, so there are provisions in the Bill for other family members or other interested people to make an application under LASPO to access more legal aid. However, we have heard the concerns raised in Committee, and we are looking to see what more we can do to support families.
Tessa Munt
I have had discussions with the Minister about the Bill’s relationship with the families of those who are deceased, and I am rather hopeful that she will consider new clause 5. It has been implied that people who are seriously injured or survivors are included in the Bill, but I would like to be very specific about that particular group. The new clause seeks to ensure that those who are seriously injured but are survivors have equal access to legal support, without means testing, as bereaved families when participating in inquests, inquiries, investigations and independent panels. Many survivors face really complex legal processes when dealing with trauma, and without non-means-tested legal aid they may be unable to engage effectively or have their interests represented. Extending legal aid to that group of people would remove financial barriers, ensure meaningful participation opportunities for them, and help to ensure that inquiries and inquests—in which I have been involved myself—can fully examine the conduct of public bodies and public officials, and promote accountability and justice. Will the Minister please address that?
Alex Davies-Jones
As the hon. Member said, her new clause 5 seeks to extend civil legal aid to seriously injured survivors who are participating in inquests or inquiries where the conduct of public bodies or public officials is in question.
The Bill’s expansion of legal aid ensures that it is available to bereaved families in an inquest where a public authority is an interested person. It follows that a seriously injured survivor who is also a family member of the deceased will already be able to apply for legal aid under the Bill. Survivors of serious incidents are more likely to have active participation in an inquiry into what has happened more generally than in an inquest, where the coroner is seeking to determine facts around a death. However, injured survivors can apply for legal help and advocacy at inquests via the exceptional case funding scheme. Applicants may be eligible for that where not providing legal services would breach, or risk breaching, the applicant’s rights under the European convention on human rights. Alternatively, survivors may work with family members of the deceased receiving legal aid to contribute to the instruction of legally aided lawyers.
Section 40 of the Inquiries Act 2005 already gives the chair a specific power to award publicly funded legal representation to individuals or organisations involved in an inquiry, subject to the conditions set out by the sponsoring Minister. In recent inquiries, such as the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry and the Grenfell inquiry, chairs have used that power to ensure that all core participants are funded where that is fair, necessary and proportionate. It is therefore not necessary to expand the scope of civil legal aid to inquiries.
I also note that new clause 5 raises a significant practical and definitional challenge: it does not set out what constitutes “reasonable grounds for believing” that the matter relates to a public authority’s conduct, which would be necessary in order to make regulations implementing the measure and for operationalisation. It could also draw the scope of legal aid more widely than intended, such as by including the perpetrators of terrorist attacks.
In summary, the new clause is unnecessary in the light of existing routes to access legal help and advocacy. It would duplicate provisions already available for inquiries under the Inquiries Act by introducing legal aid for core participants for the first time, and, in doing so, would introduce complexities about who would fund those legal costs. That could lead to delays and make the scheme harder to operationalise and manage. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills not to move the new clause.
Tessa Munt
I seek a little clarity. The Minister made reference to somebody who is seriously injured. They might be part of the proceedings as a friend of the family of somebody who has died. We have seen fairly recently people being injured in a terrorist attack in which colleagues around them have died. They might have something very specific to add, but they might not be a friend of the family. I want to be really clear whether, if somebody was present and seriously injured, and had something to add, but was a colleague and not a family member, there would be any barrier to them being considered as helpful to the family in an inquest or investigation.
Alex Davies-Jones
I recognise that, and I will happily engage with the hon. Lady further to ensure that we have no gaps.
Tessa Munt
I am very grateful to the Minister for that assurance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6
Conduct of public authorities at inquiries and inquests
Amendments made: 14, in schedule 6, page 54, line 2, leave out from “paragraph” to “and” in line 3 and insert
“(d) insert—
‘(e) the matters reported under paragraph 7A of that Schedule’”.
This amendment is consequential on amendments 16 and 17.
Amendment 15, in schedule 6, page 55, line 24, leave out “2A and 7” and insert “7 and 7A”.
This amendment is consequential on amendments 16 and 17.
Amendment 16, in schedule 6, page 56, line 1, leave out “2” and insert “7”.
This amendment, together with amendment 17, relocates the position in which a new paragraph of Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 is inserted.
Amendment 17, in schedule 6, page 56, line 3, leave out “2A” and insert “7A”.—(Alex Davies-Jones.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 16.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
New Clause 1
Post-legislative assessment of the legal duty of candour for public authorities and public officials
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report into—
(a) the impact of the Act’s provisions on increasing public confidence that public authorities’ internal processes are fit for purpose in identifying and investigating failures when they first arise following a major incident.
(b) the role of the standing public advocate in assessing public authorities’ responses to affected individuals and relatives of bereaved victims following a major incident or where there is a major public concern that public authorities may not be acting in the best interests of those affected by a major incident.
(2) The report must assess—
(a) extending the public advocate’s powers to facilitate the gathering of information from those people affected by a major incident to support official inquiries and investigations to help ensure that all public authorities and officials are acting in accordance with the duty of candour set out in this Act.
(b) the case for facilitating a mechanism whereby the public advocate can instigate an independent panel to collate evidence and information following a major incident to support the oversight of public authorities and officials’ responses to major incidents.
(c) the costs of establishing independent panels as compared to non-statutory inquiries, or statutory inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005 in line with paragraph (b).
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the Report before Parliament.”—(Ian Byrne.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Ian Byrne
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston cannot be here to move the motion because of her father’s illness. She really wanted to be here, and I fully support the new clause, so I am going to speak on her behalf.
New clause 1 proposes a post-legislative assessment, within 12 months of the passing of the Act, of how its provisions on the duty of candour and equality of arms are increasing public confidence in public authorities. Specifically, it would examine whether the internal processes of public authorities are fit for purpose in identifying and investigating failures as they first arise after major incidents. The assessment would also consider the role of the independent public advocate in evaluating how public authorities respond to affected individuals and bereaved families following such incidents.
The report would have to explore whether the powers of the independent public advocate should be extended to facilitate the gathering of information to support inquiries and investigations, to ensure that public authorities and officials act in accordance with the duty of candour. It would also have to examine the case for empowering the independent public advocate to instigate an independent panel, similar to the Hillsborough independent panel, and assess the costs compared with non-statutory and statutory inquiries.
The new clause would ensure that, soon after the Act comes into force, Parliament would receive a clear, evidence-based assessment of whether it is delivering on its aims, and whether the role of the independent public advocate should be strengthened to secure faster truth, greater transparency, and better support for bereaved families after major incidents.
When Hillsborough Law Now launched in 2022, it not only supported the measures in the Bill but called for the establishment of an independent public advocate with powers to set up independent panels like the Hillsborough independent panel. For more than two decades, the legal system failed to deliver truth or justice to the Hillsborough families. In some cases, it even facilitated the propagation of a false narrative, including by officers named in the IOPC report published this week.
It was the Hillsborough independent panel, which was established in 2009 and reported in 2012, that finally set the record straight. I wholeheartedly support that statement. Its process was non-legal, document-based and grounded in transparency rather than adversarial proceedings. In two years it achieved what the legal system had failed to do in 24. One of the key lessons of Hillsborough is that the legal system can fail. The two witnesses, Jenni Hicks and Hilda Hammond, spoke powerfully on behalf of this new clause, and the need to look at how panels in the style of the Hillsborough independent panel can help to achieve justice. I want to put on record that I thought they spoke really eloquently. We cannot claim to have learned the lessons fully unless we provide bereaved families with access to a similar process at an earlier stage.
The Public Advocate Bills introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston in the Commons in 2016 and by Lord Wills in the Lords in 2014, set out to create an independent public advocate with meaningful powers, including the authority to instigate independent panels akin to the Hillsborough independent panel. The intention was to give bereaved families a route to truth and transparency at an early stage, and to ensure that public authorities could be held to account quickly and that failures in process could be addressed before they became entrenched.
However, the office of the independent public advocate, as currently established under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, does not yet carry the powers originally envisaged, as the independent public advocate outlined in last Thursday’s evidence session. I think she is open to having more powers to achieve what my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston is looking to set out with the new clause. As it stands, the office of the IPA lacks the statutory authority to gather evidence from those affected, and it cannot initiate independent panels to collate information and assess public authorities’ actions.
I cannot say it strongly enough: the Hillsborough independent panel uncovered what happened at Hillsborough because it had access to the police documents and the reports, so it could see the scale of how some police officers had changed the evidence of those who were at Hillsborough. I include in that my own father, whose report of his experience at Hillsborough was changed beyond all recognition. When he eventually saw what the police had put down for him, it caused him great distress, along with many others. What my right hon. Friend has outlined in the new clause is so important, and without the powers in it the advocate cannot replicate the approach that finally succeeded in the case of Hillsborough, when transparency, document disclosure and independent oversight finally brought truth, in a fraction of the time that the legal system had taken.
The gap in the powers has real consequences today for families who experience disasters or major public incidents. If we are serious about learning the lessons from Hillsborough and other tragedies, which I believe we are, we need to ensure that the independent public advocate has the appropriate authority and resources to act effectively, and that Parliament can scrutinise whether the office is delivering on its intended purpose. New clause 1 would provide for that, and I support it fully. I urge the Minister to consider what my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston laid out in the new clause, and to discuss how we move forward on it.
Dr Mullan
I rise to speak in support of some of the sentiment and principle of the new clause, particularly subsection (1)(a) on understanding the impact of the provisions. As discussed, some of this is very novel and we will not always be sure how it pans out. I am not necessarily convinced that “within 12 months” is the right timescale. Thankfully, these things do not happen that often, in the scheme of things, and I am not sure that 12 months is quite enough time to see whether the new system has bedded in, and for there to be examples that we can review. I do not support the timetable, then, but it is important that the Government have a clear strategy for assessing and understanding how everything works in practice.
Tessa Munt
I have to disagree a little with the hon. Gentleman. A year is probably a good time in which one can make an initial assessment. We can then recognise what is happening on an annual basis.
With reference to our earlier discussion, might the Minister consider the annual report be the appropriate vehicle to look at what is spent on legal fees, and how that might reduce or increase? It will probably not increase. I believe the IOPC spent £80 million in the span of time for which it considered Hillsborough. If we get the new system right, sums like that £80 million will be reduced to very little, because the IOPC will be able to do its job swiftly and accurately, and to inform the Minister exactly what it has saved out of that £80 million pot, which was ridiculous.
Seamus Logan
I rise to support the new clause, the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston and the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby. I believe this to be an important proposal. If the new clause is adopted, would it actually result in a saving to the public purse?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank all Members who have spoken in the debate on the new clause, which seeks to provide for a post-legislative review of the duty of candour and to include an assessment of the role of the Independent Public Advocate.
As the Committee knows, Cindy Butts has now started as the first ever standing advocate of the independent public advocate. Hers is an excellent appointment. Sadly, she has already been deployed to support the victims of the horrific attack on Heaton Park synagogue. The IPA will bolster the support offer and amplify victims’ voices back to Government. The Deputy Prime Minister and I have been in direct contact with Cindy to discuss her early experiences in post, and we will continue to engage with her on the delivery of her role and to better understand the experiences of victims.
Under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, the IPA has the power to produce reports, and has broad discretion on what matters relating to a major incident to include. Such reports may, for example, highlight concerns about a public authority not co-operating or not behaving with candour, or about the cost of what is entailed.
Additionally, the Act requires a statutory review of the independent public advocate’s role and its effectiveness, 18 months after its first deployment. That review period commenced on 3 October, following the attack at Heaton Park synagogue. The resulting report will be laid before Parliament, as required in legislation. It is right to allow the new role sufficient time to bed in. We will keep listening to victims’ experiences and will conduct the review before we consider any further changes. However, I am not taking those off the table—I reaffirm that commitment to the Committee.
The Prime Minister recently commissioned a new ethics and integrity commission to report on how public bodies can develop, distribute and enforce codes of ethics so that they effect meaningful cultural change and ensure that public officials act with honesty, integrity and candour at all times. On the publication of its report, and when the Hillsborough law has received Royal Assent, the commission will act as a centre of excellence on public sector codes of conduct, providing guidance and best practice to help all public bodies to put ethics and integrity at the heart of public service delivery.
Tessa Munt
I would be grateful if the Minister could include me in those discussions, because I am very keen that we get this right.
The Chair
Before we proceed, we have reached a witching hour. I am prepared, as are the officials, to see this through, provided that we do not engage in long debate. Let me be absolutely clear: these are important and serious issues and there is no question of the debate being curtailed. There is plenty of time. But if it is possible to expedite things in a manner that means Members do not have to come back later this afternoon, as Chair I am prepared to do that. We will see how we get on.
Tessa Munt
On a point of order, Sir Roger. I have not a clue where I am—have I missed amendment 41?
The Chair
No, you are all right.
Clause 19
Crown application
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
In the spirit of brevity, let me just say that the clauses contain standard provisions around Crown application. They confer powers to make consequential amendments as set out in the Bill’s regulation-making powers, they provide definitions throughout the Bill and they set out its territorial extent. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 20 to 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Commencement
Tessa Munt
I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 25, page 22, line 23, leave out subsections (1) to (8) and insert—
“This Act shall come into force on Royal Assent, save for sections 9, 10 and 18, which will come into force six months thereafter.”
This amendment clarifies that the Act should come into force straightaway except for those sections which require the provision of codes or guidance.
Tessa Munt
The amendment seeks to clarify that the Act should come into force straight away, except for clauses 9, 10 and 18, which require the provision of codes or guidance. I seek purely to ensure that the Hillsborough law comes into force as soon as possible, as families have been waiting so many years for justice.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Lady and all Committee members for ensuring that our feet are held to the fire on our plans for implementation. We agree that the families have been waiting far too long and deserve implementation as swiftly as possible.
Amendment 41 seeks to amend the commencement provision in clause 25. It would provide that the Bill, with the exceptions of clauses 9, 10 and 18, would come into force immediately on Royal Assent. Clauses 9, 10 and 18 would then automatically come into force six months following Royal Assent. As I said, we agree that the families have waited long enough. The public deserve change and renewed confidence in the services that exist to protect and serve them.
Let me be clear: we will bring the measures into force as soon as is reasonably practical. However, we cannot prescribe commencement on the fact of the Bill. That is not the right approach and would create practical difficulties. Ultimately, implementing the legislation without the necessary frameworks and arrangements in place could result in unintended consequences and difficulties that cause further distress and disappointment. By retaining the power to commence regulations, steps can be taken to ensure a smooth transition, so that the provisions achieve their objective without negatively impacting ongoing proceedings.
I reassure the hon. Lady and all Committee members that we are not dragging our feet. We want to implement the Bill as swiftly as possible, and we will do so. We are working at pace to facilitate market readiness to expand legal aid rapidly. We are also working with coroner services to help them to prepare for the effects of an increase in the number of lawyers who will appear at inquests.
In addition, the major increase in demand will mean that we also need to look at making significant changes to the Legal Aid Agency’s operational and digital systems. I remind Members that this comes at a time when the agency is recovering from a major cyber incident, with all digital systems yet to be fully restored. Without sufficient time for the legal aid market and the Legal Aid Agency to prepare, there is a risk that bereaved families will be unable to find legal aid lawyers or to access legal aid funding at inquests, which could be delayed as a consequence. We do not want that. Our priority is to deliver the reforms as soon as possible while ensuring that the system is equipped to provide specialist advice to bereaved families from day one.
None the less, we recognise that the Hillsborough families, along with the wider public, deserve clarity on when the Bill will come into force, which is why, very soon, we will set out a clear plan, including the timelines for implementation and for the commencement of the Bill as a whole. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills to withdraw the amendment.
Clause 25 sets out when the Act will come into force. Part 5 of the Bill, which includes the technical provisions, including on regulation-making powers and territorial extent, will take effect immediately. The other parts of the Bill will come into force on a date specified by the relevant authority in regulations. I reaffirm that we will not delay bringing the Bill into force, and I look forward to updating the House very soon on the planned timeline for its implementation. Clause 26 simply provides the short title of the legislation. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Tessa Munt
I accept the Minister’s assurance that she is going to get her skates on, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 25 and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
On a point of order, Sir Roger. I would appreciate the Committee indulging me briefly, because it is customary at this point to say a few brief words to mark the end of Committee deliberations. I thank the Opposition Front-Bench team, and I pay tribute to all the Members who have served on this really important and powerful Bill Committee. The Bill is better for having been scrutinised by them all, so I thank them.
I thank you, Sir Roger, for keeping us in very good order, especially at times when we all lost where we were. I also thank the Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Ossett and Denby Dale, on her birthday. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I thank the Clerks. I want to say a huge thank you to the brilliant team at the Ministry of Justice and the Cabinet Office. That includes, but is not limited to, our officials Nikki Jones, Emily Dunn, Tom Blackburn, Sam Wright, May Wong, Sam Dayan, Georgina Rood, Terry Davies, Jonny Fitzpatrick, Catriona MacDonald, Naomi Sephton, John Smith, James Parker, Rachel Boylin and Rachel Bennion —both my Rachels. I thank the Hansard Reporters and the Doorkeepers, and I look forward to the debate on Report, which I am sure we will come to very soon.
The Chair
That was, of course, all strictly out of order and not a matter for the Chair. [Laughter.] While we are out of order, I add my thanks, on the Committee’s behalf, to the Officers of the House, without whom we could not do this job at all.
Exceptionally, I would like to say something else. This has been a highly sensitive and at times difficult piece of legislation to put through. It affects people whose lives are still affected many years after events. I hugely appreciate, and I know that Mr Dowd appreciates, the manner in which you have conducted yourselves. It has been exemplary. Thank you very much indeed.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
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
Acquired Brain Injury Action Plan
(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
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of a comprehensive acquired brain injury action plan.
Dickens wrote,
“Reflect upon your present blessings—of which every man has many—not on your past misfortunes, of which all men have some.”
There are few greater misfortunes than an acquired disability. Among those, a brain injury can challenge every aspect of life, whether people can walk, talk or think—or at least think straight. The effects are various: they can be mild or severe, and recovery will often take not just weeks or months, although the initial trauma can be treated in that timeframe, but many years. However, an improvement can be made over the long term.
Most of us think, “This will never happen to me.” I guess that is true of most misfortunes, including ones of this severity. Brain injury is the leading cause of disability and death among people under 40 in the UK. It can happen at any time, in any place. The causes, again, are various. One thinks of sporting injuries, or perhaps an attack—a violent incident. Of course, the principal causes are things like road traffic accidents, motorcycle and car accidents. Acquired brain injury, for the reasons I have given, has long warranted more attention than it has received, both publicly and among policymakers.
While the Department of Health and Social Care plays a central role in dealing with the immediate trauma caused by the sorts of accidents I have described, many other Government Departments have a relationship with the effects of brain injury. That is well illustrated by the work done by the all-party parliamentary group for acquired brain injury, which I am now proud to chair, and published in a report to which I will refer later in my speech.
We made the case that a cross-departmental approach to brain injury is required, for exactly the reasons I have set out. Of course, it affects the Department of Health, but it also affects the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—I spoke about sporting injuries a moment or two ago. It affects the Ministry of Justice, because such a high proportion of the incarcerated have brain injuries. It affects almost all aspects of Government, on which I know other contributors to this debate will focus, so a lateral approach to the way that public policymakers consider brain injury and its effects is critical.
As you will know, Dame Siobhain, as an extremely experienced and very wise Member of this House, might I say—
Sir John Hayes
I was hoping it might. Lateral policymaking is not easy in Government, because of the way Government works and ministerial responsibilities are exercised. It is a challenge, therefore, to get that sort of approach adopted by a Government of any colour or persuasion.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is making a typically thoughtful contribution, and I congratulate him on securing this debate. I also thank Clare Harrison, a constituent of mine, from the Brain Injury Group for bringing this important matter to my attention.
The right hon. Gentleman makes a point about the Government’s role, and as he mentioned, sporting injuries populate such issues. Among those affected are former professional footballers, who are four times more likely to develop a neurodegenerative disease, support for which is patchy. For female former professional footballers, that support is non-existent. Will he join me in encouraging the Minister to consider the creation of an independent, football-funded body, alongside any wider action plan that his APPG is advocating for?
Sir John Hayes
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. He makes a valuable point and an interesting suggestion that I will reflect on. He is certainly right that more can be done to affect brain injury in the first place. I have spoken a bit about its effects, but he is right to speak at greater length than I did about its causes. In the area of sport, of course, he is right that we now know that heading a football does all kinds of damage that no one imagined a generation or two ago. His suggestion is well made and worthy of further consideration.
Around 350,000 people a year are admitted to hospital with acquired brain injury—that is one every 90 seconds. About 125,000 of those are admitted following a traumatic brain injury, around 43,000 with brain tumours and others following strokes. I pay tribute to Lincolnshire brain tumour support group, of which I am president, and to Headway, which I will say more about in due course. The end result of those admissions is that about 1.3 million people are living with the consequences of acquired brain injury every day. They and their families, loved ones and friends, and the communities of which they are part, are dealing with the effects.
According to our all-party group’s latest report, the cost to the UK economy through healthcare, social care, lost productivity and wider public services is £43 billion annually, which equates to 1.3% of GDP. Of that, £20 billion is accounted for within the NHS and social care budget for acute long-term care, £21.5 billion is attributed to lost productivity, £1.5 billion is spent in the criminal justice system and the Department for Education—yet another Government Department that needs to be involved in the consideration of this issue in the lateral way I mentioned—and about £1.9 billion is spent on benefits. Leaving aside the human cost and the visceral effects brain injury can have on affected individuals and those who care for them, this has a considerable effect on Government, the Exchequer and the public purse.
Those ramifications only scratch the surface of the wider social cost. The real cost is in lives disrupted, plans abandoned and ambitions jettisoned as a result of brain injury; in parents seeing a child’s personality change overnight and carers stretched to their limits, with little or no respite, because symptoms are dismissed as being mild or imperceptible or attributed to some other cause entirely. Although less obvious, those effects are just as devastating. When those costs are added to the ones I have described, the all-party group estimates that the real cost of acquired brain injury is £91.5 billion. That is about half of what the NHS spends every year. It is extraordinary that this issue is not given greater consideration. I am delighted that this debate gives us a chance to do so, at least for this short time. I thank all colleagues across the House who have been part of these efforts.
We have argued for what we call a right to rehab. Putting aside the substantial financial cost, the physical and emotional costs are still higher. The estimates do not include many of the costs associated with homelessness, addiction, mental health services and psychiatric stays. The cost to the NHS and welfare of lengthy treatment and recovery is huge and rises quickly during spells in hospital before one even receives community support and longer-term social care provision. Much of this could be prevented, and many of the costs could be reduced, if we had the right to rehab.
Much work has been done on this subject, including by Headway, which I mentioned earlier, and the United Kingdom Acquired Brain Injury Forum. A report from earlier this year, commissioned by the APPG, urged the Government to invest in specialist neuro-rehabilitation to save long-term societal costs. The report called for brain injury to be treated on a par with cancer and dementia. A statutory right to rehab in every region means that specialist neuro-rehabilitation services after an acquired brain injury would be put in place.
None of the failures that we see today in response to brain injuries is inevitable. The Ministry of Defence already guarantees the right to rehabilitation for military personnel, so we have a precedent. We want to build on that precedent, across Government, for those affected by brain injury.
We know from the MOD the results of having that right for rehabilitation—shorter recovery times, better outcomes, restored lives and improved prospects. The same approach is being piloted by the National Rehabilitation Centre, where every £43,000 invested in rehab yields savings of up to £680,000. That is a remarkable 16:1 return on investment.
Now is the time to extend the entitlement adopted by the MOD much more widely. We must establish a national neuro-rehabilitation framework that guarantees that access to specialist care is not a lottery, but a certain path to recovery. In doing so, money would certainly be saved, but life chances would be improved immeasurably, too. High-quality rehabilitation reduces the risk of homelessness, addiction and a drift into lawlessness. It allows people to contribute, return to work and rebuild lives and relationships—to begin to stand tall again.
Now is the time for the Government to act. I have every confidence that the Minister will rise to her feet at the summation of this debate and tell us that she has not only thoroughly studied the all-party group’s report—daily, perhaps—but that she is ready to respond in the way that we invite.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), who chaired the APPG before I did—I was his vice-chairman for many years. He drove the original version of the report, which was republished more recently. It is an outstanding piece of work. We all know that APPGs vary, but this one is focused on the subject for which it is responsible and is determined to make its voice heard, because of the all-party support it attracts and because of the salience and significance of this subject.
Given the number of people affected by brain injury, the comparatively low cost of effective interventions, such as rehabilitation and community support, and the ongoing lack of support services, there continues to be a strong need for a proper strategy to be put in place.
I spoke earlier about a lateral approach. We are calling for a national strategy on brain injury. Around 60% of prisoners report having an acquired brain injury. We discussed that at a recent APPG meeting, where we heard from experts in the field. I have served as a Minister in multiple Departments—I will not list them all—and I know that cross-departmental working is tough, and the Minister will know that too, but it can be done. It requires structures to be created that facilitate Ministers to come together. The Cabinet Office might be able to play a part. I served in the Cabinet Office and its purpose, in a sense, is to deal with those issues that could otherwise fall between the cracks and departmental silos. However it is done, we need a national strategy.
As far back as 2001, the Health Committee published a report on head injury, issuing 28 recommendations that included, as a matter of urgency, finding ways of improving methods of data collection on incidence, prevalence and severity. In 2005, the national service framework for long-term neurological conditions was launched; it contained many good ideas, but had no mandate and no funding. In 2010, the National Audit Office published a report, “Major Trauma Care in England”, which highlighted the need for improvement in major trauma care. That led to the establishment—you may remember it, Dame Siobhain—of trauma networks, with a centralised and specialised approach to trauma care and service across the country.
The excellent work of the APPG for acquired brain injury, which was reformed in 2017, showed that there was a strong case for a cross-party commitment to action. I have already spoken about the 2018 report, which called for a national reconsideration of rehabilitation and the collation of reliable statistics, given the problems with data collection and analysis that prevail.
To be fair to the previous Government, our report was well received by Ministers. Indeed, they responded to what we had called for by committing to publish a strategy on acquired head injury in 2021. The following year, there was a call for evidence to inform the development of such a strategy. The previous Government said that they were going to do it, committed to the principle and welcomed the work that we were doing. However, we then, of course, had the inconvenience of an election—one of the aspects of democracy that sometimes gets in the way of these sorts of things. Therefore, the work was not brought to a conclusion.
Earlier this year, the current Government announced their intention to develop an “action-oriented, and accountable” ABI action plan
“with input from NHS England and other Government departments”.
It was due to be published “this year”—well, the year is running out, Minister. However, there are still a couple of sitting weeks left: a statement could be brought to the House and perhaps a document could be published that responds to the calls that we have made. We have the work that the previous Government and this Government have done. There has been no party politics; over time, Ministers have recognised the challenge—the scale of the problem—and the reasons for addressing it, which I have set out.
We can hope that this Minister, who I know is dutiful and diligent, will rise to exactly that challenge. I do not know whether I am flattering her, Dame Siobhain—I am doing my best.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I think that may be your modus operandi.
Sir John Hayes
Following representations from myself and others, the Minister, who has responsibility for public health and prevention, kindly responded to say that the Government will publish an action plan in 2026. I hope that it will be published as early as possible—if not before Christmas, perhaps as an early new year’s resolution.
After years of campaigning by charities and MPs, the excellent news is that there now seems to be momentum on this issue, which is what sufferers and their families deserve; it is what they warrant and certainly what they need. The plan needs to include a focus on better community rehabilitation and on how that will help to achieve real change for people with ABI. It could also include national training for local authority and integrated care board commissioners, and for social workers, on the complexities of ABI. I have talked about the subtlety of the effects that ABI can have, including the changed personality that many people experience as a result of a brain injury. Addressing such subtle changes requires a level of understanding and expertise, so national training could be really important and of immense value.
I hope that the plan will also include funding for community-based specialist brain injury services. Staggeringly, the vital research by Dr Alyson Norman found that a third of serious case reviews in social services involved someone with a brain injury. Dr Norman lost her own brother to suicide after he suffered a lifetime of untreated brain injuries sustained in childhood.
Given that brain injury is no less than a hidden epidemic, it is imperative that the Government take further action to collect statistics about it, so that we can accurately ascertain the numbers impacted. We need a UK-wide consensus on which conditions are classified and coded as brain injury, and to make that data freely available. Access to hospital admission data on brain injuries must be free; currently, charities face significant costs.
The charity Headway, which has done so much in this field, is not an immensely wealthy organisation and so those costs are significant to it. I hope that we get some reassurance on that point. Research by Headway has shown that over three quarters of brain injury survivors encounter daily challenges due to the hidden nature of their injury, and that nine out of 10 people affected by a brain injury cite societal misunderstanding as a major obstacle in navigating life with a hidden disability. Collecting those facts and figures is important because of the nature of acquired brain injury.
I will not say too much more about the costs to the sector, except that over the past three years several local Headway charities have permanently closed, including one in the last month. Three local volunteer branches have also shut down. That is because of rising costs of all kinds, which I do not need to list here. Closures really do risk brain injury survivors feeling lost. This is an area of work and a need that can go unrecognised and unseen. The feeling of isolation and loneliness—this is, as I described, a hidden epidemic—can place immense strain on families as survivors are no longer able to access, for example, the specialist daycare centres that they might otherwise enjoy.
We need to find a way of granting exemptions for charities from things such as the employer national insurance charges. I hope that the Minister will look at that, or even speak about it in this debate. Some 57% of Headway charities say that they have experienced delays in receiving payments from local authorities and integrated care boards. Some charities have even had to employ additional staff members purely to chase the debts that they were owed. These are small organisations with limited budgets; they just need help.
I know that other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate and can see their eagerness to do so, so I will draw my remarks to a close. For survivors, a head injury is just the beginning; the real challenge after survival lies in the days, months and years that follow. Individuals and their families struggle to navigate, with minimal support, a fragmented and underfunded system of rehabilitation. I know that because more than 40 years ago, like so many other young people, I suffered a serious head injury. But the key for me is that it did not stop me from doing what I wanted or being what I became. That is fundamental for anyone with an acquired disability.
It is a matter of record that I decided to become a Conservative MP when I was seven—I was probably six, actually. That did not alter as a result of my head injury, but it might have done. I have seen those much more seriously affected by the traumatic injury they endured. As I looked at them I thought, “There but for the grace of God go I”, so I was determined thereafter to do all I could to fight for people with serious head injuries who struggle with their effects. I have been determined to champion their cause and to turn my hopes on their behalf, and their hopes too, into reality.
I started with Dickens, one of our greatest writers, and I will end with Tolstoy, the great Russian writer. He wrote:
“As long as there is life, there is happiness. There is a great deal, a great deal before us.”
For everyone, regardless of what they suffer, to be able to glean that happiness, through the care and support that they receive, should be the ambition of every Government Minister and every Member of this House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I ask that Members consider a four or five-minute time limit on their speeches so that everybody can be heard this afternoon, although I do not want to do that on a forced basis.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing this debate and for all his ongoing work leading on this issue.
One of the most remarkable features of the human brain is its ability to change. Neuroscience tells us that the brain has what is known as plasticity: the ability to rebuild, adapt and form new connections after injury. But that is not automatic; as with any muscle, recovery happens only when the brain is exercised, challenged and supported.
If someone breaks a leg, we do not simply discharge them and hope that they walk again; we provide structured rehabilitation, physiotherapy and ongoing care. Yet for many people with brain injuries, that is exactly what we do not do. Too often, rehabilitation is determined by postcode rather than need. Some parts of our country offer specialist support; others offer little or nothing at all. Patients are discharged from hospital and sent home often not because they are ready, but because the hospital bed is needed. Families suddenly become care co-ordinators. People struggle with memory, fatigue, speech and personality change without professional help.
Let us be clear about the scale of the issue. As has already been mentioned by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, acquired brain injury is the leading cause of death and disability among people under 40 years old. Every year, around 900,000 people experience a brain injury and over 160,000 of them are hospitalised. Around 350,000 hospital admissions involve an acquired brain injury.
As has already been mentioned, the cost is enormous. Analysis shows the real cost is over £43 billion, with wider wellbeing costs exceeding £91 billion. We also know that every £1 spent on neuro-rehabilitation saves £16 for the state. Yet community services are underfunded and overstretched, and voluntary organisations warn that systems are close to collapse. This is not just moral failure; it is also economic failure.
Behind every statistic is a life, and one of those lives belongs to my constituent, Jonathan Purnell. While playing rugby 34 years ago, Jonathan suffered a massive brain haemorrhage—he was 27 years old. He spent three years under neurosurgical care, and when discharge day finally came, he believed he was starting again, but then the reality hit him, as he describes it, “like a steam train.” There were no services, no pathway and no road map to recovery, so he built his own. Out of his experience, determination and quiet defiance, Jonathan created the 1492 Group, not as a charity in theory, but a lifeline in practice—a place for people with brain injuries to come together, share, rebuild and be heard. I am so proud that it operates today in my constituency of Hartlepool.
Jonathan did not wait for the system to change; he began the change. Today, he is not only a survivor, but a force—a campaigner, an advocate and a builder of hope for others still trying to understand their new reality. He should not have to do this alone, and no one else should either. The case for reform is overwhelming. The Government have committed to their acquired brain injury action plan—a process, I have to say, that started as a strategy in December 2021. How long does it take to get this done? It started in December 2021, and here we are in December 2025.
What matters now is delivery. We need a statutory right to rehabilitation, consistent national provision, proper data collection and sustainable funding for community services. Above all, we must ensure that people with brain injuries are not written off because recovery is complex. Brain injuries change lives, but failure to act destroys them. Jonathan Purnell shows what is possible, and the Government must now do what is responsible. I urge the Minister to set out a clear timescale for that action plan, the necessary funding commitments and the accountability mechanisms. When it comes to acquired brain injury, warm words are no longer enough: people need support, and they need it now.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on securing this important debate. Every 90 seconds, someone in the UK is admitted to hospital with an acquired brain injury. Participation in sport carries some of the highest risks. This is most evident in children, adolescents and young adults.
The University of Bath was recently named sports university of the year, and we are all very proud in my constituency. It is a national leader in making sports such as rugby safer while preserving the hugely positive health and community benefits of participation. Rugby is at the forefront of developing ways to identify and manage brain injuries and, crucially, to prevent these injuries in the first place.
It is about improving safety without losing what makes sports so valuable, exciting and enjoyable for players and communities. The University of Bath works directly with teams and governing bodies to research, trial and refine new safety protocols, ensuring that evidence rapidly translates into safer play at all levels. One such example is the Activate exercise programme, an evidence-based strategy to cut youth concussions by up to 60%, which has now been adopted internationally.
The University of Bath is also partnering with schools, including Beechen Cliff school in my constituency, to use instrumented mouthguards to monitor head impacts and guide approaches to preventing injuries in young players. I pay special tribute to Headway Bath, which provides specialist relief, cognitive rehabilitation and support to adults who have suffered an acquired brain injury and their families and carers.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
My hon. Friend is right to congratulate Headway Bath. These local groups are so important in providing support within our constituencies and are sometimes used by us to signpost people on. I highlight Graham Geddes, who set up Headway North East Fife in my constituency and has been nominated as volunteer of the year. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to support this vital charity?
Wera Hobhouse
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I congratulate her branch of Headway on its wonderful work and the award it is about to receive. What would we do without local charities leading the way and, often, guiding us?
In Bath, North East Fife and other constituencies across the country, Headway provides day services throughout the week, online groups and bespoke one-to-one outreach rehabilitation support. That vital support makes a real difference to the lives of sufferers of acquired brain injuries, but I am sure many hon. Members will echo the fact that local Headway charities are under severe financial strain. Seven have closed in the last three years and others are struggling to meet rising demand with shrinking resources.
This debate is a crucial opportunity to ensure that the ABI action plan tackles these challenges. The 2024 report of the Lancet commission on dementia prevention, intervention and care estimates that almost half of dementia cases worldwide could be prevented or delayed if we act on 14 modifiable risk factors. Among them is traumatic brain injury, which alone is estimated to contribute to around 3% of global dementia cases.
As we have mentioned, some high-contact sports, such as rugby and boxing, carry a higher risk of traumatic brain injury, but we must not forget that regular physical activity is one of the most powerful tools we have to protect brain health. Exercise improves memory, supports thinking skills and lowers the risk of dementia through its wider benefits to cardiovascular and metabolic health.
Addressing the full range of modifiable risks such as high blood pressure, smoking, physical inactivity and obesity, alongside reducing exposure to head injury, means we could lower dementia risk for an estimated 27 million people worldwide. Our task now is not to pit exercise against safety, but to balance the risks of head injury with the overwhelming health benefits of sport. Protecting athletes of all ages from avoidable head injury must sit at the heart of that effort.
I echo the call from Alzheimer’s Research UK for dedicated funding from national Government, sport governing bodies and research councils to advance research into the complex relationship between sport, traumatic brain injury and dementia prevention. I hope that the Government listen.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on his opening remarks. We have served together on the all-party parliamentary group for acquired brain injury for a number of years. He gave a very effective summary of the impact of brain injury. I thank Chloe Hayward and everyone at the United Kingdom Acquired Brain Injury Forum and its constituent organisations for all the work and campaigning they do to improve services for people with acquired brain injuries.
There are so many aspects of this issue, including sport, other conditions and the justice system, but I will focus on children. I thank the Child Brain Injury Trust for its long-standing support in my constituency. A few weeks ago, its representatives accompanied me on a visit to Chopwell primary school, as they have come to other schools in past years, during GloWeek, which is always a big hit with children in Blaydon and Consett. It turns out that road safety is even more memorable if there are high-vis armbands and a visiting police car and fire engine. The purpose is not just entertainment; it is to say to children, “Be seen and be safe,” because so many acquired brain injuries in children are from road traffic accidents. It is entertaining, but it has a very serious message: “Let’s avoid those brain injuries in the first place.”
UKABIF and N-ABLES—the National ABI in Learning and Education Syndicate, a young people’s group—point out that acquired brain injury is an under-recognised and often hidden condition that can affect every aspect of a person’s life. About 40,000 children and young people report to hospital with an acquired brain injury every year, but it is likely that many thousands more have an undetected mild brain injury.
UKABIF and N-ABLES also say, however, that even mild injuries can be associated with a range of cognitive, behavioural and emotional symptoms, which can inevitably have an impact on a child’s education and health—indeed, on every aspect of their life, as we have heard. For those with moderate and severe injuries, the effect on all aspects of their life is often profound. The UK’s major trauma centres and advances in healthcare are saving more children’s lives than ever—thank goodness—but investment is needed in the quality of those lives after a brain injury. We hope those children will have a long life, but the support remains desperately poor. It is actually left to families and schools to provide much of that support.
Brain injuries are common, but the symptoms often go unrecognised or are mistakenly attributed to conditions such as autism or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Even with a diagnosis, there is no special educational needs category for acquired brain injury, which forces schools to record affected children under more generic categories. Many teachers say that they have never taught a child with a brain injury, but the evidence suggests that one child in every class will have sustained one by the time they leave school. It is vital that clinicians, teachers and carers consider the question, “Could this be a brain injury?” If that question is not asked, too many will miss out on the specialist support that they need. That is true not just at school but throughout their lives.
Rates of brain injury are alarmingly high in our mental health system, in prisons, and among those accessing domestic abuse support services. The risk of suicide is two to three times higher following a brain injury. One in four people report suicidal thoughts within a year of diagnosis, and that risk persists throughout life. Despite that, more than half of people with neurological conditions have not been asked about their mental health in the past three years.
Many people experiencing suicidal thoughts might not even be aware that they have a brain injury, particularly survivors of domestic abuse who might have experienced repeated mild injuries rather than one significant event. Research suggests that up to half of survivors have experienced brain injury, yet frontline support workers are rarely aware of that link. This matters because people experiencing mental health issues as a result of their brain injury require specialist neuro-psychiatric support. Often they are excluded from mental health services or told that the services they need do not exist.
With fewer than 20 full-time neuro-psychiatrists in the UK, there is a postcode lottery in accessing support, so those most likely to experience high rates of traumatic brain injury and mental illness also face the most significant barriers to accessing healthcare. That includes those who are homeless, those who struggle with substance abuse or those in prison. Some 60% of offenders are thought to have a brain injury, and yet there are no secure services in the UK for women with an acquired brain injury. Given the links between domestic abuse, offending, brain injuries and suicidality, that is particularly concerning.
What steps is the Minister taking to improve the integration of mental health and neurological care, and to ensure that clinicians are trained to recognise and respond to the needs of patients with brain injuries? The national service framework for long-term neurological conditions emphasises the need for provision at all levels, delivered through co-ordinated networks of specialist hospital and community rehab services. Having met local professionals in the north-east—in Newcastle and south of the River Tyne—I know that community provision varies significantly by postcode, some receiving none at all and others receiving great support. Without support, patients go on to have poorer outcomes, relying more heavily on other parts of our NHS and the care system.
What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that we develop the care pathways we need to give patients the best chance of recovery? I welcome the Government’s commitment to a more focused action plan, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on what steps will be taken to achieve it. If we get this right, we can transform outcomes for thousands of people and build a system that supports them throughout their lives.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on securing this debate and thank him for his hard work as chair of the APPG.
I want to pay tribute to Brainkind Fen House in my constituency of Ely and East Cambridgeshire for its incredible work to support people with acquired brain injuries. It provides a safe and secure space for patients, with rehabilitation and support so that people can thrive after brain injury. In preparing for this debate, it shared with me the story of my constituent Florence, which I want to share today.
Florence gave birth to twins, which should have been a very special time in her life. Unfortunately, just two weeks later, she suffered a stroke resulting in a brain injury. Her ability to speak became severely impaired. She found it difficult to walk or use her hands. Let us imagine being a new mother and suddenly finding that our body will not let us care for our babies. Florence went to Brainkind Fen House and after just five months of rehabilitation with its clinicians, she regained the use of her hands so she can now change and bathe her babies. Her speech recovered and she is able to walk again. I cannot do her story justice on my own, so I will quote her directly:
“I felt helpless. My whole world had crumbled. But Brainkind offered so much support. They made me realise I’m not alone. The staff rallied round, organising donations of toys and clothes for my children so we could spend time together. Then, as I began to recover, they took me shopping so I could buy things for my children for the first time.”
Florence’s story is a special one, showing us the vital role that specialists play in ensuring that an acquired brain injury is not the end, and that there can be light at the end of the tunnel.
I was also privileged to meet an individual at an event at Parliament this week; the event was on a different subject, but she wanted to talk about acquired brain injuries because, at the age of 16, her brother suffered an injury and was almost a completely different person afterwards—something we have heard from others. Two things she said stood out. She said it was almost as though he had gone through a “factory reset,” and she had to mourn the brother she once knew and bond with the brother she now had, because they were two different people. She said, “His smile is different”. Everyone she spoke to did not notice any difference, but she did. His facial muscles moved differently, and as someone who had known him all his life, she could spot that when others could not.
That story shows the pain these injuries can cause to a person’s loved ones. In this case, it caused a sense of grief; her brother had not passed away, but the brother she knew was gone, and she now had someone else to bond with.
Brainkind Fen House gives strong support to brain-damaged people and a range of therapies to help them recover. There are strict criteria for continued NHS funding after the first few months, which means that small improvements are not always sufficient to secure funding for ongoing rehabilitation. The person is then moved into long-term care, with little, if any, further support.
I have another case in which the person was responding to rehab, but the funding was coming to an end. After significant advocacy from their parents and the staff at Fen House, the funding was extended. That person is now waiting for a suitable flat, and his parents are fighting for a care package to support him in independent living.
People should not have to fight for this support, and it should not need an MP’s intervention. We need a clearer, fairer process to ensure that people get the rehab support they need, and then the appropriate housing and care support as they move back into the community. I ask the Government to publish the acquired brain injury action plan as soon as possible, and to include in it the right for those who have suffered to have access to a named GP. That must go hand in hand with better social care for disabled people and free personal care.
The stories I have shared highlight that more needs to be done, not only to help patients but to understand the impact on their friends and family. I hope this debate highlights the need for urgent action, so we can do more to support patients and their loved ones.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing this debate and for the work he is doing as chair of the APPG for acquired brain injury; I worked with his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), on these issues.
I want to speak about the case of Imran Douglas, the deceased son of my constituent Amy, to illustrate why an acquired brain injury strategy and action plan should no longer be a matter of if but when. Imran was born in 1995 and suffered a brain injury as a result of a road accident when he was just 17. He was in a coma, and when he woke up he was found to have significant personality changes. Imran was taken into care, having never previously needed psychiatric assessments or had any run-ins with the authorities or the criminal justice system.
While in care, Imran committed a horrific act of murder—something which his mother, my constituent, has always maintained was a brutal and undeserved attack for which Imran was responsible—of an elderly person who was completely innocent. Imran was then transferred to hospital, and in 2013 pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Imran was the first 18-year-old to be sent to Belmarsh prison following his sentencing. He lasted less than a week, because he killed himself.
A subsequent inquest into Imran’s death found a lack of planning and a failure of care by some of those responsible for his welfare while he was in custody, who were aware of Imran’s condition. It spoke to
“a systemic lack of communication between, and within, almost all the agencies involved most notably within Feltham Young Offenders Institution.”
In other words, he should not have been transferred to Belmarsh prison. Since his suicide, Imran’s mother Amy and his father Masum have been fighting for a serious case review. They have been fighting for several years but have never been granted one.
Over the years, Imran’s parents have worked with the Acquired Brain Injury Forum and various other campaign groups for changes in the law to identify brain injury at much earlier stages, and ensure that people in this country have the right to support in that regard. I pay tribute to them for their efforts over the years to deal with the pain of that loss and the tragic circumstances around it, and to use their energy and time to campaign for change. They know, as I do, that any action plan must be wide-ranging, comprehensive and multifaceted, because the prevalence of acquired brain injury among those with contact with the criminal justice system is reported to be around the 46% to 60% overall, between 50% to 87% among children, and 78% among women.
I have supported the work of Brainkind, an organisation that has evidenced the impact of brain injury on domestic abuse survivors. Its report, “Too Many to Count”, found that one in two survivors of domestic abuse may have sustained a brain injury, often through blows to the head or through non-fatal strangulation. As chair of the domestic violence and abuse all-party parliamentary group, I know that our membership is well aware of the correlation between women in prison and undiagnosed conditions such as acquired brain injury.
What is important for a revised or shorter action plan is to ensure that Departments and services speak to one another—that should be worked into the action plan itself—and that there are duties placed on national bodies, Government services and social services to collect and analyse data, and to share it with each other. Ultimately, if we look at the case of Imran, even just data collection and sharing between services could have perhaps prevented his death.
It is also important to ensure that the action plan invests in awareness training and support. Brainkind is doing some work around that, and has developed a new free tool—not a diagnostic tool, but a tool that professionals can use for support when working with survivors of acquired brain injury. Those are the areas that we need to look at if we want not just to present, but to deliver an action plan that can be passed through as soon as possible.
My constituent Amy has shown incredible resilience and fortitude; she is someone who reflects on what happened to her son and commits herself to trying to change things in society. While she continues to advocate for changes to the way in which serious case reviews are conducted, and to the difficult, onerous processes around them, she knows that the picture is much larger. It is a nationwide issue and it needs a national framework.
I mention Amy again because there is a need for serious case reviews, and I saw what she and Imran’s father Masum went through in trying to secure one. From my engagement with the all-party parliamentary group for acquired brain injury, and with other survivors and families that I have met, I can say that the thresholds that need to be met for a serious case review are applied inconsistently by local government and social services across the country. That is why there are not that many serious case reviews—I appreciate that they are reviews of serious cases, but the threshold seems incredibly high, even when a situation presents itself where it is probably better to have one than not.
I raise that issue because some of these matters could be addressed through a strategy and a more focused, shortened, action-oriented plan for the issue. A number of campaigners have called for data collection, analysis, awareness, training, data sharing and collaboration. I started engaging on these issues and matters as a result of my constituents’ case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) mentioned, since about 2020 we have had lots of discussions, meetings and engagement. Progress was made under the previous Government to present a strategy, but we need to deliver it now. It has been five years since I started engaging on these issues. We need a society where no one loses their life to murder or suicide. I hope that the Minister can relay to us some form of timeline for when action plans and strategies can be delivered.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Dame Siobhain. I sincerely thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing this debate, for his thoughtful remarks and for his advocacy on this subject over many years.
As we have heard, an acquired brain injury is an injury to the brain occurring after birth, often caused by a car accident, a fall or, as hon. Members have said, a sports incident. The consequences can be profound. Acquired brain injuries can alter movement, senses, memory, reasoning, personality and emotions. In other words, they can change the entire direction of a person’s life and the lives of their families and carers.
Although the injury itself may often be sudden, the struggle that follows is not. For better or worse, it is shaped by the systems meant to support recovery. At present, those systems are failing far too many people. For years we have seen the same problems persisting: too little access to specialist rehabilitation, chronic workforce shortages, incomplete data, fragmented commissioning and Departments that do not work together. Those failings translate directly into poorer recoveries, greater long-term disability and immense emotional and financial strain on families and the economy.
The NHS 10-year health plan committed to delivering effective rehabilitation in the community—a promise that was warmly welcomed, but it is frustratingly vague. We know that access to rehabilitation is central to enabling people with an ABI to live fulfilling, independent lives, and that rehabilitation works best when delivered by a skilled multidisciplinary team. Despite that, rehabilitation remains underfunded, understaffed and inconsistent across the country. Earlier this year, the UK Acquired Brain Injury Forum published a report that laid bare the scale of the challenge and the opportunities to tackle it. It is estimated that acquired brain injuries directly cost the UK economy £43 billion every year, while ABI-related wellbeing costs amount to £91.5 billion. Crucially, as the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) said, neuro-rehabilitation yields a remarkable 16:1 return on investment.
The message is clear: investing in rehabilitation is not only the right thing to do morally, but one of the smartest decisions economically. Yet local capacity is shrinking when it should be expanding. Headway UK recently revealed that delays in receiving payments from local authorities and ICBs have had severe impacts on local brain injury services. My constituents in Mid Sussex are lucky enough to have Headway Sussex, which partners with brilliant local organisations such as Carers Support West Sussex. However, in the past two years alone, almost 10% of local Headway groups have been forced to close their doors. Each closure represents a community losing vital expertise and support.
There has been some progress. In October 2025, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence published new guidance on rehabilitation for chronic neurological disorders, including ABI. The evidence underpinning that guidance showed what people with ABI have known for a long time: that many do not feel empowered to share feedback, that often rehabilitation is considered only once symptoms already affect daily life, and that people with acquired brain injuries typically need cycles of intensive treatment followed by lighter ongoing support. The new NICE standards set out clear minimum expectations across all health, mental health and social care settings, but they are just that—expectations.
In July, in response to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), the Government confirmed their intention to publish an acquired brain injury action plan in autumn 2025. As the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings noted in his opening remarks, we are yet to see that plan. This follows years of long overdue commitments from the previous Conservative Government, who, having consulted in 2022, promised an ABI strategy back in 2024. People with an acquired brain injury should not have to wait any longer. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I believe the Government must publish that action plan without delay, and it must include a commitment that every person with an acquired brain injury has access to a named GP.
Continuity of care is essential and at the heart of Liberal Democrat policy, but our vision goes further. We are fighting for better social care for disabled people, including free personal care, more support for family carers, more respite breaks and paid carer’s leave. That would offer desperately needed stability to families who have been carrying the burden alone for too long. We would extend the right to flexible working to everyone and give every disabled person the right to work from home, unless there are compelling business reasons not to.
We want people with an acquired brain injury to live not only independently, but with dignity and opportunity. To make that a reality, we would adopt new accessibility standards for public spaces, modernise the blue badge system and incorporate the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities into UK law. We would also introduce adjustment passports, ensuring that support and equipment stay with the person, not the employer, when someone changes jobs. Those are practical reforms, grounded in common sense.
However, we simply cannot talk about acquired brain injuries without talking about the crisis in social care. People with long-term conditions such as an acquired brain injury often have the most complex needs, yet they are among those suffering the most from the failings of the system. Hundreds of thousands of people are waiting for care, and many are stranded in hospital beds because the support they need simply does not exist in the community. In my time since being elected, I have heard that from constituents in Mid Sussex. The situation is bad not only for those individuals, but for the NHS, and it is disastrous for the taxpayer.
The Liberal Democrats would fix the back door of the NHS by introducing free personal care based on the successful Scottish model, creating a social care workforce plan, establishing a college of care workers, raising the carers’ minimum wage and ensuring that unpaid carers get the respite breaks and financial support they deserve and need. The Liberal Democrats would reverse the increase in national insurance contributions and invest directly in community nursing. We would create an independent pay review body, implement a 10-year retention plan and expand access to flexible working and childcare. We would reduce reliance on expensive agency staffing by rebuilding a flexible and sustainable NHS workforce.
People with acquired brain injuries and their families and carers deserve better. Our country, which bears the enormous economic and social cost of inaction, deserves better too. It is time for the Government to act, so I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say today.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on securing a debate on a subject that I know is important to him, to many of our constituents and to the whole House. The brain is so important. It is responsible for moving and thinking, homeostasis, consciousness, our senses and how we interpret the world—essentially, it makes us the people that we are. Acquired brain injuries are therefore an important issue.
As other hon. Members have said, acquired brain injuries are the leading cause of death and disability in those aged between one and 40. Every 90 seconds, someone somewhere in this country—over 330,000 people per year—is admitted to hospital with acquired brain injury. They can have difficulties with walking, with talking, with moving, with thinking skills, with tiredness and fatigue, and with changes in personality. People can have one large brain injury with devastating effects, but they can also have multiple, small, almost unnoticed brain injuries, the cumulative effect of which can be quite severe, and the long-term effects of which can lead to dementia.
The previous Government began work on an acquired brain injury plan and made a public call for evidence in 2022. Unfortunately, that work was interrupted somewhat by the general election. It has been picked up by the current Government, who say they will publish such a plan; it is nearly the end of the year, and I hope they are not going to break that promise, and add to the list of the many other plans that they have delayed. Will the Minister tell us when the plan is going to be published? When it is published, will it include the evidence given in response to the 2022 public call for evidence by so many stakeholders, charities and other relevant organisations?
What should that plan contain? I will look at it from the perspective of this Government, who are looking for the three shifts in healthcare. First, they want to move toward prevention. It seems sensible to prevent brain injury in the first place, if we can, and we know some things that we can do. When I was a teenager, horse-riding and skiing were usually done without helmets; that would be very unusual now. We have not been so successful with cycling: people know that wearing a helmet is wise, to prevent brain injury, but if we looked outside into Parliament Square, we would see lots of cyclists, many of whom are not wearing a helmet that could protect them from brain injury. What are the Government doing to make people more aware of ways that they can protect themselves from brain injury? Concussion management guidance for those taking part in elite, amateur and school sport is important, as others have said today.
Stroke is a form of acquired brain injury and I spoke to representatives of the Stroke Association earlier this term. They talked about two things that can help to prevent or limit brain injury from stroke: first, blood pressure checks and identifying previously undiagnosed hypertension, and secondly, mechanical thrombectomy, which limits the injury that occurs.
The previous Government rolled out blood pressure checks to thousands of pharmacies across the country. Will the Minister update us on what further steps have been taken to identify undiagnosed hypertension since she came into office? The previous Government also began to roll out mechanical thrombectomy. I understand that this Government intend to ensure that a universal service for that technique is available by Easter next year. Essentially, mechanical thrombectomy is when an interventional neuroradiologist takes a wire into the vessels, floats it up into the brain and mechanically removes a clot. It is particularly helpful for people who have had a large stroke where the damage is not yet complete in the brain. Damage can be limited significantly by the use of that very clever procedure.
Earlier this week, I was kindly invited to visit the mechanical thrombectomy service in Romford and see the work done there. I was told about the delay that can occur due to inter-hospital transfer. The Minister, in response to written parliamentary questions, has talked about what constitutes a universal service: it is being able to access a service within four hours. One limit to that ability, as I understand it, is that when someone who has had a stroke attends a hospital that does not offer a mechanical thrombectomy service, the time it takes to transfer them to a hospital that does, after acceptance for the process, affects people’s ability to have that lifesaving in some cases, and certainly disability-saving, treatment.
When I was a junior doctor, I was lucky enough to care for people taking part in the total body hypothermia for neonatal encephalopathy trial—the TOBY trial. Essentially, we took babies who had suffered a brain injury around the time of birth and cooled their whole body to reduce the brain injury that they suffered. That was very effective, and became standard practice. What is the Minister doing to help people who want to do research into other ways of reducing brain injury? How is she helping with research, and what is she doing to sponsor it?
What work is the Minister doing with the social care teams at the Department for Education? One of the sad things that I have seen during my time as a consultant paediatrician is children with inflicted injury—particularly babies. In many cases their injuries should have been preventable because those families were known to social care before the injury occurred. What is being done to protect those extremely vulnerable children? There are other causes of acquired brain injury too. Could the Minister talk about what she thinks the most important causes are and what she and the Government are doing to reduce their incidence?
The other shift that the Government want is from hospital into the community. I was lucky to meet Headway Lincolnshire this week, which told me that there were only 12 in-patient beds available for acute brain injury rehab across Lincolnshire. That is not sufficient. When the charity provides counselling services, it has to do so online from outside the county because there is no one available in the county to provide them. What is the Minister doing to ensure that there is good neuro-rehab across the country, including in rural areas? Also, what is the Minister doing to make sure that rehab is long term? Neuro-recovery takes a long time. It is not just a case of a couple of appointments on leaving hospital; it needs to be over a more sustained period.
For people suffering complex injury, there are many professionals involved. Some people will have a physio, an occupational therapist, a speech and language therapist, nurses, doctors, carers and many others. NICE’s new neuro-rehab guidelines, published in October, talk about how it is difficult for patients to negotiate that, and they recommend a single point of contact. Does the Minister plan to ensure that that NICE recommendation is delivered? If so, how and when?
I would like to pay particular tribute to a young lady I met recently who is one of my constituents. She experienced a traumatic brain injury as a child, but with her determination, great family and community support and rehab, she has made a good recovery and is training as a nurse so that she can help others who suffer as she has. She is an incredibly impressive young woman. She highlighted to me the need for better rehab and school support. I urge the Minister to ensure that they are delivered.
The final shift that the Minister has talked about is from analogue to digital. Digital offers us huge capacity in rehabilitation from acquired brain injury. I talked to a gentleman who had had a stroke and was admitted to a rehab unit where he got involved in Wii Fit—a Nintendo game from some time ago. He was using it along with another person who was recovering from a stroke at the same time, and they became very competitive at these balance and movement games. That really helped them to recover. What is being done to make rehab more fun or competitive? Some of the exercises that people are asked to do can be quite difficult. How can we make them more enjoyable? There are apps available to improve communication, memory and fine motor skills, and virtual reality can help with cognitive rehab. How is the Minister ensuring that those are available to all who would benefit from them?
In summary, we need a detailed plan looking at prevention, acute treatment and rehabilitation. I hope it will not be delayed in the same way as all the other Government plans seem to be. I also hope that it will contain a delivery chapter that sets out not just what the Government want to do, but how they want to do it and when they want to do it by. Will the Minister confirm whether the relevant workforce will be included in the plan, or whether we will have to wait for the long-delayed workforce plan? Neuro-rehabilitation is really difficult, but many people show huge courage and determination in their work to rehabilitate. We need to support them in every way that we can.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on securing this important debate on an issue that touches many thousands of lives across the country. I acknowledge and thank all hon. Members for the stories of their constituents that they have shared today.
I begin by paying tribute to the right hon. Gentleman and the all-party parliamentary group for acquired brain injury for shining a light on what has too often been an invisible issue. Through its recent report, “Right to Rehab: The Cost of Acquired Brain Injury to the UK Economy”, the all-party group, ably supported by the UK Acquired Brain Injury Forum, has demonstrated both the human and the economic imperative for action. That report reveals the staggering £43 billion annual cost of ABI to our economy. It makes a compelling case for improved rehabilitation, cross-Government co-ordination and investment in specialist services. That work has helped to drive vital conversations across health, justice, education and beyond to ensure that people living with ABI are no longer overlooked.
Recently, I was delighted to be able to attend and speak at the UKABIF annual ABI summit last month, where I met key stakeholders, including people with lived experience, for a panel discussion on the stage and at a separate meeting afterwards. I have taken away some important calls for action from those discussions. The Government have also listened to the calls of the all-party group and others for a dedicated plan. I reassure the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings and others that we remain committed to delivering on that promise.
In the coming months, in the first half of next year, I confirm that we will publish the acquired brain injury action plan, a landmark step in delivering the joined-up approach that people with ABI deserve. I also confirm that when we publish it, that plan will draw on a wide range of evidence, including the evidence that was submitted in the 2022 call for evidence. The plan will set out clear priorities across health, social care, education, justice and beyond in a bid to move towards rehabilitation and long-term support being better embedded throughout public services. It will reflect continuing engagement with clinicians, charities and people with lived experience. It will provide the blueprint for improving outcomes, reducing inequalities and supporting independence.
Sir John Hayes
All the Minister has said so far is incredibly welcome. On ministerial engagement, given what she said about the cross-departmental working, which I called for earlier, is she engaged with the Ministers in those Departments in drawing up the plan and, if so, how?
Ashley Dalton
I am just coming to that, so the right hon. Member’s intervention was very timely. As has been highlighted, the plan matters, because ABI is not just a health issue; it touches education, employment, justice, work, benefits, housing, homelessness and many other areas of life. Without co-ordinated action, too many people will continue to fall through the gaps.
In the first instance, therefore, I have started conversations with ministerial colleagues who have responsibility for education at the DFE, for the criminal justice system at the MOJ, for housing and homelessness at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and for work and benefits at the Department for Work and Pensions. The Department also reached out to those working on transport, sport and defence, among others, asking them to commit to tangible actions in the ABI plan. I note the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith)—he is no longer in his place—and we will give that consideration.
The plan will build on already excellent work that is going on across Whitehall, helping to tackle the impacts of ABI directly or indirectly. That includes the Ministry of Justice’s update to its new neurodiversity action plan; working with the Department for Transport on its road safety strategy; the Department for Education’s planned consultation on an updated version of supporting pupils with medical conditions at school; and the Home Office-led work to tackle domestic abuse.
I also confirm, as was raised by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), that the Government are committed to advancing research into ABI in sport. We recognise the significant impact of sports-related head injuries on long-term health outcomes. Through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, we are co-funding a major initiative, the UK traumatic brain injury platform. In addition, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport established the concussion in sport research forum, in which we are working alongside them.
We recognise that developing the plan is taking slightly longer than we had originally wished, but I reassure right hon. and hon. Members that that is not because of a lack of commitment; it is because we want to get it right. We want to take ABI stakeholders with us and to set the plan against the new health and social care landscape described in this summer’s 10-year health plan. In Manchester last month, I had the opportunity, as I said, to hear directly about potential solutions and opportunities from those at the coalface.
ABI affects every facet of life, and creating a plan that truly delivers requires co-ordination across multiple Departments and extensive stakeholder engagement, as well as alignment with wider reforms and developments such as the 10-year health plan, neighbourhood health services, new NICE guidance on rehabilitation and NHS England’s recently refreshed service specification for adult neurology services. That will mean that, although the report may be slightly delayed, it will have a comprehensive cross-Government approach to drive real change by improving rehabilitation, reducing inequalities and supporting people with ABI to live independent and fulfilling lives.
I know that the all-party group, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), and the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), all recognise that rehabilitation is the cornerstone of recovery and independence. Reports from the APPG and UKABIF have made it clear that timely, specialist rehabilitation can transform lives. Rehabilitation is what turns survival into quality of life, enabling people to return to work, education and their communities. The APPG has consistently championed a statutory right to rehabilitation because it knows that too many people face fragmented services and missed opportunities, and as a result their health deteriorates once they are back in the community.
What the final action plan will say on community rehabilitation will be worked through carefully with stakeholders and with NHS England to ensure that we get it right. We must ensure that our proposals are feasible and viable. However, at the absolute minimum, it will highlight the new NICE guidelines on rehabilitation, setting the expectation that the NHS should take these into account, as well as showcasing the best practice that already exists.
Many hon. and right hon. Members raised data sharing. I am keen to pursue better data sharing on ABI across Departments and the NHS to ensure that our response is joined up and that it improves patient identification, care and support. Rehabilitation is a central focus of our 10-year health plan, which recognises that timely, high-quality rehabilitation reduces long-term disability, improves quality of life and saves significant costs for both health and social care. By embedding rehabilitation into integrated care pathways, expanding community-based services and investing in specialist multidisciplinary teams, the 10-year health plan will ensure that support is available when and where it is needed, including for people who have experienced ABI. That commitment reflects a shift towards person-centred care, helping people to regain skills, to return to work or education, and to live fulfilling lives after serious illness or injury.
Through the 10-year health plan, we are introducing neighbourhood health centres and deploying multi- disciplinary teams to provide holistic support to people with conditions like ABI. We know that every ABI journey is different, and recovery depends on care that reflects individual needs, goals and circumstances. That is why the plan promises to expand personalised care approaches, giving people a say in their care. We commit, therefore, to providing 95% of people with complex needs with a personalised care plan by 2027. That means that people with ABI will benefit from structured and co-ordinated support that is tailored to their needs. The expansion of personal health budgets outlined in the health plan will give people greater flexibility, choice and control over their care.
Our digital transformation commitments will make a real difference too. By improving data sharing between health, social care and rehabilitation services, we can ensure continuity of care and avoid delays. Digital care plans will allow patients and professionals to track progress and adjust goals in real time. Those innovations mean more personalised and co-ordinated care. I am really keen to explore better data collection and sharing between the NHS, patient groups, researchers and those with lived experience across my long-term conditions portfolio, which includes ABI. There are ongoing discussions within the Department on how we might be able to improve the quality of, and access to, health data. I know that there is some great data out there, but too often access to it is too restricted.
The Government will publish the 10-year workforce plan in spring 2026. This will set out action to create a workforce that is ready to deliver the transformed service set out in the 10-year health plan.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) mentioned mental health. NHS talking therapies have a specific pathway for people with long-term physical health conditions, including ABI, and all ICBs are expected to expand services locally by commissioning NHS talking therapies services integrated into physical healthcare pathways, including those for ABI.
Together with the ABI action plan, the 10-year health plan and the 10-year workforce plan will represent a step change in how we support people with ABI. The action plan will deliver a joined-up approach across health, social care, education, justice and beyond, ensuring that rehabilitation and long-term support are no longer fragmented. The 10-year health plan complements this by embedding personalised care planning, expanding community rehabilitation and harnessing digital innovation. These commitments will mean better access to timely, tailored services, improved continuity of care, and a focus on independence and quality of life. By working collaboratively across Government, the NHS and stakeholders will turn these plans into action and deliver the outcomes that people with ABI deserve.
I have covered as many issues as possible. There are some that I do not have immediate information about, but I will write after the debate to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), about her question on mechanical thrombectomy. By working together right across Government and making sure we have joined-up data and joined-up thinking, we will bring forward the action plan on ABI in the first half of 2026 to deliver the outcomes that people with ABI deserve and need.
Sir John Hayes
This has been an extremely good debate. Contributions from across the Chamber have illustrated how strongly Members feel about the need for exactly the kind of strategy that the Minister has confirmed the Government will introduce. It is welcome that the Minister has recommitted to that plan. I offer thanks and a warning. The thanks are because she clearly understands and takes this seriously. The warning is that if we do not see the plan, we will be back, and next time we will be altogether more fierce.
While we have been debating these matters, tens of people, scores of people, have been admitted to hospital with an acquired brain injury—extraordinary. I can tell from all the contributions, including from my great friend on the Front Bench of my party, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), and from Members across the House that the plight of those with ABI is our cause and their needs are our mission. Let us do all we can to ease their plight and meet their needs.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential merits of a comprehensive acquired brain injury action plan.
Seafarers’ Welfare
(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
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered seafarers’ welfare.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. The UK is an island nation. Our history and economy have been defined by maritime trade. That is certainly true in my constituency of Thurrock. Part of our local identity is shaped by our position as a key port in the Thames estuary—from the instrumental role Thurrock played in the D-day preparations to the arrival of the Empire Windrush at Tilbury to help to rebuild the nation in the post-war period.
The shipping industry has driven economic growth. The port of Tilbury in my constituency, and the nearby London Gateway, act as key links in the supply chain that keeps our country moving, bringing significant investment and economic opportunity into the region. Some 95% of this country’s goods and services arrive by sea, with Thurrock’s ports receiving more than 65 million tonnes of cargo a year to quite literally keep our country moving.
It is easy to forget the people at the heart of the industry: the seafarers who staff the ships to bring goods to our shores. Their impact in Thurrock and the country as a whole is profound. More than 160,000 seafarers work in the UK shipping industry. Without them, and international seafarers, our supermarket shelves would be empty within seven days. As we enter the run-up to Christmas, the busiest time of the year for the shipping industry, many of us will be opening presents brought here on ships.
Yet the workforce are often overlooked. Seafarer charities call this phenomenon sea blindness—out of sight, out of mind. They remind us that welfare standards slip when no one is watching, particularly aboard deep-sea vessels. Many workers live in cramped conditions, performing physical roles with limited opportunities for rest. When crews are small, long shifts mean that sleep deprivation and chronic fatigue are common. This can be incredibly dangerous, especially when staff are handling complex machinery. It also drives poor mental health among crews. Loneliness and isolation are common, as they are separated from their families for often months at a time.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
The Queen Victoria Seafarers Rest, established in 1843, has a long history of serving those in need, both on land and at sea, including through its accommodation centre in my constituency, which is a safe haven for many hundreds of active and retired seafarers, including from the Somali community, who are in need of a home. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to Alexander Campbell, who is in the Public Gallery and who leads a fantastic team? Does she agree that although charities are central to meeting the statutory obligations to seafarers, they are underfunded, and that we need to address the deep inequalities in the provision of seafarer welfare at UK ports?
Jen Craft
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I will come on to talk at length about the charitable contribution made by organisations such as the Queen Victoria Seafarers Rest. I am familiar with its work in her constituency and in mine. I do not think we can overstate the contribution that organisation makes to the welfare of seafarers, and to maintaining the shipping industry as a whole.
Mental health among crews is at a low and, tragically, suicide rates are higher among seafarers than among the wider population. We must do a much better job of supporting seafarers and ensure that they receive the same support as our domestic workforce. The Government have a key role to play in that.
The Employment Rights Bill is a critical step, paving the way for a legally binding seafarers’ charter that will help to root out poor practice in the industry. It aims to limit maximum periods of work at sea, improve safety training and strengthen laws around mandatory rest. Importantly, the Bill also combats unacceptable fire-and-rehire cycles. Trade unions such as the RMT have shone a light on these issues and stood up for British workers when they have been at the sharp end of the practice in the past.
The challenge now is to ensure that our interventions make a real difference for workers. If international partners are able to sidestep their obligations, UK nationals will lose out. We must not allow a situation in which the welfare and pay protections afforded to British seafarers put them at a competitive disadvantage.
It is encouraging to see our Government working to combat the issues, teaming up with signatories to the international maritime convention to drive up standards together. Tackling abuse and malpractice in the seafarer sector will, however, require a co-ordinated international approach. I would welcome any update from the Minister on engagement with our international partners to that effect.
Next year, new amendments to the international maritime convention come into force, including measures to strengthen repatriation rights. They will be critical for seafarers. Across the world, ship owners who face legal disputes or financial challenges are abandoning vessels in ports. Crew are left without pay, food or access to vital medical equipment. The issue has grown increasingly severe, and 2024 was the worst year on record, with more than 2,000 seafarers left to fend for themselves. Many have family at home who rely on their income. When a ship is abandoned, whole communities suffer.
The issue is more common abroad, but the UK has been affected on several occasions. Even when vessels are not abandoned, seafarers may find themselves stuck for weeks following ship arrests. This has happened several times in my constituency, with a notable incident at Purfleet-on-Thames last year that also highlighted why port-side support services are so important.
Several charities do excellent work in this space, including the Queen Victoria Seafarers Rest and the Merchant Navy Welfare Board. I offer my thanks for their tireless efforts, and for the tireless work of their volunteers—especially those who serve in my constituency at the Queen Victoria Seafarers Rest in Tilbury. I am incredibly impressed by their support for seafarers who come into port. They offer a brilliant service, including port transport, free wi-fi and fresh food. They also run a bar, host social events and assist with safeguarding concerns when necessary.
The latest Seafarers Rest project, wrapping 3,000 Christmas presents for seafarers, is well under way. I was pleased to lend a hand last month. Every seafarer receives either a hat, scarf or pair of mittens; SIM cards so that they can contact their family; a little bit extra and a chocolate bar. Importantly, they all receive a handwritten card thanking them for their efforts, on behalf of the people who are on the receiving end of all their hard work. For many people, this is the only Christmas present they will get.
While I was at the Seafarers Rest, one of the volunteers shared the story of a sea captain who came to visit. He was 17 the first time he went to sea, and he spent Christmas away from home. He was Norwegian, and he went to a similar set-up—not in this country but abroad—and was given a Christmas present. He still remembers it and still has the woolly hat that someone, somewhere knitted for him. He said it meant the world and lifted his spirits. So the efforts the volunteers put in do not go unnoticed, and we should all be grateful for what they do.
Unfortunately, such support is not in place across the country. Facilities like the Queen Victoria Seafarers Rest in my patch exist at only about 40% of all UK ports. Where services are available, many face financial uncertainty. Meeting their running costs can be a challenge, with most sites needing £170 a day to keep the doors open. Their funding comes from a variety of sources: funds from the Government, donations from shipping companies or port authorities, and fundraising efforts by the centres themselves. Some welfare centres have strong partnerships with the local port, but that is not the case across the board. In practice, voluntary organisations bear most of the financial burden for welfare support, relying on fundraising efforts to fill the financial shortfall and subsidise the costs that should fall to shipping companies to care for their own workforce.
There are long-term solutions that could be explored. A small opt-out levy charged to vessels entering UK ports could be a game changer. Just £50 per visit would make a significant difference. To put it in perspective, the cost of bringing a large ship into port often exceeds £100,000, so a small £50 donation would represent only a fraction of that cost.
Throughout the country, 25 ports have already implemented similar schemes, with varying levels of success. Levies have been most effective where port owners communicate with shipping companies, emphasising the importance of independent welfare support. Humber port, for example, raised over £72,000 last year by being proactive with its levy system. However, in ports where intervention is more limited, ships that often pay £100,000 or more in fees will regularly refuse to make a £25 donation. Currently, the total income generated from levies represents only 3% to 4% of the funds that UK charities require. I urge the Government to look into the idea and to work with ports and shipping companies to explore how to scale up schemes across the country.
Several other countries, including France, Germany and New Zealand, already have successful models in place. I encourage Members with significant ports in their constituencies to contact the local port authority to ask whether they would consider implementing an opt-out levy. For many vehicles, £50 represents less than 0.03% of docking costs. A levy would create a reliable, long-term funding stream for seafarers’ welfare. It would make a huge difference and give the organisations that work tirelessly to support them financial security into the future.
The Government are making historic progress on seafarers’ welfare, but it is vital that we continue to build on that momentum in ports and at sea. I look forward to the implementation of the mandatory seafarers’ charter and the Employment Rights Bill, which will deliver significant change, but we can go further in supporting the seafaring community, whose needs are often overlooked. The Government have a key role to play, working with ports, shipping companies, trade unions and international partners to drive better employment standards and improve welfare support. We must all remember what seafarers do for our country: their contribution is invaluable and cannot be overlooked.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing this important debate, because we are indeed a maritime nation.
Sir Christopher,
“I must go down to the seas again, for the call of the running tide
Is a wild call and a clear call that may not be denied”—
John Masefield’s poem “Sea-Fever” brilliantly captures the magnetic draw of the ocean which, as an island nation, we feel acutely. Yet to be a sailor is not for everyone. My father was a sailor all his working life—a marine engineer who qualified on steam power and ended up on jet engines. His career spanned deep-sea tankers and roll-on, roll-off ferries, and he visited much of the world—or at least sailed past it. However, the salt water in his veins was not passed down to me, for I get seasick in a bath. That does not mean that I cannot appreciate what it is to be a sailor, and I want to express how important maritime traffic is to this country.
My Dumfries and Galloway constituency has the ferry port of Cairnryan, which is a vital link with our friends in Northern Ireland. Our stunning coastline is studded with harbours—Kirkcudbright, Garlieston, the Isle of Whithorn, Port William and Portpatrick—which are used for leisure craft while the working boats win a valuable harvest of seafood from our pristine waters. Yet for all its romance, the sea is a tough place to make a living and, like all coastal communities, Dumfries and Galloway knows just how steep a price it can exact. The motor vessel Princess Victoria left my hometown of Stranraer—ironically with the motto “Safe harbour”—on 31 January 1953, but it never reached Larne. The more recent losses of the trawler Mhari-L and the scallop dredger Solway Harvester, with all 12 hands, are still raw.
Happily, support for our sailors comes from many sources, including the Mission to Seafarers Scotland and the Scottish Nautical Welfare Society, but I want to highlight the charity Combat Stress. As well as reaching out to veterans of the Royal Navy, it also helps with the mental health issues of former members of the merchant navy, which was Britain’s lifeline in wartime, and is very much the same today. As a journalist, I worked closely with the late Colonel Clive Fairweather, who was second in command of 22 SAS and commanding officer of the King’s Own Scottish Borderers. This tough infantryman was clear that Combat Stress’ outreach to the merchant navy was key. He would say:
“Worse things do happen at sea”,
acknowledging the strain that a life on the ocean waves can exert.
We all, in our comfortable lives, owe a debt of gratitude to the men and, increasingly, women who sail the planet’s one great ocean for us all. They are the ones who answer the call of the sea that was captured so well by Masefield:
“I must go down to the seas again, to the vagrant gypsy life,
To the gull’s way and the whale’s way where the wind’s like a whetted knife”.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I genuinely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing the debate, which she introduced eloquently. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am the convenor of the RMT parliamentary group.
I want to start by referring to the loss of life in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. A few weeks ago, we lost a crew member. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary has civilian crew; they are not Royal Navy, but they work alongside it. During a debate a few weeks ago, we were passed a note saying that one of our RMT members had lost his life overboard. I can now say that his name was James Elliott. On behalf of us all, I want to repeat our condolences to his family. I also pay tribute to the RFA for the essential role it plays alongside our Royal Navy and the work it does in protecting our shores. These are civilian crew. There was some confusion on the day, because the BBC reported that it was a member of the Royal Navy. It is important that we improve communication, because that caused some distress among a number of families who were trying to find out what had happened.
I met some RFA-RMT representatives today, who asked me to raise the fact that in the defence review there is a reference to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary that is causing some confusion about the role it will play and what investment there will be. I ask the Minister to pass on to his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence the message that the RMT would welcome a meeting with the Secretary of State or a Minister as soon as possible to discuss the defence review.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock said, one of the issues is that seafarers’ welfare is directly related to the conditions of their employment, which are governed by the International Labour Organisation’s maritime labour convention. That is the primary legislation that sets out legal standards for seafarers. In this country, the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency is the competent authority for ensuring that every UK vessel, or vessel entering our ports, complies with that legislation. There are specific legal responsibilities under the convention on welfare standards.
As my hon. Friend said, we have 160,000 seafarers—unfortunately, fewer and fewer are British, but that is the overall number. They work on UK and internationally flagged ships in UK ports. At the moment, there are 120 Maritime and Coastguard Agency staff who undertake surveys and inspections. Last year, they undertook about 2,800 inspections and 3,000 surveys on UK-flagged ships, and 1,500 port state control inspections on international ships. There are 100,000 vessels calling into UK ports every year, and there is a real concern that, with so few staff, the ratio of inspections for the ships is insubstantial. For some time now, there have been calls for an increase in resources for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.
My hon. Friend raised our concern that, for the last 40 years at least, there has been a tendency for shipowners to flag elsewhere, rather than the UK, with the aim of reducing labour costs. They do that, as my hon. Friend said, by putting pressure on the workforce. The number of ships registered elsewhere is startling. The practice of registering under a flag of convenience has begun to dominate the industry. Ships are registered in places such as Panama, the Marshall Islands, Liberia, Cyprus, the Bahamas and Malta, and that undermines the ability to maintain standards of basic welfare for seafarers. Huge numbers of ships are registered in the Philippines, Indonesia, China, India, Ukraine and Russia. Some of those countries undertake no inspection of their vessels whatsoever. They fail to manage welfare standards, which has resulted in a reduction in those standards and even, as my hon. Friend said, in tragedies, because of the pressure the workforce are under.
Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the fact the Government are seeking to address a range of these issues. The mandatory seafarers’ charter that has been introduced in the Employment Rights Bill is a huge step forward for us, and I congratulate the Government on it. The charter arose, as my hon. Friend said, partly out of the P&O scandal, whereby P&O just sacked its entire workforce. That was a scandal recognised across the House, and it should not have happened. P&O sacked its entire workforce, introduced agency staff on lower wages with no holiday or sick pay, and paid the minimum amount that it could possibly get away with. Exactly as my hon. Friend said, that means that those agency staff are working under intense pressure, which inevitably has consequences for safety.
Safety is one of our main worries, which is why the mandatory seafarers’ charter is so important. It was introduced to protect seafarers in the short-sea ferries sector, regardless of their nationality or the flag of the vessel they work on. It will cover standards of pay, roster patterns and other employment conditions through collectively bargained standards in the industry. It will also set out maximum periods of work at sea and minimum periods of rest, which is absolutely critical. There will be robust requirements to manage seafarer fatigue, which is an issue that my hon. Friend raised so forcefully. It will reinforce training requirements for operators, such as familiarisation with the vessel, to support safety and skills, so that the seafarers have the time to understand and appreciate what is needed on a particular vessel. There will also be strong standards of sick pay, holiday pay and pension rights, which is vital.
This charter is a major breakthrough, and the unions really welcomed it. Progress is being made and at the RMT union executive meeting this morning we discussed that. The RMT welcomes the detailed consultation that will take place in the coming months and the roll-out of the charter itself.
However, I will now raise the issue of discrimination within the sector. I have been involved in this campaign for nearly 30 years, but the issue has gone on for 50 years. It remains legal to practise nationality-based pay discrimination against non-EU nationals working as seafarers on UK-flagged ships. That is a discriminatory practice. It originates in part 9 of the Race Relations Act 1976, which explicitly permits racial discrimination against seafarers recruited overseas to work on UK-flagged ships for lower pay and longer periods than UK nationals.
Way back in 2009, I was involved in the fight against this discrimination. Gordon Brown’s Labour Government initiated the Carter review to make recommendations on ending discriminatory seafarer pay differentials. Susan Carter, who led the review, recommended in 2010 that nationality-based seafarer pay differentials should be prohibited on all UK ships. The proposal was supported by the union, but unfortunately it was rejected by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government who came into office in 2010.
The estimate emerging from surveys by the union is that tens of thousands of seafarers working today in the UK shipping industry are paid less than UK seafarers, simply because of their nationality and the flag of the ship that they work on. This situation impedes progress to improve seafarer welfare overall, both at the national level and the international level. The UK Government introduced secondary regulations in 2011 to do the bare minimum to avoid legal action by the European Commission over the continued practice of nationality-based pay discrimination among seafarers. I attended the Committee that agreed those regulations. They have been subject to two reviews that have never been concluded, which contravenes the post-implementation review regulations for a review to be carried out every five years.
Another consultation was held just before the 2024 general election, and the current Government are now seeking to reconsult. With one action—one effective piece of regulation—we as a Government could end nationality-based pay discrimination on UK-flagged ships. It would raise welfare standards in shipping and reinforce our country’s reputation as the gold standard in seafarer welfare and maritime safety provision. I urge the Government to act on this swiftly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock mentioned support for charitable organisations and others in supporting seafarer welfare and the potential of a levy. Levies operate very successfully in many other countries. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Merchant Navy Welfare Board have recommitted themselves to joint working on seafarer welfare and met last month to do that, which we welcome. However, without the resources, effective action will be very limited.
We have looked at what has happened elsewhere. Levy systems, including mandatory payments, are used by other maritime nations. They fund seafarer port facilities. We have heard some fantastic examples of those today. In New Zealand, the then Labour Government introduced a mandatory levy to fund shore-side facilities in 2022, which influenced the thinking in Australia as well. In Europe, France has operated a mandatory seafarer welfare levy system since 2016, and there are levy systems in Germany, Spain and Romania. It is critical that we introduce such a system.
One example of the issues that we are increasingly dealing with at the moment is the abandonment of seafarers. They are recruited in one country, reach our country and then abandoned by the ship owners. That is happening more frequently across the globe. Yes, we can legislate for protections as best we can, but we need the wherewithal—the resources going into the charities and agencies that can help those seafarers, who are lost in a foreign country and bereft of support. Overall, a real programme of reform is needed.
Raising the issue of mental health has been one of the strong concerns within the seafaring unions. There has been report after report across the movement about mental health issues and the stress placed upon people, and the increased number of suicides taking place as a result, and it does relate to the person’s employment. If we get the seafarers’ charter operating effectively, it could transform people’s lives and take that pressure off them, as well as save people from harm and save people’s lives.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing this incredibly important debate and raising awareness of the plight of seafarers. She spoke with heart about the unseen strain and pressure on seafarers. I hope that, in some small way, this debate can help to shine a light on those issues.
The UK’s history can be viewed through the lens of the river and the sea. A main artery of the lifeblood of this island nation flows through my constituency of Gravesham: the Thames. Trade, travel, tourism and troops have flowed up and down the Thames since pre-Roman times and the river still shapes Gravesham today. Many of us have personal connections with the sea, and my household is no different. My late father-in-law worked for long periods of time on the sea laying underwater cables, which put a strain on his family.
Aside from the River Thames’s history, and all the people who have sailed and worked on it, it provides job opportunities for local businesses, employment, leisure and tourism. The Port of London Authority in Gravesham works safely around the clock so that one of the UK’s busiest ports flows without becoming gridlocked. It has a vision of the future where a trading Thames is the key commercial hub for the UK; of a destination that people can enjoy and where they can play and live; and of a natural Thames. All those things require the support of seafarers—those highly skilled professional men and women. I have also seen the immense work that goes on, day in, day out, to keep the river moving and keep it safe.
At this point I wish to pause and pay tribute to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. My local branch in Gravesham, despite some recent criticisms, is essential and has helped so many who have fallen into the water. The RNLI’s mission is simple: to save lives at sea. My heartfelt thanks go to it.
This debate is for all those who work, sail and live on the sea and the river. I am hopeful for the future of the Thames and for the agenda to modernise it, invest in it and prepare it. We must ensure that the people working to deliver the growth that our country desperately needs are supported. I recently met a group of young apprentices who have started their working-age life with the sea and the river. There is pressure to ensure that the seafarer job is well protected so that as the ambitions of those apprentices grow, our country matches that ambition with the job that they look to flow into. Our country desperately needs that. My plea to the Minister is to hear the concerns that have been raised. I hope that we can help protect and support seafarers in the future.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this important debate, and for setting out why this issue matters.
Three years ago, the country watched in disbelief as P&O Ferries carried out one of the most disgraceful attacks on workers’ rights in recent memory: 800 loyal seafarers, men and women who had given years of dedicated service, were summarily dismissed over video call—no consultation, no notice and no dignity. It was a scandal that shocked the maritime sector. It shocked people across the country and it shocked people in Sussex communities, given that at Newhaven we have our much-treasured ferry service to Dieppe—thankfully not operated by P&O.
From the moment that outrage unfolded, the Liberal Democrats were clear and principled. We demanded urgent answers from the Conservatives’ then Transport Secretary, Grant Shapps; we demanded justice for the workers and families whose lives had been thrown into turmoil; and we demanded a fundamental change to ensure that nothing like that could ever be allowed to happen again. Hard-working seafarers and their families should never suffer because of corporate neglect or corporate greed.
In the months that followed, we pressed the Government to tighten the rules around how ships that are registered to operate in the UK treat their workers. We supported the Seafarers Wages Act 2023 as a necessary first step. It requires ships that make frequent calls at UK ports to pay at least the UK national minimum wage for time spent in our waters, but we also made it clear that the Act did not go far enough.
We have championed the calls of maritime unions and the UK Chamber of Shipping for stronger safeguards: measures to stop companies engaging in port-hopping to dodge basic obligations; collectively agreed standards on roster patterns, pensions, crewing levels and training; and tougher enforcement so that operators cannot simply ignore the law with impunity. After all, laws mean very little if bad employers know that they can bend or dodge them entirely, and we now know exactly how determined some operators have been to do just that.
In 2024, it was revealed that P&O’s replacement agency workers were being paid just £4.87 an hour—a shocking, exploitative wage that made a mockery of the protections that Parliament had tried to strengthen. Later, when the then Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), rightly described P&O Ferries as a “rogue operator”, the Prime Minister dismissed her concerns to protect a £1 billion investment by P&O Ferries’ Dubai-based parent company. Once again, workers’ rights were treated as secondary.
Of course, public outrage did have consequences. In August 2025, Peter Hebblethwaite, the chief executive officer, who admitted to breaking consultation law, finally resigned. But accountability for one individual is not enough; we need systemic change. No worker, whether on land or at sea, should be discarded at the convenience of their employer.
That brings me to the Employment Rights Bill, and in particular the provisions on fire and rehire. The Liberal Democrats welcome the parts of the Bill that strengthen protections for workers and curb the disgraceful practice of firing staff, only to rehire them on worse terms. Under the Bill’s provisions, dismissals will be deemed automatically unfair unless an employer can provide clear evidence of financial difficulty and show that changes were truly unavoidable.
The Bill represents progress and it moves us in the right direction, but large parts of it are unfinished and critical details have been left to secondary legislation or promised consultations, including a long-awaited seafarers’ charter. That does not give workers or responsible employers the stability and certainty that they deserve. People whose livelihoods depend on those reforms should not have to cross their fingers and hope that the details are sorted out later.
Unions are rightly concerned about carve-outs that may allow companies on the verge of collapse to bypass protections. We accept that businesses face genuine existential threats, and sometimes they need flexibility, but we must ensure that exceptions are not exploited by those who simply want to trim costs at the expense of their staff. Workers must not be treated as disposable.
As the Bill gives Ministers new powers to implement international maritime conventions and a seafarers’ charter through secondary legislation, we must insist on ambitious and enforceable standards, including on maximum periods of work at sea and minimum periods of rest, as well as measures to manage fatigue, strong training requirements and protections that cover every seafarer who works in our waters. We need not just vague promises but real rules with real enforcement and consequences for those who break them.
John McDonnell
I welcome the hon. Lady’s engagement on this matter and the list of issues. Those issues will be subject to consultation, which will be part of the negotiation. I want to reassure her that the RMT strategy is usually not just crossing its fingers.
Alison Bennett
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reassurance.
An issue too often overlooked while talking about seafarers is their mental health, as the right hon. Gentleman drew to our attention in his contribution. We know that life at sea can be tough, isolating, demanding and physically and psychologically draining: long stretches away from family, stress, exhaustion and the unique pressure of maritime work all take a heavy toll. Seafarers rely on the NHS for mental health support, just like anyone else, but our NHS is in crisis after years of Conservative neglect. Mental health waiting lists have spiralled, and thousands of people are waiting months, and sometimes years, for the care they urgently need. That includes the people who keep our essential maritime supply chain moving.
Liberal Democrats believe that mental health must be treated with the same seriousness and urgency as physical health. That is why we are campaigning for regular mental health check-ups at key life points, just like blood pressure or eyesight checks. We are also calling for prescriptions for people with chronic mental health conditions to be free on the NHS, because we believe that no one should have to choose between treatment and financial strain. We will also create a statutory, independent mental health commissioner to advocate for patients and their families and carers. Those reforms matter for everyone, but are especially vital for communities such as seafarers, who often face some of the toughest working conditions.
The P&O Ferries scandal was a turning point. It exposed deep flaws in our system—in employment law, in enforcement, and in the way that successive Governments have allowed bad employers to exploit loopholes at the expense of ordinary workers. It also presented us with a choice: to accept this broken system or to build something better. The Liberal Democrats would choose to build something better. We choose fair pay, safe working conditions and dignity at work. We choose an NHS that supports people’s mental health properly, not one that is forced to ration treatment. We choose an economy where responsibility, fairness and respect guide the way businesses operate. Britain can be better than P&O Ferries’ behaviour—and Britain must be better. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on how the Government aim to chart a course towards that destination.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. As an island nation, Britain has always been reliant on our sailors, as other Members have said. For centuries, we have depended on them to protect our nation, to transport goods around the world and to deliver the products of our national endeavours across the seas to other countries.
The continued significance of maritime trade to our economy cannot be overstated. Of all international freight traded with the United Kingdom, around 85% by weight and 55% by value is moved by sea. Our seafarers also play a vital role in connecting communities across the United Kingdom, whether that is in our Scottish islands or the Isle of Wight, where my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) has introduced proposals around fares on ferries, demonstrating that those services remain essential to our national fabric.
Even for those of us representing constituencies that could not be further away from the sea—Mid Buckinghamshire proudly holds the title of the second-most landlocked constituency in the country—the importance of the maritime sector to the UK’s past, present and future prosperity is abundantly clear. I therefore thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this debate. It is right that we recognise the work of the estimated 23,700 UK seafarers active at sea, according to data from 2024, whose skill and dedication power this indispensable industry.
Understandably, the debate has referenced the actions of P&O Ferries in 2022. For all who observed that situation, the conclusion was unmistakeable: P&O’s decision was wrong. That is why the then Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps, condemned it in the strongest possible terms. Indeed, during my time on the Transport Committee in the last Parliament, we heard very detailed evidence—often difficult to listen to—about the scandalous and wholly inappropriate behaviour of P&O. As the Minister will know from his briefings, the last Government acted swiftly in response. It is worth briefly reflecting on those steps, as they represented meaningful progress in protecting seafarers’ rights and, therefore, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, their welfare.
First, the Seafarers Wages Act 2023 ensures that those working on ships that provide a regular international service from the United Kingdom are paid at least the equivalent of the national minimum wage while operating in UK waters. This reduces the incentive for operators to employ overseas labour on worse terms and conditions—although I heard the arguments put forward by the right hon. Gentleman and the discrimination that he highlighted, which is still a wrong to be righted.
John McDonnell
I was elated at first to attend a Statutory Instrument Committee dealing with these matters, until I discovered that the Government had redefined the nature of British waters. Restricting the measure to UK waters was even less effective.
Greg Smith
The point of my comments on the actions of the previous Government is not to say that they were wholly conclusive and the end of the matter. But I believe the steps that were taken by the previous Government did demonstrate a step forward, as I think the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged in the debate—perhaps not the entire length of step that he would have preferred.
Greg Smith
I heard the reference that the right hon. Gentleman just made.
Secondly, the last Government introduced a statutory code of practice on fire and rehire that was intended to ensure that employees are properly consulted and treated fairly. Importantly, it included powers for employment tribunals to increase compensation by 25% where an employer unreasonably fails to comply. Thirdly, the start of the seafarers’ charter was launched, with operators including Brittany Ferries, Condor Ferries, DFDS, Stena Line and, at the time, even P&O was committing to work towards meeting the requirements of that charter. The charter placed seafarers at its heart, from ensuring they are paid equivalent to the national minimum wage throughout their engagement, to establishing two weeks on, two weeks off tour of duty baselines on high-intensity routes, and providing appropriate training and development opportunities.
Crucially, the charter also committed to providing social security benefits, such as sickness benefits, family benefits and medical care, and adopting roster patterns that properly account for fatigue, mental health and safety. That demonstrated a clear commitment to ensuring that seafarers’ welfare is not an afterthought but a priority. The framework further made it clear that, where provisions differed from those mandated in the maritime labour convention 2006 or any other standard, the higher standard would apply. I acknowledge that progress. Many Members rightly believe that more remains to be done. It is therefore appropriate to turn to the measures set out in the Employment Rights Bill that returns to the House of Commons next Monday.
Some hon. Members will know that I had the good fortune to sit through the 21 Committee sittings on that Bill as a shadow Business and Trade Minister, speaking for the Opposition on its many and varied proposals. During that process, we saw the ever-expanding scope of Government intervention illustrated vividly, with the Bill growing from an initial 149 pages when first introduced to 320 pages the last time it left the House of Lords.
Some Members may ask why that matters. As I said on Report, although the Bill contains many good and well-intentioned measures, the Government have struggled to get the balance right between the rights of employees and the needs of the employers who create the jobs in the first place. When it came to provisions relating specifically to seafarers, such as changing collective redundancy notification requirements for ship crews, the Opposition did not oppose them. Indeed, I explicitly recognised their relevance in preventing the sort of unacceptable conduct we have seen in the past. However, we also flagged concerns. For example, the Bill grants the Secretary of State broad powers to detain a ship without clearly defining how long the detention could last. That is a perfect illustration of the need for balance. We must uphold the highest standards of seafarer protection while avoiding measures that may deter responsible businesses from operating in the United Kingdom.
That links to a broader point recently emphasised by my party. One of the most important ways to protect workers’ rights is to ensure that people remain in work. We can and should tackle fire-and-rehire practices, but if we overburden the economy with excessive taxation and growth-suppressing regulation, the outcome will be the worst of all worlds—fewer jobs and weaker protections.
With UK unemployment having risen by 0.9 percentage points since the election and reached an estimated 5% by September 2025, we cannot ignore the reality that the welfare of workers, including seafarers, depends on the Government restoring economic stability. We owe it to seafarers to create an economy in which their livelihoods are secure and not vulnerable to the Chancellor’s mismanagement. Ultimately, I welcome all sensible and proportionate measures that prevent scandalous behaviour and advance the welfare of seafarers, because our maritime workers deserve nothing less.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. Before I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), I pay tribute to Lord Prescott, whose unfortunate passing was just over a year ago. Beginning with his career as a trade union official in the National Union of Seamen, and then as Deputy Prime Minister and in his work on transport, he was a defiant champion of the rights of seafarers right across the country. He was—how shall I put it?—a salty sea dog to the end and passionately defended workers’ rights in a sector that he cared about so dearly.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock for bringing forward this important debate. I commend her for her thoughtful remarks and her continued advocacy on behalf of her constituents, seafarers and those who support them.
Growth is this Government’s No. 1 priority. The maritime sector not only powers that mission, but is critical in delivering the goods and materials that people across the UK rely on in their everyday lives. As we approach Christmas, I hope we can take the time to appreciate our maritime workforce—their skill and hard work will mean that our tables and our stockings have everything we need for a very merry Christmas—while also recognising that lots of merchant seafarers will not be home themselves this Christmas, and the toll that takes on their families and their mental health. My grandfather on my mother’s side served in the merchant navy for 50 years, so my family is extremely cognisant of that.
I am delighted to hear about the incredible work of the Queen Victoria Seamen’s Rest in Tilbury in supporting those men and women. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock for supporting the Queen Victoria Seamen’s Rest and for highlighting its important work here in Parliament. The Seamen’s Rest has a long and fascinating history. It has always been there—for more than 180 years, I believe—to support seafarers and provide them with accommodation and welfare. I have not yet had the opportunity to visit the centre at Tilbury, but I am aware of the work that the Seamen’s Rest has done through its centres to ensure that hard-working seafarers have well-deserved facilities and support when visiting ports across the UK.
Keir Mather
In the Christmas spirit that we are experiencing in Westminster Hall today, how could I refuse? It would be wonderful to visit. I look forward to continuing to learn about the work of the Seamen’s Rest, not only in Tilbury but at its centres in Immingham, Felixstowe, Bristol and other places.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for inviting those from the Queen Victoria Seamen’s Rest to join us in the Public Gallery, because it gives me an opportunity to place on the record my thanks and gratitude to its chief executive, Alexander Campbell, for all his hard work to pilot his organisation. I thank him for the enormous difference he will make to seafarers’ welfare across the UK, not only at this time of year, but year round.
The Government are undertaking wide-ranging work to enhance the support that we give to seafarers’ welfare charities. We have grants that provide a scheme called MiFi, which is about giving wi-fi access to seafarers in the United Kingdom. We have a vehicle replacement programme for the Merchant Navy Welfare Board to ensure that seafarers can get to where they need to receive support, and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency sits on the board of the Merchant Navy Welfare Board to provide a crucial link between these charities and Government.
I will go into more detail on the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, but I want to acknowledge that we have more progress to make in the space of levies being paid when ships make port in the United Kingdom to contribute towards seafarers’ welfare. It is extremely encouraging to see how many ports have adopted that on a voluntary basis, but we always want to push to go further. She made an important point about international co-operation, and I was pleased—as I am sure was my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)—to meet Nautilus and the RMT only yesterday to discuss some of the obligations through the International Labour Organisation. I will come to that in greater detail in a moment.
The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) spoke of the tragedies that have affected his constituency and reminded us of our obligation and duty to improve the welfare and safety of our seafarers—that is a duty for every generation lucky enough to have the privilege to serve in government. Being a native son of Hull, it would be remiss of me not to mention that we approach the anniversary, in January and February, of the triple trawler tragedy in 1968, when we lost three Hull trawlers, the St Romanus, the Kingston Peridot and the Ross Cleveland, with an enormous loss of life. That started a campaign in Hull for improved safety at sea, with dedicated radio equipment on every ship, which was pioneered by Lillian Bilocca, a pioneer in seafarers’ rights. She pushed Harold Wilson’s Labour Government to make those important changes for seafarers’ welfare, and we carry that legacy forward today.
Turning to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, as I said, it was a pleasure to meet the RMT yesterday. We have an urgent need to protect life at sea, and I join him in sending condolences to James Elliott’s family. I thank everyone in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary; they work so hard to keep our nation safe. I will be certain to pass on to the relevant Minister my right hon. Friend’s request for a meeting with the Ministry of Defence.
My right hon. Friend also made an important point about nationality-based pay. In June 2025, the Government published a post-implementation review that recommended an amendment to the regulations, which currently allow nationality-based differential pay. Officials are progressing this work and aim to publish a consultation in spring next year, and we look forward to the RMT’s contribution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) pointed to the incredible work of the RNLI, and I too will take the opportunity to champion its work. I also place on the record my thanks to the Port of London Authority for the work it does to encourage safety on the River Thames in the areas where it has a footprint. Robin Mortimer and Jonson Cox do a lot of work in that space. When I visited, they made important points about pilot safety and about minimising the health impacts of the strain on pilots as they go out to make sure the largest ships can dock in our country.
The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), despite having the second most landlocked constituency in the country—I think Selby might be somewhere on that list as well—raised some very important points. He spoke about having a competitive tax regime to encourage foreign direct investment and to encourage shipping operators to use the United Kingdom. The tonnage tax regime that we have in the United Kingdom is seen as competitive in attracting that investment.
I am glad that the shadow Minister recognised the wrongs that were committed during the P&O saga, but he also highlighted the positive work that there is to do in relation to people and skills. I believe that enshrining in the Employment Rights Bill the rest and fatigue management provisions he spoke of is integral. I hope that his passion for maritime allows him to overcome some of his other doubts and to support the Bill as it makes further progress through Parliament.
I now turn to the points made by the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett). We are expanding the scope of the Seafarers Wages Act through the Employment Rights Bill, which will include additional powers to regulate safety, including through roster patterns, fatigue management and training, as well as remuneration beyond just pay in UK waters. That will deliver on our promise to create a mandatory seafarers’ charter. We will be consulting on the use of those powers in 2026. In the light of the hon. Lady’s remarks and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, I am certain not to be remiss in ensuring that the consultation is as robust as possible and that our trade union colleagues are able to play their full part in it.
The Queen Victoria Seamen’s Rest is one of the many charities that support seafarers both domestically and internationally, but that work is spearheaded by the Merchant Navy Welfare Board. Raising the standards of seafarer welfare is a priority for the Government. That is why earlier this year the Maritime and Coastguard Agency launched The Seafarers’ Charities Forum, which aims to boost welfare through the exchange of information between the MCA and seafarers’ charities. We hope that will enhance mutual understanding of current initiatives, regulatory developments and welfare programmes, as well as identify opportunities for strategic alignment and joint action to improve seafarers’ living and working conditions. I commend all who are involved in that important initiative.
The Government are committed to growth, but none of the growth opportunities that we have will be realised without high standards of welfare for seafarers, in the UK and internationally, which is why we are ambitious about strengthening their rights. As I said, the Employment Rights Bill will improve employment protections for seafarers with a close connection to the UK, and protect the pay and working conditions of those working on services calling frequently at UK ports. That will build on the voluntary seafarers’ charter that was launched in 2023, under the previous Government, and we are working with a number of major operators to roll it out across their services. That will really help to raise standards, but it is voluntary, which is why we want to seek powers in the Employment Rights Bill to have a mandatory charter.
On international engagements, we are proud to have supported the amendments to the maritime labour convention that were agreed in April, but there is more work to be done in that space, and we can do it.
I want to pause at this point to record the thanks of the House and, more importantly, of seafarers around the country and far beyond for an organisation whose work is pivotal to the welfare of seafarers: the Marine Accident Investigation Branch. The MAIB continues to provide an essential service to seafarers. Its reports, which are of the highest quality, have saved countless lives over the years and ensure that the sector learns the lessons of the regrettable incidents that do still occur.
The MAIB is a vital component in the constellation of organisations that support the sector and one to which I am proud to put my name, but I am equally proud of the other ways that my Department supports the sector. One example, which I have alluded to, is our continued support for the MiFi project, which enables seafarers visiting UK ports to connect to the internet so that they can remain in contact with friends and family in their home countries. I am also pleased that we continue to fund the Merchant Navy Welfare Board’s vehicle replacement programme to make sure that seafarers can get to where they need to go.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and other colleagues for drawing the House’s attention to the important but oft-neglected issue of seafarer welfare. Since becoming maritime Minister, I have been struck by the dedication and skill of those who work in the sector, and I believe that, working together with parliamentarians, colleagues across Government, industry partners and our wider social partners, we can make a positive impact on the lives of those who serve at sea. I again thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue and I commend everyone who has taken the time to take part in this debate.
Jen Craft
I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate. The 3 pm shift on a Thursday is not a great one, especially when we are low on numbers, so I am grateful to Members for being here.
I offer my thanks to all those who go to sea. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) spoke eloquently about the call of the sea, but also its inherent dangers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) highlighted a specific example. The loss of James Elliott brings home the real dangers for those who make their living at sea and the debt of gratitude that we all owe them. My right hon. Friend also spoke about flags of convenience, which is a real problem and an issue when it comes to investigating crimes at sea. For example, sexual assault against female seafarers is on the increase, but women often fail to find the justice they need. Perhaps that is something we can pursue.
I thank my neighbouring MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan)—we are separated by only a body of water—for raising the work of the RNLI. I am incredibly grateful for the work that it does saving lives at sea. Without its vital voluntary contribution, I am sure the lives of many more who make their living at sea would have been lost. I welcome what the Minister said about looking at how we can promote the levy system and take it further. That is one thing that would make a real difference to onshore welfare provision for seafarers.
The Minister also updated us on some of the work he has been doing internationally, particularly in looking at reducing the pay differential between UK-based seafarers and others. I look forward to working with him and colleagues to make sure that those who make their living on the sea, to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude, receive proper remuneration and thanks from the nation.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered seafarers’ welfare.
Cancer Services: North-west London
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Karin Smyth
Thanks to our investment and modernisation of the NHS, the Government are putting cancer services on the road to recovery by opening up community diagnostic centres on evenings and weekends, building new surgical hubs and investing in new radiotherapy machines… This year, an extra 193,000 patients received a timely diagnosis or the all-clear compared with the previous year.
[Official Report, 25 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 194.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Secondary Care, the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth):
Karin Smyth
Thanks to our investment and modernisation of the NHS, the Government are putting cancer services on the road to recovery by opening up community diagnostic centres on evenings and weekends, building new surgical hubs and investing in new radiotherapy machines… This year, an extra 193,000 patients received a timely diagnosis or the all-clear compared with the year before the election.
Mental Health Conditions, Autism and ADHD
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
I am announcing today the launch of an independent review into the prevalence of, and support for, mental health conditions, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and autism.
Over the past decade there has been progress in reducing stigma and an increase in public awareness of mental health conditions, ADHD and autism, and the importance of psychological wellbeing. Yet the prevalence of common mental health conditions for adults has increased to one in five, and many people who are autistic or have ADHD are struggling to access the right support. This Government have already taken significant steps to stabilise and improve NHS services, but there is much more to do.
I am deeply concerned that many adults, young people and children with mental health conditions, ADHD and autism have been let down by services and are not receiving tailored, personalised or timely support and treatment.
That is why I am announcing this independent review to understand the rises in prevalence and demand on services to ensure that people receive the right support, at the right time and in the right place.
The review will look to understand the similarities and differences between mental health conditions, ADHD and autism, regarding prevalence, prevention and treatment, the current challenges facing clinical services, and the extent to which diagnosis, medicalisation and treatment improves outcomes for individuals. This will include exploring the evidence around clinical practice and the risks and benefits of medicalisation. The review will also look at different models of support and pathways, within and beyond the NHS, that promote prevention and early intervention, supplementing clinical support.
I have asked Professor Peter Fonagy to chair this review with the support of two vice chairs, Professor Sir Simon Wessely and Professor Gillian Baird. They each have specific expertise on mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions and extensive clinical and academic experience.
The review will appoint an advisory working group, which involves a multidisciplinary group of leading academics, clinicians, epidemiological experts, charities and people with lived experience, to directly shape the recommendations and scrutinise the evidence.
I have asked the chairs to provide a short report within six months setting out conclusions and recommendations for responding to the rising need, both within Government and across the health system and wider public services.
The terms of reference will be published on gov.uk.
[HCWS1132]
Biometrics, Facial Recognition and Similar Technologies in Law Enforcement: Legal Framework
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
The Government are committed to giving the police the tools, clarity and confidence they need to keep the public safe in a fast-changing world. Facial recognition technology is one such powerful and effective tool, and the Government want to support its adoption with a clearer legal framework.
Over the past year, we have taken time to listen carefully to all sides of the debate about facial recognition and evaluate the available evidence. We have heard how this can be a valuable tool in tackling serious crime. However, we have also heard legitimate concerns about this powerful technology. There are questions we must address about the state’s powers to process its citizens’ biometric data proportionately, maintaining public confidence, and how we balance this with ensuring the police are able to utilise technology within a clear, easy-to-understand framework.
That is why I am pleased to announce that the Government are today launching a public consultation titled, “Consultation on a new legal framework for law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies”.
The consultation seeks views on a wide range of issues, including which technologies should be covered by the new framework—such as biometric, inferential, and object recognition tools—and which organisations it should apply to. It also explores when and how these technologies should be used, what safeguards are necessary to protect privacy and other rights, and how to ensure their use is demonstrably proportionate to the seriousness of the harm being addressed.
Throughout the consultation, we hope to hear a broad range of views from the public, experts, and stakeholders to help shape a legal framework that will enable confident, safe, and consistent use of facial recognition and similar technologies at significantly greater scale.
This consultation will play an essential role in helping the Government design a framework that means law enforcement can properly harness the power of this technology while maintaining public confidence over the long term.
The consultation will run for 10 weeks and provides a valuable opportunity for the public to have their say. A copy of the consultation will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk.
[HCWS1129]
FIFA Men's Football World Cup 2026: Licensing Hours
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
I am pleased to launch a consultation on extending licensing hours in England and Wales for the semi-finals and final of the FIFA men’s football world cup next summer, contingent on any of the home nations teams—England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland—reaching those stages of the tournament. The consultation is aimed at members of the public, local licensing authorities, licensed premises, and other interested parties in England and Wales where these proposals apply.
Depending on the outcome of the consultation, the Government propose to make a licensing hours order under section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 that would contingently extend opening hours for matches that kick-off at 9pm or earlier on the days of the semi-finals (14 and/or 15 July) and/or final (19 July), so that they would end at 1am at the latest—i.e. early in the morning following the match, rather than 11pm on the day of the kick-off in the UK—for the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises in England and Wales.
The extension would enable communities to come together to celebrate this achievement and support their national team, as well as provide a welcome boost to pubs and other on-trade businesses. The tournament will be held across several US states, Mexico, and Canada, which are 5-8 hours behind UK time, and matches could continue well into, or not kick off until, the early hours of the morning. In those cases, licensed premises will be able to use the temporary event notice process to extend beyond 1 am, should they wish to do so. The TENs process allows police to object or place conditions on a notice, thus ensuring additional safeguards for the public where venues may wish to stay open later.
The extension would be contingent on one or more of the home nations reaching those stages of the championship, and would not take effect should none of these teams reach those stages of the tournament.
I am seeking to use a contingent order to extend licensing hours for the semi-finals and the final to ensure that there is sufficient time to consult publicly on the proposed extension and follow the required parliamentary procedure.
A copy of the consultation will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk. The consultation will run until 15 January 2026.
[HCWS1130]
Devolution Priority Programme
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
Devolution is a critical lever for delivering growth and prosperity for local communities, through bringing local transport back into public control, making people’s daily commute easier, tailoring local skills training to local employer’s needs, so people can get a good job, and driving regeneration of local areas, so people feel proud of the place they live in.
For too long decisions have been made centrally in Whitehall, away from the places and communities those decisions impact. Mayors and other local leaders are best placed to identify and invest in the projects and infrastructure that reflect the needs of local people and drive growth, but they need long-term funding certainty to harness their region’s potential.
Today, I am therefore pleased to confirm the long-term funding offer to the six areas on the devolution priority programme. Once mayors are in post, the six mayoral strategic authorities will receive close to £200 million collectively per year for 30 years through their investment funds. These funds will be split equally between capital and revenue, and they will be un-ringfenced, so local areas can choose how they want to invest this money in local priorities. This investment will promote growth in the six areas, and as the baseline of our funding commitment, it will be additional to devolved funding streams from other Government Departments, such as adult skills funding and transport funding.
Each area’s individual yearly investment fund allocation, based on their populations, are as follows:
Cheshire and Warrington combined authority: £21.7 million per year
Cumbria combined authority: £11.1 million per year
Greater Essex combined county authority: £41.5 million per year
Hampshire and the Solent combined county authority: £44.6 million per year
Norfolk and Suffolk combined county authority: £37.4 million per year
Sussex and Brighton combined county authority: £38 million per year
Beyond the allocations based on population, each new mayoral strategic authority will be supported to build core capacity to ensure they can deliver for local people. All six areas will receive £3 million each as a minimum flat payment over the next three financial years, in addition to an initial payment of £1 million each when the statutory instruments are laid in Parliament, to help with the costs of establishing the new authorities.
The Government recognise that mayoral strategic authorities are most successful when they are built on a strong history of partnership and joint delivery. Moving forward, we will therefore seek to facilitate the establishment of foundation strategic authorities in areas without a foundation of collaboration, to build local capacity ahead of areas accessing mayoral powers. These foundation strategic authorities will be empowered to deliver for their residents in the interim. The Government plan to engage with local leaders about creating a new wave of foundation strategic authorities to ensure more residents can see the benefits of local control.
For devolution priority programme areas, as they have already made great progress towards the establishment of their mayoral strategic authorities, the Government ambition to foster collaboration ahead of implementing mayoralties will be facilitated by allowing for a meaningful period of time between the mayoral strategic authorities’ establishment and inaugural elections.
Cheshire and Warrington and Cumbria have previously requested a delay of their inaugural elections to May 2027, to align with the majority of planned local elections, which could help voter turnout and enable further local savings. These areas have both successfully established unitary authorities.
The Government are also minded to hold the inaugural mayoral elections for Sussex and Brighton, Hampshire and the Solent, Norfolk and Suffolk, and Greater Essex in May 2028, with areas completing the local government reorganisation process before mayors take office. This is because devolution is strongest when it is built on strong foundations; therefore, moving forward we will ensure strong unitary structures are in place before areas take on mayoral devolution.
The Government intend to establish mayoral strategic authorities in all the devolution priority programme areas as soon as possible, to ensure sufficient time for meaningful preparatory work and to continue to build local collaboration. We will provide each devolution priority programme area with a proportion of their investment funds to ensure they can start delivering on key local priorities and deliver the benefits of devolution on the ground ahead of the mayors taking office. Cheshire and Warrington and Cumbria will therefore receive half of their annual investment funds in 2025-26, while Sussex and Brighton, Hampshire and the Solent, Norfolk and Suffolk, and Greater Essex will receive a third of their annual investment funds in both 2026-27 and 2027-28.
Our commitment to ensuring areas across England can access the growth benefits of mayoral devolution holds firm. We will continue to engage with local leaders across the devolution priority programme towards the establishment of these mayoral strategic authorities.
[HCWS1128]
Automated Vehicles Regulatory Framework
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I wish to provide the House with an update on further steps the Government are taking to implement the Automated Vehicles Act 2024 and kickstart economic growth. Self-driving vehicles have the potential to increase opportunities and break down barriers for how people and goods move around the country, making transport safer, greener, and more reliable. Strengthening road safety, improving accessibility, and ensuring safeguarding remain central to this vision.
The AV Act delivers one of the most comprehensive legal frameworks of its kind, with safety at its core. It sets out clear legal responsibilities, establishes a safety framework and creates the required regulatory powers. This includes measures designed to protect all road users—pedestrians, cyclists, disabled people, and vulnerable groups—through a consistent, evidence-based safety framework.
The AV Act implementation programme supports the Government-wide programme of work using artificial intelligence to deliver the plan for change, with AVs providing a core example of how AI could bring tangible benefits to the public. This technology has the potential to enable safer journeys, improve access to essential services, and enhance independence for people with accessibility needs.
Today, we have published an ambitious call for evidence on developing the AV regulatory framework. This call for evidence will help inform secondary legislation, guidance and policy development, ensuring the AV regulatory framework remains proportionate, forward-looking and responsive to emerging technologies while upholding strong safeguards for public safety, data protection, and responsible operation.
The call for evidence is split into two main chapters: “getting AVs on the road” and “once AVs are on the road”.
Chapter 1 seeks further evidence relating to:
Vehicle type approval: the assessment of whether the vehicle is technically safe before it is allowed on to the GB market; this is closely linked to the ongoing work at the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe to develop automated driving systems regulations.
Authorisation: the new process of authorising a self-driving vehicle for use on GB roads without a driver, allowing legal responsibilities to shift to the authorised self-driving entity when the vehicle is driving itself.
User-in-charge: if a self-driving feature requires a responsible human inside the vehicle, that human is the driver while the feature is disengaged, and becomes a UIC when the self-driving feature is engaged. The UIC will not be responsible for the way the self-driving vehicle drives when the feature is engaged.
Transition demands: a time-bound demand for the UIC to take control of the vehicle when a self-driving vehicle needs to safely transfer control to a human driver.
Operator licensing: the use of vehicles with self-driving features that do not require a human driver to be present while active in vehicles which may have no human on board at all.
Insurance: AVs must be insured to legally drive on our roads, but motor insurance for AVs will be different from that for conventional vehicles. As a result, insurers will need timestamp data recorded by the vehicle, showing if the system was active, to determine liabilities.
Chapter 2 seeks further evidence relating to:
In-use regulation: ongoing monitoring to confirm that vehicles continue to meet the self-driving test requirements, and in particular, the requirement to be able to safely and legally drive themselves once on the road. In-use regulation will also monitor where authorisation requirements and operator licensing requirements continue to be complied with.
Sanctions: a new set of civil and regulatory sanctions available to Government. They include compliance notices, redress notices and fines as well as variation, suspension or withdrawal of an authorisation or a licence.
Incident investigation: a process for no-blame incident investigation involving AVs, similar to existing aviation and rail investigation branches, allowing for continuous improvement based on real-world evidence
Cyber-security: appropriate cyber-security controls must be in place throughout the vehicles service life; this extends to the security of the operation centre and includes cyber, personnel and physical security.
Questions relating to data, costs and benefits appear throughout the call for evidence, and there are stand-alone sections on accessibility and environmental impacts. While the focus of the call for evidence is on the safety framework, we are particularly mindful of potential accessibility benefits and so have included accessibility considerations.
We seek views from a broad range of respondents, including road users, industry, academics, road-safety experts, accessibility specialists, first responders, trade unions, and the wider public. Their insights will help ensure that as AV technologies develop, they do so in ways that strengthen safety, widen access, and safeguard the public.
A copy of this publication will be placed in the Library of each House and published on gov.uk.
[HCWS1131]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
Good afternoon and welcome to an afternoon of debates on statutory instruments. As is often the case, I am required to say that if there is a Division in the Chamber, we will adjourn for 10 minutes. But, as everybody knows, the Budget debate has just started and will go on until 7 pm; there is no risk of a Division. The only risk is that I am due to speak in the debate later.
Health and Care Act 2022 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the Grand Committee do consider the Health and Care Act 2022 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, these technical regulations will ensure that the Down Syndrome Act 2022 is up to date with current NHS structures. There are an estimated 47,000 people in the United Kingdom with Down syndrome. Despite existing legal duties, individuals with Down syndrome continue to face significant challenges in accessing the care and support they need. This Government are determined to break down barriers for people with Down syndrome and other disabled people. The Down Syndrome Act 2022, alongside the broader aims set out in the Government’s 10-year health plan for England, will help us to achieve this.
I will begin by outlining the requirements of the Down Syndrome Act. The Act requires the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to issue guidance to relevant authorities across health, social care, education and housing on the actions they should be taking to support the needs of people with Down syndrome. On 5 November we launched a public consultation on draft guidance under the Down Syndrome Act. We recognise the importance of ensuring that our documents are accessible, and Easyread versions of the draft guidance and survey questions have been made available so that everyone is able to make their voice heard. People can respond to the survey online, via post or by email, according to their individual preferences and needs.
The draft guidance consolidates and raises awareness of the practical steps that relevant authorities should take to meet the needs of people with Down syndrome. Additionally, it helps to clarify the support and services that individuals with Down syndrome can expect to receive. We expect that the guidance will not only improve support for people with Down syndrome but benefit those with other conditions or a learning disability who have similar needs.
This Government are committed to working with disabled people to ensure that their views are at the heart of what we do. The development of the draft guidance involved significant engagement with people with lived experience, as well as organisations that support them. The consultation offers another chance for these communities to express their views.
For the guidance to deliver the improvements we want it to, effective local implementation will be essential. On 9 May 2023, NHS England published statutory guidance that says that every integrated care board should identify a member of its board to lead on supporting the ICB to perform its functions effectively in the interests of people with Down syndrome. The guidance also says that each ICB should have a designated lead for learning disability and autism, and for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. Collaboration between ICB leads and other partners across the integrated care system will be crucial. The ongoing legislation will help us assess whether the guidance is clear and informative for relevant authorities in meeting their legal duties to support people with Down syndrome. We will carefully consider all feedback to ensure that the final guidance is fit for purpose.
I will now explain the changes that these amendment regulations will make. The regulations are designed to bring the Down Syndrome Act in line with changes to NHS structures made by the Health and Care Act 2022. Under the Down Syndrome Act:
“Relevant authorities must have due regard”
to the final statutory guidance
“in the exercise of their relevant functions”,
but the Act does not create any new functions beyond this duty. The Schedule to the Act specifies which authorities must have due regard to the guidance and the functions to which it applies.
The regulations will amend this Schedule, replacing outdated references to clinical commissioning groups with integrated care boards and updating references to the National Health Service Commissioning Board with NHS England. This is an important technical change, as the Health and Care Act 2022 abolished CCGs, replacing them with ICBs, and renamed the National Health Service Commissioning Board as NHS England.
For authorities not listed as relevant authorities in the Schedule to the Down Syndrome Act, the guidance will not be statutory, meaning that they are not legally obliged to have due regard to it. These amendments will bring ICBs and NHS England within the scope of the Act’s requirements, providing clarity and helping to ensure effective implementation. The regulations also align legislation with NHS England’s statutory guidance on ICB leads for Down syndrome. ICB leads are responsible for implementing the guidance, and it is therefore essential that ICBs are referenced in the legislation.
It is important to note that the final guidance under the Down Syndrome Act will not be published until after these amendment regulations come into force. Our intention is to publish the guidance before the planned abolition of NHS England comes into effect. However, we recognise that other ongoing government reforms may affect the timing and content of the final guidance. To maintain accuracy and relevance, the guidance will be kept under review and updated to reflect new policy and legislative frameworks as necessary.
A practical consideration is the timing of these regulations. They are drafted to come into force the day after the day on which they are made. This will ensure that the Down Syndrome Act duty to have due regard will apply to the correct authorities as soon as the final guidance is published. The regulations will not have any material effect until the final guidance is published, so we do not believe that further public engagement or notification is needed at this stage.
By making these important and timely updates to the Down Syndrome Act, the regulations before the Committee will offer vital assurance that guidance is implemented effectively and in the spirit intended when the Act was passed. This supports our aim to improve life outcomes for people with Down syndrome and ensure that they receive the care and support they need to live the lives they want to. I beg to move.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the purpose of these regulations. I reflect that in politics there are times when you have some difficult days, but there are also days when you feel it is worth while. I remember when we passed the Down Syndrome Act. I was a Health Minister at the time, and it was one of the most rewarding days I have had as a politician. The credit was not to me; it was to all the legislators who got involved, as well as the many charities, but it is at such times that you feel the work we do here is incredibly worth while.
As the Minister explained, these are technical measures, and we understand that they update references in the Down Syndrome Act 2022 to reflect the changes in the Health and Care Act. As the Minister said, this particularly concerns the establishment of ICBs, or integrated care boards, to replace the clinical commissioning groups. Clearly, the current wording is out of date. For that reason these are sensible regulations, and we are obviously happy to support them. We also welcome the Government’s commitment to help those with disabilities and learning disabilities, which the Minister outlined.
While the changes are technical, they take place against a backdrop of significant structural change. Only yesterday I was contacted by the Minister to discuss some of the changes that will happen when NHS England is abolished and where some of those responsibilities will lie—I understand that there will be a Bill before Parliament.
The Government have announced plans to abolish NHS England by April 2027, but there is as yet no clarity on when the required health Bill will be introduced—I hope we can get something on that—and how the statutory functions under the Down Syndrome Act will be transferred or continued. I completely appreciate that these are early days, but I wonder whether the Minister can answer now or in writing what input there has been and what the thinking is behind transferring some of these statutory functions when that restructure takes place. We would welcome some reassurance that the duties currently held by NHS England ICBs in relation to the Down Syndrome Act will be maintained until the future health Bill provides a new framework. I think that is obvious, but we need some sort of reassurance. We believe that people with Down syndrome and their families deserve that certainty and want to make sure that they are not disrupted by the organisational change.
We also note that the Explanatory Memorandum confirms that there is no statutory review clause for these regulations and, while the technical amendments themselves are straightforward, the absence of a formal review means that there is no mechanism to ensure that these provisions are revisited. I understand that the Minister said that they have come to a stage where they do not necessarily believe that further consultation is required, but I just wonder about some of the reviews. The absence of a formal review could mean that there is no mechanism to ensure that these provisions continue when they are revisited, such as when NHS England is abolished or when the ICBs’ responsibilities are altered. We want to ensure that the statutory duties continue and so we would welcome some clarification on that. Also, how do you monitor the continued effectiveness of statutory guidance and make any more adjustments if required?
Finally, we note that the consultation is ongoing and welcome the fact that the Government have continued to engage with stakeholders throughout this period, ensuring that the guidance remains practical and responsive. I understand that it might be felt that there is no need for any further consultation because all views have been heard, but I think that would give some reassurance in case there are views that need to be heard and have not been. We may say with certainty that there are no more views, but we just do not know what will happen in the future. Also, both the Health and Care Act 2022 and the Down Syndrome Act mandated responsibilities for the ICBs but there is a difference between having responsibilities and ensuring that they are carrying out those responsibilities, and how we monitor that.
Aside from those questions, we support these regulations. We recognise their technical purpose and necessity. At the same time, we hope that the Government will provide reassurance regarding the transitional arrangements and the ongoing oversight of statutory functions so that the objectives of the Down Syndrome Act 2022 are fully realised for the people it is designed to support. We recognise that when the Act was passed it was only the first step to make more people in the system aware and make sure that they are aware of their statutory duties. I am not going to comment on the merits of the changes that are coming—some are positive and some will cause concerns—but we have to ensure that those statutory functions continue so that people with Down syndrome continue to be served in the way that the Act was originally intended. I look forward to the response from the Minister.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for his very constructive comments. I completely agree that we have some difficulties with Bills moving across but we are absolutely committed to improving services for people across the country who have significant needs and we are pleased to update noble Lords on our progress. He quite rightly reflected that we are going through a period of structural change, but I hoped I outlined in my opening remarks that that should not get in the way of progress on this. I think that there are enough checks and balances in place to make sure that we have an open door for comments to come in.
In particular, we have a set process for the current legislative framework. A clear consultation framework has been laid down with specific timings, explaining how that will all fit together with the legislative changes. The most important reassurance that the noble Lord asked for is that we will keep the guidance under review and ensure that we accommodate any changes or lessons learned. In my view, consultation needs to be a live experience; it cannot be done just once and put in the history books. I hope that that gives him the reassurance that he needs.
I also take this opportunity to reaffirm that our absolute aim, which I know is shared by the noble Lord, is to improve the lives of people with Down syndrome and people with other conditions. Of course, this is a Private Member’s Bill, which brings its own strictures around how it can be covered. I emphasise again that we will achieve this by publishing guidance under the Down Syndrome Act. We hope that the guidance and the process around the consultation will continue to raise awareness and improve our understanding of the needs of people with Down syndrome. The progress that has been made has been significant and I place on record our thanks to all the organisations and people who have raised the profile of Down syndrome and done such an incredible job. It is important that all relevant authorities are brought together to continue to deliver that effective care and support, regardless of NHS structures.
I hope that I have given the necessary assurance that the guidance will be implemented as intended. With that, I thank noble Lords for their attendance and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for his contribution.
Online Safety Act 2023 (Priority Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That the Grand Committee do consider the Online Safety Act 2023 (Priority Offences) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 40th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 21 October this year. Before I proceed further, I draw the Committee’s attention to a correction slip issued for these regulations in October for minor drafting changes related to the date of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in the Explanatory Notes and the order of words for the title of an offence inserted by paragraph 2 of the regulations.
The Government remain firmly committed to tackling the most serious and harmful online behaviours. This statutory instrument strengthens the Online Safety Act by designating new priority offences aimed at addressing cyber flashing and content that encourages self-harm. By doing so, we are ensuring that platforms take more proactive steps to protect users from these damaging harms.
Evidence shows that cyber flashing and material promoting self-harm are widespread and cause significant harm, particularly among younger age groups. In 2025, 9% of 18 to 24 year-olds reported experiencing cyber flashing and 7% encountered content encouraging self-harm in a four-week period. That equates to around 530,000 young adults exposed to cyber flashing and 450,000 to self-harm content. This is unacceptable.
Further, 27% of UK users exposed to cyber flashing reported significant emotional discomfort. There is also compelling evidence that exposure to self-harm content worsens mental health outcomes. A 2019 study found that 64% of Instagram users in the US who saw such content were emotionally disturbed by it. Another study in 2018 revealed that 8% of adults and 26% of children hospitalised after self-harming had encountered related content online. These figures underline that these are not marginal issues—they are widespread and deeply harmful.
As noble Lords will know, the Online Safety Act, which received Royal Assent on 26 October 2023, imposes strong duties on platforms and search services to protect users. Providers must assess the likelihood that their services expose users to illegal content or facilitate priority offences, and then take steps to mitigate those risks; these include safety by design measures and robust content moderation systems.
The Act sets out a list of priority offences for the purposes of illegal content duties. These represent the most serious and prevalent forms of online illegal activity. Platforms must take additional steps to address these offences under their statutory duties. This statutory instrument adds cyber flashing and content encouraging self-harm to the list of priority offences. Currently, these offences fall under the general illegal content duties. Without priority status, platforms are not required to conduct specific risk assessments or implement specific measures to prevent exposure to these harms; that is why we are adding them as priority offences.
Stakeholders have strongly supported these changes. Organisations such as the Molly Rose Foundation and Samaritans have long called for greater protection for vulnerable users. These changes will come into force 21 days after the regulations are made, following approval by both Houses. Ofcom will then set out in its codes of practice the measures that providers should adopt to meet their duties. Our updates to the Act’s safety duties will fully take effect when Ofcom makes these updates about measures that can be taken to fulfil the duties.
We expect Ofcom to recommend actions such as enhanced content moderation; improved reporting and complaints systems; and safety by design measures—for example, testing algorithms to ensure that illegal content is not being promoted. If providers fail to meet their obligations and fail to take proportionate steps to stop this vile material being shared on their services, Ofcom has strong enforcement powers to enforce compliance. These include powers to issue fines of up to £18 million or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is higher.
This statutory instrument upgrades cyber flashing and self-harm content to priority status, reinforcing the Online Safety Act’s protections. Service providers will be required to take more proactive and robust action to detect, remove and limit exposure to these harmful forms of illegal content. This will help ensure that platforms take stronger steps to protect users, reduce the prevalence of these behaviours online and make the internet safer for all. I beg to move.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I hope this is one of those occasions when we agree that what is coming here is a good thing—something that is designed to deal with an evil and thus is necessary. I want just to add a bit of flesh to the bones.
If we have regulation, we must make sure—as we are doing now—that it is enforced. I congratulate the Government on the age-verification activities that were reported on this morning, but can we get a little more about the tone, let us say, with which we are going to look at future problems? The ones we have here—cyber flashing and self-harm—are pretty obviously things that are not good for you, especially for younger people and the vulnerable.
I have in front of me the same figures of those who have experienced disturbing reactions to seeing these things, especially if they did not want to see them. Self-harm is one of those things; it makes me wince even to think about it. Can we make sure that not only those in the industry but those outside it know that action will be taken? How can we report across more? If we do not have a degree of awareness, reporting and everything else gets a bit slower. How do we make sure that everybody who becomes a victim of this activity knows that it is going on?
It is quite clear that the platforms are responsible; everybody knows that. It is about knowing that something is going on and being prepared to take action; that is where we will start to make sure not only that this is unacceptable and action will be taken but that everybody knows and gets in on the act and reporting takes place.
I could go on for a considerable length of time, and I have enough briefing to do so, but I have decided that the Grand Committee has not annoyed me enough to indulge in that today. I congratulate the Minister, but a little more flesh about the action and its tone, and what we expect the wider community to do to make sure this can be enacted, would be very helpful here. Other than that, I totally welcome these actions. Unpleasant as it is that they are necessary, I welcome them and hope that the Government will continue to do this. We are always going to be playing a little bit of catch-up on what happens, but let us make sure that we are running fast and that what is in front of us does not get too far away.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, this instrument amends Schedule 7 to the Online Safety Act 2023 to add cyber flashing and content encouraging self-harm to the list of priority offences. I thank the Minister for setting out some of the most alarming facts and figures associated with those offences.
As well as passing the Online Safety Act, which placed duties on social media sites and internet services to tackle illegal content, the previous Government outlawed cyber flashing and sharing or threatening to share intimate images without consent by amending the Sexual Offences Act 2003. We welcome the draft regulations, which we agree are in line with the Act’s overarching purpose to tackle harmful content online. As has been highlighted, young people are especially vulnerable to cyber flashing and content encouraging self-harm, and we must be proactive in tracking the trends of illegal activity, especially online, and its impact on UK users, to ensure that the law continues to be proportionate and effective.
We therefore support the move to categorise cyber flashing and content encouraging self-harm as priority offences under the Act rather than as relevant offences. We share the Government’s view that this will oblige services to remove such material as soon as they are made aware of it, as well as to prevent it appearing in the first place through risk assessments and specialised measures. However, I feel there are some broader issues that we should take into account, and I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on these.
First, on the use of VPNs, or virtual private networks, to override protections, my belief—I would welcome the Minister’s view on this—is that the Online Safety Act creates an obligation on platforms to prevent users gaining access to the wrong content for them, regardless of any technical workarounds they may be using. In other words, it is not a defence for a platform to claim that the user had deployed a VPN. Can the Minister confirm this? Needless to say, I am seeking not to downplay the VPN issue but merely to establish clearly where responsibility lies for addressing it.
Secondly, on the use of AI in ways that drive self-harm, obviously AI that assists in suicide ideation or less extreme forms of self-harm is subject to these controls. But where an AI that is not initially designed for a harmful purpose gradually takes on the role of, say, a psychotherapist or—I am told—in some cases a deity, the conditions become highly propitious for self-harm. Can the Minister comment on how the Act’s protections cover these emergent rather than designed properties? The noble Lord, Lord Addington, put this very well in his question too, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on that.
Thirdly, and more generally, online harms are, of course, created faster than the rules that ban them, and a key part of Ofcom’s role is to monitor for gaps in the legislation as they emerge so that rules can adapt as needed. As far as the Government are aware now, what gaps has Ofcom identified so far in the existing legislation, if any?
We therefore support these regulations to strengthen the Online Safety Act, to better protect UK users from cyber flashing and content encouraging self-harms. We count on the Government to be proactive in ensuring that legislation is kept updated to tackle the changing ways in which unlawful content is proliferated and to be transparent about the way the Government and regulators balance the broader considerations mentioned. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their broad support for adding these offences to the priority offences list. This is an important step in improving the online safety regime and improving the environment in which we all use the internet, particularly children and vulnerable people. This will help fulfil the Government’s commitment to improving online safety and strengthening protections for women and girls.
On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about tone and proactivity, it is really important that we communicate what we are doing, both in the online world and in terms of violence against women and girls in the physical world. We know that we must all do more to tackle misogynistic abuse, pile-ons, harassment and stalking, and the Government’s whole approach to tackling violence against women and girls is an active one and is something that we have real, serious goals on. We welcome everyone supporting that move forward. For example, the publication of Ofcom’s guidance, A Safer Life Online for Women and Girls, sets out the steps that services can take to create safer online spaces, and the Government will be setting out our strategy for tackling violence against women and girls in due course as part of that. I think that the publication of Ofcom’s report this morning, which sets out the activity that it has taken and will take, will help raise the profile, as the noble Lord says, about what is expected of services in terms of the urgency and the rigour with which these changes are made.
On the question of VPNs, which we talked about a little earlier, we do not have a huge amount of information or research about their use, particularly by young people to circumvent age assurance. We know that there are legitimate reasons to use VPNs, and we do not have a huge amount of evidence about their use by young people, either very young people or older teenagers. Ofcom and the Government are committed to increasing the research and evidence for how VPNs are being used and whether this is indeed a way that age assurance is being circumvented, or whether it is for what might be legitimate reasons, such as security or privacy reasons. That is an important piece of the evidence puzzle to know exactly what measures to take subsequently.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I am particularly interested in whether it is a legitimate defence for a platform to say, “We could not have prevented this access because a VPN was in use”, and therefore whether it falls to the platforms themselves to figure out how to prevent abuse via VPNs.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I think we may need to have this conversation together with Ofcom. My understanding is that doing the risk assessments and putting these offences on the priority list increases the level of risk assessment that must be done. When a platform is doing its risk assessment, it will have to take into account the way in which children, young people or other users will access the service. Thus, depending on what its service provided and how people accessed it, if that was a factor that needed taking into account, it would therefore have to take that into account in the controls it was putting in place, as a platform, on the basis of its knowledge of its user base. Thus, it would, perhaps, go to the more conservative as opposed to the more permissive end of controls. That is my understanding, and if it is not correct, I will correct it.
Likewise, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, made points about emerging technology, making sure that this measure is fit for purpose and that we keep all Online Safety Act duties, defences and coverage very much up to speed with what people are experiencing in their daily lives. Many others have raised the issue of AI chatbots, including what is currently covered and not covered under the Act. The Secretary of State has commissioned work on AI chatbot activity to make sure both that there is no gap in coverage and that we are keeping up to speed with the emerging technology.
That is an example of how we want to approach emerging technology: making sure that we are getting all of the best research and information, and, if there are gaps in any areas, plugging them. This is the approach we have taken so far, and it is one we are committed to continuing. Whether enacted through advice, guidance, codes or additional offences, all of those are open to us to take forward, whatever the technology shows.
Those were the main questions that were asked. On enforcement, the point is absolutely well made. Enforcement is good only if platforms and services know that these things will be enforced. We have been very clear that Ofcom has our backing to carry out enforcement activity. We have funded the online safety part of Ofcom year on year to ensure that it has the capacity and resources to enforce whatever it needs to enforce in this area. We are very committed to continuing to protect children online. We welcome Ofcom’s recent consultation on additional measures to build on its safety codes—including additional protections on live streaming, which many have called for, as children should not have harmful content pushed on them and should have age-appropriate experiences.
We remain committed to keeping young people safe online, and we will continue to work closely with campaigners, charities, industries and Ofcom to achieve this goal. We will also work with all civil society campaigners and those with an interest. The Secretary of State has also announced that DSIT will support an NSPCC summit at Wilton Park next year in order to bring together experts and young people to discuss the impact of AI on childhood.
Turning back to the SI under discussion, today’s update is another step towards a safer digital environment—one that protects the most vulnerable and addresses emerging risks. I thank the Committee and, on that basis, I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Motor Fuel Price (Open Data) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the Grand Committee do consider the Motor Fuel Price (Open Data) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 39th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
My Lords, this is my first appearance before the Grand Committee—and a very welcome one for me. In my previous parliamentary career, I spent a lot of time trying to take statutory instruments apart as a member of the Opposition. I would pick little bits from those statutory instruments into pieces, to try to put the then Minister on his or her toes. I am sure that practice will not be followed in this House for statutory instruments, but I accept that, if it is, I will have only myself to blame for what transpires.
These regulations were laid before the House on 13 October 2025. They seek to establish the legislative basis for creating a statutory open data scheme—fuel finder—which will increase fuel price transparency across all UK petrol filling stations, empowering consumers to compare prices on a near real-time basis.
In recent years we have witnessed the rise in fuel prices and the profound impact that this has had on households, businesses and communities across the UK. Between 2021 and 2022, the price of petrol and diesel rose by over 60p per litre, driven by global supply and demand shocks stemming from the Covid-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In 2022, drivers paid an estimated £900 million more at the pumps across major supermarket retailers than the previous year. By 2023, higher fuel margins across the whole market had cost drivers a further £1.6 billion.
The CMA found that price rises for fuel and disparities between prices at a local level were largely driven by major retailers using this volatile backdrop, and the lack of transparency, to unfairly increase their profit margins at the expense of consumers across the UK. That therefore contributed to the cost of living crisis and the hardship that families up and down the country have felt in recent years. That is why we are delivering change to protect consumers, to put an end to unfair pricing practices and to increase transparency in the fuel retail market.
In line with the CMA’s recommendations as part of the road fuel market study, we are rolling out a statutory open data scheme for fuel prices—fuel finder—at the end of this year. These regulations will supersede the CMA’s current voluntary scheme and mark a decisive step in empowering motorists across the UK to compare prices easily and to make informed choices about where they purchase their fuel. Motorists across the UK will have greater visibility on the range of choice available to them, and retailers will be incentivised more than ever to offer more affordable prices in a more competitive market. Perhaps the fuel finder name ought to be “cheaper fuel finder” because that, I hope, will be the inevitable consequence of what these measures will put forward for the motorist.
I turn now to the detail of this instrument. These regulations will require all petrol filling stations in the UK to register and report changes to their fuel prices within 30 minutes of a change. The information will be freely available, and almost in real time. This marks a fundamental step towards restoring competition and fairness in a market that has proved that it will not self-correct without government intervention. By making this information openly available to any third parties that request it, we will enable the market to integrate this data into digital mapping services and vehicle satellite navigation services to help motorists locate the best prices in their area.
We recognise that this represents a change in operations for industry, and because of this we are taking a pragmatic approach. From 2 February, forecourts will need to be registered with fuel finder and begin reporting price changes. For the first three months, until early May, the CMA’s emphasis will be on supporting businesses to comply with the new regime, rather than enforcement. This will allow businesses a chance to adapt smoothly. We want retailers to succeed in meeting these obligations, and we will work with them to make sure that the transition is as straightforward as possible.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this statutory instrument forward. This was indeed a Conservative initiative, started under the previous Government and designed both to increase competition and to benefit consumers; His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are of course pleased that the current Administration are continuing our work.
The need for this measure was made apparent by the excessive profits earned by major retailers due to a sudden rise in fuel prices in the wake of global supply shocks resulting from the Covid pandemic and Russia’s attack on Ukraine. By 2023, higher fuel margins across the whole market were costing drivers a total of £2.5 billion, £900 million of which went to major supermarket retailers as a result of a 60p per litre hike in fuel prices for consumers.
This instrument aims to create a fairer fuel market. Competition is its aim, and competition is best achieved through the transparency of data and information. Artificially increasing margins becomes materially more challenging when the consumer is no longer on the wrong side of asymmetric information and fully knows that he or she can drive just a few minutes down the road to save money. Being aware of pricing is one part of this, but knowing whether margins are fair and whether their past increases were proportionate is another equally important factor.
Although this instrument requires petrol filling stations to report price changes, it does not extend to reporting on the availability of fuel types. We would be most grateful if the Government could address this issue at pace. It cannot be logical that a driver will be able to see a competitive price but then be disappointed by an empty pump when they arrive at their destination. Is the Minister giving consideration to this? Do the Government accept that an individual using a fuel finder app will indeed be disappointed to arrive at the pump only to find that what they want is not available and will, as a consequence, potentially lose faith in the system?
If it occurs within the Government’s timeframe, the launch of the fuel finder will come two years after the CMA’s recommendation and a year later than originally planned. The Chancellor included the fuel finder in her Budget speech, but she failed to mention that it is a continuation of a Conservative policy and avoided saying that the measure was delayed by her own Government. Instead of the Government delaying for a year then, potentially, blaming complexity for not being able to introduce more thorough transparency measures while protecting low-volume providers, can we please have actions, not words? A potential solution would be to create categories of petrol filling stations and to require major retailers to report in more detail. We must ask: why is this out of the Government’s scope?
We are also concerned about the instrument’s timescale. The Under-Secretary of State for Energy Consumers confirmed that guidance and training would be published before the rollout of the whole programme, but this will come as little reassurance to petrol filling stations. Both stations and providers need time to adapt, prepare and comply with these new regulations. It will do little to help them if the guidance is released as the regulations come into force. That will potentially happen if the Government leave this too late. Additional last-minute costs will be passed on to the consumer, which is precisely what this instrument aims to prevent.
The Under-Secretary of State said that the scheme is to be launched at the year end, but the full provisions of this instrument will come into force only on 2 February next year. Can the Minister please confirm that the guidance will come out before the end of the year, given that the Member in the other place was slightly less clear as to which date the guidance will be published by?
Despite these reservations, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition welcome the introduction of this measure that we initiated. It will provide a more competitive market and drive the rate of price increases down. Our aim should be to create a more certain and more competitive market for the consumer, bringing costs down for hard-working people. We very much hope the Government will take our suggestions on board and action them accordingly.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions and in particular the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for his very constructive contribution. As he rightly points out, this proposal originated with the previous Government but, I think, fell at the time of the general election—it had started to go through the House. The present Government have been able to take that original proposal and have some extensive consultations and discussions with industry and various other key actors in this field to make sure that the fuel finder was as streamlined and as effective as it could be. That is the form in which it comes before us today.
In terms of the regulations coming in in February, the aim is to make sure that this proposal comes in by the end of the year but, as the noble Earl will appreciate, there is a large number of technical issues to resolve in order to meet that date. What I can best say today is that there is an aim to do that by the end of the year and we hope that will be possible. I hope the noble Earl will understand that there is a lot of work to get this in place and we hope that will be finished in time for that target date to be achieved.
When the fuel finder was originally introduced, there was some suggestion that availability at the pumps should be included among the things that petrol stations had to provide. However, following substantial consultation and considerations of the practical challenge of reporting fuel unavailability—officials did conduct a thorough analysis—it was decided to postpone that and remove the requirement from the fuel finder scheme. But, as I have emphasised, that is a question of postponing and removing for the time being.
If a number of those really practical difficulties can be resolved, that might be something for the future as far as the scheme is concerned, but what the Government wanted to do was make sure that we could introduce a practically implementable and early actionable scheme so that we could get this running on an open access data arrangement as soon as was conceivably possible. I do, however, understand the noble Earl’s concerns. I happen to have an electric car, so perhaps I am a little outside the considerations in this instrument, but I know the problems of an electric car owner thinking that they have found an electric charge point only to find that someone else has been using it for the past three hours and they cannot get near it. There are measures in the industry to resolve that sort of problem, so this is something worth looking at for the future.
I emphasise that the first three months of those technicalities will be until early May. The CMA’s emphasis, as the enforcer, will be on supporting businesses to comply with the new regime rather than enforcement, as I have said, so there will be a period coming in to make sure that the scheme works well and that everybody is undertaking it properly. This scheme is well founded—I welcome the support that has been given to it by the noble Earl and the party opposite—and I am sure that, with a good wind from everybody in this place, it can be in place as soon as possible, to the benefit of motorists across the country.
Immigration Skills Charge (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Immigration Skills Charge (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 40th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before Parliament on 15 October 2025.
The immigration skills charge was introduced in April 2017. Its aim is to incentivise UK-based employers to take a long-term view of investment and training. It is designed to address historic underinvestment in the training of domestic workers by UK employers and to deter some from turning to immigration as a cheaper alternative. The skills charge is currently paid by employers looking to sponsor skilled workers for visas lasting more than six months; it also applies if they wish to extend the employment for a further limited period. Senior and specialist workers also pay the charge unless they are an EU national coming to work in the UK for less than three years. The increase will not prevent service supply by intra-corporate transferees continuing as it does currently, in line with our international trade commitments.
The charge, which is paid up front by employers, has raised approximately £2.7 billion since it was introduced. That income is providing financial support to help maintain existing skills budgets across the whole of the United Kingdom, which is important for a range of reasons, including ensuring that immigration is not seen as the sole solution to deal with skills shortages. As education and skills are devolved, the income raised is helping to maintain funding levels for each of the devolved nations; it is distributed between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland under the Barnett formula.
These regulations give effect to a government commitment in the immigration White Paper, published on 12 May, to increase the immigration skills charge by 32%. That is in line with inflation and takes into account the period since the charge was introduced, when no increases have been effected. This will mean that, from 16 December 2025— a few days from now—medium and large employers will need to pay £1,320 per person whom they sponsor per year. There will continue to be a reduced rate for small and charitable organisations of £480 per person per year. As I mentioned, the money raised will continue to support skills programmes across the country.
Upskilling workers already here in the UK will also help us fill future jobs in our country. It will reduce the need for businesses and organisations to rely on recruiting international workers. The Government have been clear that the levels of net migration have been too high and must come down.
As is currently the case, there will continue to be exemptions from the charge, such as where an employer is seeking to recruit people into PhD-level occupations; where they are recruiting a person who is switching from the student route; or where the person is being recruited for less than six months. These regulations also make a minor update to the list of exempt occupations to reflect the latest occupational codes from the Office for National Statistics. Crucially, they do not add to or remove any occupations that are currently exempt, but, in some cases, they reflect where occupations have been separated from groups.
We have set out a comprehensive plan to restore order to our broken immigration system. We must ensure that the system strikes the right balance. The immigration skills charge is designed to ensure that employers contribute to our continued investment in skills. These regulations support the Government’s ambition to reduce overall net migration and to aid our resident workforce in finding high-quality jobs through skills training. I commend them to the Grand Committee and beg to move.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest: I am supported by RAMP. Inflationary increases are recognised as an appropriate way to deal with charges of this sort. I will return to the amount and what has been happening since 2017 in a moment, but the core policy intent of the charge remains the same: to encourage employers to look at training resident workers rather than recruiting internationally.
The impact assessment accompanying the regulations suggests that the increase will have only a small disincentive effect, putting off “less than 1%” of sponsorships that would have occurred without the higher charge. The overall package of immigration measures, including the ISC increase, is estimated to reduce net immigration by between 1,000 and 2,000 people per year. I am sure that noble Lords will recognise that this net effect is very small in relative terms as compared to the number of people in this country: it represents about 0.3% of long-term immigration figures.
Although the Government aim to reduce reliance on international recruitment, the job needs are exceeding training provision. In any case, there are the implications of the increasing need for jobs as we face the growing older demographic—a subject to which I will come in a moment. For employers, the ISC is simply a mandatory fee that must be factored into hiring budgets, and there is no direct benefit or service provided in exchange for the outlay; the fee cannot be passed on to the sponsored worker.
For us, a significant point of contention is the application of the increase to the health and social care sector. Increasing the charge for the health and social care sector is a mistake in our view, because this penalises hospitals and care homes attempting to hire desperately needed staff. The increase transfers money from the National Health Service to the Home Office, when GPs, hospitals and hospices desperately need funds. The Government are trying to ensure that the public sector, like the private sector, recruits from the British workforce, but transitioning takes time, and estimates of posts required are far outstripping the provision and recruitment to training opportunities in order to fill those posts.
The ISC rates have not changed since the charge was introduced in 2017. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted that, when asked why the charge had not increased previously, the Home Office responded only that
“there have not been any substantive reviews of the ISC”
and, importantly,
“Ministers had not sought to make changes”.
I am not suggesting that it was the current Minister, but somebody somewhere was asleep on the job. Perhaps the Minister can inform us why that has not happened in the intervening years and why businesses will therefore now be subjected to a large increase because we did not continue with the proper process of increasing with inflation each year.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also considered the Home Office’s replies on plans for future timely reviews of the charge to be “unhelpfully vague”, so it remains for the Minister today, I am afraid, to be encouraged to ensure that the ISC will be kept under regular review to ensure that it retains its real-terms value and to avoid large step changes in the amounts payable in the future.
The SLSC says that the Home Office “did not respond” to it regarding consultation on these increased charges. The SLSC says that, if no consultation was undertaken, it regretted that and suggested that that would continue a trend of “inadequate consultation” on many immigration policies. Can the Minister correct the committee? Alternatively, will he take into account its criticism of what is happening inside the department? The Home Office deemed a formal public consultation unnecessary, arguing that it would be
“disproportionate given the nature of the changes”.
A 32% increase is not a disproportionate amount, so some form of public consultation should have been undertaken.
I have five questions. First, I want to concentrate on the impact upon the health and social care sector and the transfer of money from the NHS. I do not know whether the Government plan to undertake a study of what impact this has on the NHS and our care services, but if they wanted to find out how much cost falls upon the National Health Service, it would be difficult to track down. The Budget produced last week—these are documents from the Budget—says that, between now and March, £48 million will be raised from these charges. In the year from next April, it will be £180 million. Altogether, that is a substantial amount of money in the next 15 or 16 months. It is necessary to understand how much of that charge falls upon the National Health Service, because taking with one hand and giving with another is not a way of ensuring that we get appropriate transparency of public funding. The documents produced for the Budget say that the £180 million next year will be offset by increased DEL expenditure, but we have just heard from the Minister that the DEL expenditure is going on training.
My main question is: if they are putting this money towards training, to achieve the objective set out by the Minister at the outset, getting domestic employment rather than none, it is important to understand how much of that charge is being taken from the NHS budget. According to the statement just made by the Minister, it is certainly not transferred back into the National Health Service, as far as we can understand it. This is really a question about how we can measure that impact and whether, if there is a negative impact, the Government will try to reduce the rate for the National Health Service to the charitable small organisation rate, so that we can at least minimise the hit upon that service.
The impact assessment estimates that the increase in the immigration skills charge will deter less than 1% of sponsorships. Does the Minister believe that this modest impact is sufficient to address the stated objective that levels of net migration—I am talking here about illegal migration for work—have been too high and must continue to come down? That impact is quite small compared with what I suspect the need is.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations and setting out their purpose. These regulations increase the immigration skills charge, or ISC, for the first time since its introduction eight years ago in 2017, and they align it with inflation. This is a sensible measure, and we are pleased to support it.
As has been noted, the ISC raises revenue to support skills funding, and, in the words of the Migration Advisory Committee, it also encourages employers to invest in the development of domestic workers rather than relying on migrant labour. We welcome the Government’s recognition that the charge should reflect the rising cost of living and their continued focus on linking skills, migration and wider labour market policies. By increasing the charge by 32%, it is estimated that the ISC could raise an additional £180 million. This could contribute to funding skills development in priority sectors and, over the medium term, reduce reliance on migration.
We also observe that, while this measure is straightforward and proportionate, it is important to consider its impact on businesses. We recognise that the charge is lower for certain sponsors, such as charities and small businesses, which helps to mitigate any disproportionate effect. None the less, we encourage the Government to continue monitoring the balance between supporting skills investment and avoiding undue burdens on employers.
We also take the opportunity to underline that the original purpose of the ISC is to support skills development in the United Kingdom. While the income raised is not hypothecated, it does contribute to maintaining the Department for Education’s skills budgets, which, in turn, supports apprenticeships and workforce development. We hope that the Government will continue to ensure that this connection between the charge and skills investment remains robust and effective.
In conclusion, we welcome the increase in the immigration skills charge. We recognise its potential to help upskill the domestic workforce and encourage employers to invest in British talent, while also contributing to the broader objective of aligning skills and migration policy.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for his broad support for the measure before the Committee. I am also grateful for his questions, which I hope to answer in line with the questions from the noble Lord, Lord German.
As noble Lords will be aware, the immigration skills charge has not been increased since it was introduced in 2017. The noble Lord, Lord German, asked me why that was the case. Had I been the Minister then, it would have been increased on an annual basis, but that was not the case. Now that I am the Minister, it is being increased. I hope that that is helpful.
The charge has risen by 32% because that is the rise in the consumer prices index between 2017 and March 2025. That is a fair increase to make in these times, in order to achieve the Government’s objectives, which remain to invest in training and to ensure that we reduce net migration.
Both noble Lords asked whether this will be kept under regular review. The answer is yes. I am responsible overall for examining budget matters with the Home Secretary in the Home Office. I will make sure that, as part of our annual reviews, this charge is looked at—along with a range of other charges for a range of other services. It is important that we undertake that.
Noble Lords asked whether there was consultation on this matter. The skills package, which was welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the measures on raising the charge price were trailed in the immigration White Paper, which was subject to widespread consultation; it has also had much debate and discussion in both Houses, as well as among the public at large. I accept that there has been no specific consultation on the immigration charge itself, but the trail was put in the immigration White Paper. As noble Lords know, the Explanatory Memorandum says that, when the immigration White Paper was published, the devolved Governments were invited to discuss and contribute to it. It is a tax, and therefore a full regulatory impact assessment is not required.
The noble Lord, Lord German, asked about the National Health Service. First—this also goes to the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst—the Home Office is the point of collection for money, but that money is given to the Treasury, which disburses it elsewhere. As ever, the Treasury remains all-seeing and all-powerful in all matters; we are simply the conduit for such funds to be passed on in due course.
Following another question from by the noble Lord, Lord German, it is difficult to give a figure on the costs to the National Health Service because of a range of factors. They include: which organisations sponsor a worker; whether they are large or small organisations, in the health service context; whether the people being recruited are exempt, such as those with PhD roles and students; and how many people are ultimately recruited. Again, I have overview of this, so I will look at that and at the impact on the health service as a whole.
We keep all immigration routes under regular review, including charges. We also keep under review—in answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst—the impact on businesses.
As I hope both noble Lords have recognised, the broad purpose of this instrument is to encourage businesses, first and foremost, to look at training a UK-based workforce, recruiting a UK-based workforce, and recruiting workers from overseas only if they have a shortfall or feel that such workers bring specific skills. If they bring a set of specific skills or are on the exempt list, there will be no charge. If they are not on the exempt list and do not bring specific skills, there will be a cost to the employer, but, again, the employer must decide whether that is a cost worth bearing because they are recruiting individuals who help make them productive and efficient.
I hope that, with those remarks, I have answered both noble Lords’ concerns; I welcome their views. I commend these regulations to the Grand Committee.
Unmanned Aircraft (Offences and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Grand Committee do consider the Unmanned Aircraft (Offences and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 40th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, these draft regulations were laid before the House on 21 October 2025. They set out criminal offences for breaching regulatory requirements relating to the operation of unmanned or uncrewed aircraft systems—referred to henceforth as UAS—which includes drones and model aircraft. These regulations will ensure that the regulatory requirements remain enforceable and that operators and pilots of UAS remain subject to the appropriate penalties where they fail to comply with the regulatory framework.
Noble Lords will wish to know that the draft regulations have been scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments did not have any comments on them and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee had one comment. It asked how awareness and understanding of the regulations will be improved. My department has since responded to this by advising that the Civil Aviation Authority, or CAA, has launched a communications campaign to improve the awareness of the regulations. Activities include emailing all registered drone users—roughly 500,000 operators—promotion via Google advertisements, issuing communication on social media with paid promotion to reach specific audiences, and using other communication channels to spread awareness.
I will provide some background information about these regulations. My department commissioned the Civil Aviation Authority to review the regulatory framework for UAS. It carried out a public consultation for this purpose. The consultation set out proposals to simplify regulation, improve education for users of UAS, improve safety and security, and consider options for support for the sector during the transition to the new regulations. The CAA worked closely with government, industry and law enforcement partners in developing a number of policy recommendations.
Together with the regulatory updates made through the Unmanned Aircraft (Amendment) Regulations 2025, laid in this House on 21 October, this instrument will implement the CAA’s recommendations, supporting a more future-proof, enforceable and robust UAS regulatory regime in the United Kingdom. The draft regulations will revoke and replace existing offences for breaches of the UAS regulatory requirements, ensuring that the offences remain enforceable and facilitating the enforcement of new requirements. The instrument also makes consequential amendments to the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 and the Police Act 1997.
The draft regulations set out criminal offences for breaching regulatory requirements relating to the operation of UAS as set out in the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 on the rules and procedures for the operation of unmanned aircraft, which I will refer to as the “implementing regulation” for short. This is an EU regulation that was directly applicable in the UK prior to exiting the European Union. Following that exit, the regulation was retained in an amended form in the UK and has subsequently been further amended. This now forms part of assimilated law in the United Kingdom.
The implementing regulation is amended by the Unmanned Aircraft (Amendment) Regulations 2025 to update the rules on UAS, simplifying the regulatory regime and ensuring a safe and secure airspace. The implementing regulation establishes a framework for the operation of UAS to ensure that they are used safely and regulated proportionately. In this framework are three risk-based categories of operation: “open”, or low-risk operations; “specific”, or those with a greater level of risk than the open category; and “certified”, or the highest-risk operations. The implementing regulation, among other things, includes requirements for registration and competency testing. It also provides for model aircraft operations in the framework of model aircraft clubs and associations under a bespoke authorisation.
The offences in this instrument largely replicate offences currently set out in the Air Navigation Order 2016, which I will refer to as the ANO 2016 for short. The draft regulations also provide for penalties for these offences, largely replicating the penalty provisions in the ANO 2016. Owing to the amendments made by the Unmanned Aircraft (Amendment) Regulations 2025, it is necessary to revise the offences by removing them from the ANO 2016 and remaking them in this instrument.
These regulations will ensure that the rules for drones and model aircrafts are safer and clearer for current and future use. I commend them to the Grand Committee.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am flattered that I am considered such a threat, on my own, to the passage of government legislation that I have to be faced by not only a Minister but two Whips at the same time, in addition to a team of very helpful civil servants at the back.
Broadly speaking, we support these regulations. It is a curiosity both that we support this statutory instrument and that the regulations are made under the negative procedure, so we do not actually see them. However, the criminal offences flowing from the regulations are made under the affirmative process, so we see only part of the process here in front of us today. I am sure that it is correct but it seems slightly curious, because it might have been better for everyone if the whole picture had been presented and we understood both the regulations and the criminal offences that flowed from them as part of one sweep. However, in general, we are in favour of them.
I will take up the point about communicating these very detailed regulations to those who might be caught by them, especially to those who might be caught by the criminal offences that flow from them. The Minister referred to that in his opening remarks. Surely it is the case that drones and unmanned flying things are becoming ever more popular and more widespread—and not only in the leisure sector but, I hope, in the commercial sector, because they have the potential to add great efficiency in the world of logistics, thereby benefiting us all and helping the economy to run more smoothly and prosperously. Therefore, it is terribly important that these regulations are not overly onerous, that it is possible to comply with them without being an expert or having a lawyer at your side everywhere you go, and that they are properly communicated.
Although I hear that the Civil Aviation Authority has written an email to 500,000 people, I hope that the Government do not feel that their responsibility for communicating these regulations and their consequences is discharged simply by that. This is not a responsibility that they can offload on to the CAA and imagine that everything has been done. It is the Government’s responsibility; they are the lawmakers, so to speak, and the enforcers of the law, so they need to make sure that this is being done properly, repeatedly and extensively, so that those who are affected understand it.
The only other point I will make is that this is an amendment to EU-assimilated legislation. It departs from that legislation to some extent, but in a very modest way as I understand it. It is part of a pattern whereby the Government are taking existing EU law and, to a large extent, cutting and pasting it into British law. Not only is that unimaginative but it fails to take advantage of the tremendous opportunities that Brexit has created for our economic growth, including the opportunities we have for freer trade, and so forth, around the world.
I hope that, when the Government come back with similar regulations in similar circumstances in the future, we have that imagination and sense of purpose that shows that we have regulations that work for Britain and not simply for Romania or whatever other country may have been involved in drafting those from which these are essentially derived. Otherwise, with those caveats, we tend to support this statutory instrument.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his consideration of these draft regulations. I will respond to the two substantive points he made.
He is absolutely right that this needs to be communicated properly, because the use of drones—both for recreational purposes and, increasingly, for commercial purposes—is becoming very important in the United Kingdom. I draw the noble Lord’s attention to some further details on the consultation in 2023 and 2024, which received 3,500 responses. The respondents included recreational and commercial UAS operators, manufacturers, service providers and aviation sector organisations. We believe that that is a considerable response that shows the interest in the effective and lawful use of drones. The consultation tested support for a broad package of proposals, and the feedback to the consultation formed the basis for the final policy recommendations.
The noble Lord is absolutely right that it is important that drone users are very much aware of the rules and regulations for their use. I said what activity had been carried out by the Government, but, in support of that, I add that the Civil Aviation Authority also updated the drone code and flyer ID test on 22 September this year. The reason was that that was ahead of the peak renewals period for pilots needing to retake the online test. That seems to be a good thing to do because someone taking the online test should be aware of the up-to-date regulations and the penalties for failing to comply with them.
On the alignment with the European Union, I modestly disagree with the noble Lord opposite, because the regulation does diverge from the European Union, but only where it is important to do so—either to improve our national security or to use our limited airspace better. The divergence is there to benefit the UK overall and to support our ambition to lead globally on UAS regulation, while still enabling our British aviation industry to trade internationally with other nations. With that, I commend these regulations to the Grand Committee.
Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (Permitted Disclosures) Regulations 2025
Lord Lemos
That the Grand Committee do consider the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (Permitted Disclosures) Regulations 2025.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, the draft instrument before us seeks to amend Section 17 of the Victims and Prisoners Act. Section 17 was brought into force on 1 October this year. This has been debated in the House of Commons and is now to be debated in this House. Section 17 establishes in statute that confidentiality clauses, also known as non-disclosure agreements or, commonly, NDAs, cannot be enforced where they attempt to prevent victims reporting a crime to the police. In addition, Section 17 broadens this protection to include certain other disclosures necessary for victims to obtain confidential advice and support essential to coping with and recovering from the effects of crime.
With Section 17 now in force, NDAs entered into on or after 1 October 2025 will be legally unenforceable to the extent that they seek to restrict such disclosures. This means that anyone who is a victim of crime, or reasonably believes they are, may disclose relevant information to specific individuals or organisations for certain purposes related to the criminal conduct they have suffered. This applies notwithstanding the terms of any NDA they have signed.
Under the legislation, victims may make disclosures to the following bodies: the police or other bodies that investigate or prosecute crime; qualified lawyers; regulated professionals, including regulated healthcare professionals; victim support services; regulators; and a victim’s close family. These are known as the “permitted disclosures”. However, disclosures are to be permitted only if made for the relevant purpose specified in the legislation for each body. Disclosures for other purposes or to bodies not listed in the legislation are not permitted, and the NDA may remain enforceable in those cases.
To ensure that Section 17 fully achieves its policy aim, this instrument introduces three changes to it. First, it adds the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, known as the authority, to the list of bodies to which victims can make a permitted disclosure. This is for the purpose of pursuing a claim under the taxpayer-funded compensation schemes it administers. These are the criminal injuries compensation scheme 2012 and the victims of overseas terrorism compensation scheme 2012. Victims sometimes feel unable to tell the authority about settlement agreements they have signed related to the criminal conduct they are seeking compensation for. This hesitation often stems from confidentiality clauses in those agreements. Such reluctance can make it harder for the authority to determine eligibility and may affect the amount of compensation awarded. Adding the authority to the list of permitted disclosures ensures that victims can provide relevant information to the authority for the purpose of a compensation claim related to the criminal conduct they have experienced without fear of breaching an NDA.
Secondly, the instrument will amend Section 17 to allow disclosures to courts and tribunals for the purpose of issuing or pursuing proceedings in relation to a decision by the authority on such claims. This makes clear that appropriate disclosures are permitted throughout the entire legal process for pursuing compensation from the schemes the authority administers. This includes the small number of cases where proceedings are pursued in relation to a compensation decision. It is essential that courts and tribunals have access to all relevant information, and this amendment makes clear that an NDA cannot be enforced against a victim sharing certain information with courts and tribunals in this context.
Thirdly, this instrument amends the definition of a “qualified lawyer” in Section 17(6) of the 2024 Act. Currently, under Section 17 victims may disclose information to a qualified lawyer for the purpose of seeking legal advice about the criminal conduct. However, the definition does not include registered foreign lawyers—those who qualified outside England and Wales but are registered with and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. These lawyers can own and manage authorised law firms and, in certain circumstances, provide reserved legal services.
This change ensures that victims can make disclosures to any regulated lawyer in England and Wales for the purpose of seeking legal advice about criminal conduct without needing to confirm where their lawyer qualified. It removes unnecessary obstacles and ensures that victims can seek legal advice without fear of legal action under an NDA. If this instrument is approved, the changes will apply to NDAs entered into on or after the date on which it comes into force.
As noble Lords may know, the Government are seeking to make further changes to NDAs through an amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill tabled on Report in the Commons in October. This amendment will void NDAs to the extent that they seek to prevent a victim of crime, or someone who reasonably believes that they are a victim, speaking about criminal conduct to anyone for any purpose. This measure complements an amendment to the Employment Rights Bill that offers similar protections for workers in relation to certain work-related harassment or discrimination.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument, which concerns an issue of real importance to victims of crime and to the integrity of our justice system. These regulations, made under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, clarify and expand protections for victims who have signed non-disclosure agreements, otherwise known as NDAs.
We on this side of the Committee are proud to have brought forward the 2024 Act, and, crucially, to have created a mechanism to extend the list of bodies to whom disclosures may be made without fear of breaching an NDA. Today’s instrument makes use of that mechanism in a sensible and necessary way.
It is already well established that no NDA can prevent someone reporting a crime to the police, yet too often such agreements have a chilling effect. Victims may be unsure whether they can speak to a support service, a lawyer or even a close family member. Section 17 of the 2024 Act was intended to bring clarity and to void NDAs to the extent that they purport to prevent victims, or those who reasonably believe that they are victims, from speaking to specified bodies about criminal conduct.
These regulations go further. They add the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to the list of permitted recipients and ensure that victims can disclose information needed for a compensation claim without risking legal consequences. No victim should face a choice between honouring an NDA and seeking redress for harm suffered. They also permit disclosure to a court or tribunal when challenging a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. That is a necessary provision for meaningful challenges.
The misuse of NDAs to obscure criminality has long troubled campaigners, lawyers and victims’ organisations. These regulations close important loopholes. They will ensure that victims can speak to the compensation authority, the courts and regulated lawyers, whether domestic or foreign, without the shadow of a legal threat. In conclusion, these are proportionate and sensible measures that strengthen the statutory framework that we established in 2024.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for his support for these measures and his contribution to this debate. As I have said, I believe that the changes we are seeking to make through this instrument will help to ensure that Section 17 comprehensively achieves the policy aim, and I therefore commend this draft instrument to the Committee.
Children: Age Verification and Virtual Private Networks
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Benjamin
To ask His Majesty’s Government what measures have been put in place to prevent children using virtual private networks to avoid age verification to access harmful material online.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
The Online Safety Act requires services to use highly effective age assurance to prevent children in the UK from encountering harmful content. Ofcom’s guidance makes it clear that age assurance must be robust to prevent circumvention. Services must also take steps to mitigate against circumvention methods that are easily accessible to children. Providers that do not comply with their child safety duties by deliberately promoting the use of VPNs could face enforcement action under the Act.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, Childnet has discovered an increase in the use of VPNs by children in the last three months. While younger children are deterred by age-verification checks, teenagers actively seek out and share methods to circumvent them. Many minors are downloading free VPN applications that often monetise user data and expose devices to viruses. Also, by relocating to countries with few or no internet safety laws, children can be exposed to more extreme, illegal or unmoderated content. Perhaps children under 16 should be banned from social media altogether. What action will the Government take to address the increasing number of children using VPNs? Will they instruct Ofcom to follow the lead of the Australian e-safety commissioner and require that digital services check VPN traffic for technical and behavioural red flags that suggest a user in the UK may be a child? Let us act sooner rather than later.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
We recognise the international efforts to better protect children online, including in Australia, and we are working with the Australian Government to understand the impact of their policies, including that one. There is currently limited evidence on how many children use VPNs, and the Government are addressing this evidence gap. We welcome any further evidence in this area, such as that quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, to complement our understanding. The Government will ensure that we act where we need to, as we have seen in other areas, and that future interventions are proportionate and evidence based.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, this is a complex and difficult area. I often praise the work of Ofcom in implementing the Online Safety Act, and everyone thinks I am applying to be the chair of Ofcom: I am not. I do however think that the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, is a very interesting one. A lot of research needs to be done, and it would be interesting to see the VPN research. There is another huge gap in researching the technology used in our schools by edtech providers, and in providing some kind of quality framework to ensure that this technology—how it collects our children’s data, and so on—is at least transparent and known about, so that requisite action can be taken in the future.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very good point about the need for accurate, evidence-based research that allows us to take the right action. As noble Lords may have seen, Ofcom published a report this morning setting out a number of methods for researching, for example, the use of VPNs by children. We should also examine technological solutions, as well as advice and guidance, and the role of Ofcom in enforcing the requirements of the Online Safety Act.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, while it is of course important that platforms maintain the standards Ofcom has set for them, does my noble friend the Minister also agree that parents have an important role to play in all of this to make sure that the parental controls on devices are implemented in full? Is there not more of a role for digital literacy for adults, to make sure they are keeping a proper eye on what their children are doing and that they comply with the regulations?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very important point about the role of all of us in using the technology available to protect ourselves and to equip ourselves to be safe online, and for parents to do that in respect of their children. It is also very important that the Government support literacy campaigns, both for digital skills and online safety. The Government will play their part in supporting parents in that domain.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
On the Radio 4 “Today” programme this morning, Ofcom admitted that none of the three fines levied so far has been paid. Is it not right that Ofcom should be encouraged to take much stronger enforcement action against those who do not pay by making it clear that within a very short time, they will lose their right to appear on any screen in the United Kingdom unless their enforcement is fit for purpose?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I think we all agree that enforcement is an incredibly important part of the Online Safety Act. Ofcom’s enforcement powers include fines of up to £18 million, or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue. The Government have been very clear to Ofcom that it has our full backing to take enforcement action. We are standing right behind it to do that as effectively as possible.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the Minister says that the Government are standing right behind Ofcom. Many of us very strongly support Ofcom’s actions in fining those such as the AVS Group for not observing proper age checks on their sites. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, indicates, there is no point in having fines unless we have proper enforcement. What resource are the Government satisfied Ofcom has to pursue enforcement?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
We have ensured that Ofcom is resourced to implement its online safety duties and have increased the amount available to it year on year; its budget is, I think, £92 million to support all its Online Safety Act responsibilities. We believe that it has the resources it needs to effectively implement and supervise the Online Safety Act.
Lord Markham (Con)
Following on from noble Lords’ comments, to me it is quite clear that Ofcom has a lot of the powers necessary to restrict underage usage but seems to lack the will. That was abundantly clear from the Radio 4 interview this morning. My experience in such matters is that the Ofcom leadership really needs to understand the strength of feeling in this House and Parliament as a whole—that they need to be more robust in enforcement. Will the Minister agree to arrange a meeting with the Ofcom CEO and key Lords here today so that we can fully hold Ofcom to account on this?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point about the strength of feeling here, which was replicated in the discussions yesterday in the Select Committee. I am very happy to take forward his request to set up a meeting with Ofcom.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, given the Church of England’s role in education, I welcome the age limits introduced for harmful material sites. However, it is very hard to police the use of VPNs, and thus education is likely to be needed in a great deal of cases, as well as enforcement. What role will Ofsted’s new framework play in ensuring that statutory relationships, sex and health education is delivered effectively with regard to this matter?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for that question. The importance of digital skills and media literacy was highlighted as a recommended area in the curriculum and assessment review, and we will be responding to that. On his point about relationships education, I will have to come back to him.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I commend my Government for the action they are taking on the Online Safety Act. It is a bit rich for the party opposite, who dragged their heels for several years, to talk about the implementation of this. I do not know how many noble Lords here would know how to download a VPN and then choose a country which has no age-verification rules. It is clear that there are teenagers who can do this. Is Ofcom researching this? Is it assessing these risks and will it be bringing forward solutions?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend highlights the complexity of some of these issues and the importance of understanding exactly the use of VPNs by adults and children, and whether they are indeed being used to circumvent the age-assurance aspects of the Online Safety Act. Ofcom, as it set out this morning, is researching the use of VPNs in many areas, particularly their use by children of all ages—older as well as younger children.
Welfare of Domestic Animals
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Black of Brentwood
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to promote the welfare of domestic animals, including prohibiting the use of electric shock collars.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government remain committed to improving the welfare of domestic animals. We are considering the available evidence around hand-controlled electronic collars and their effects on animal welfare, and we will outline our next steps in due course. More broadly, we are developing an overarching approach to animal welfare and have been engaging with key welfare organisations as part of this work. The Prime Minister has committed to publish an animal welfare strategy by the end of this year.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
I know the noble Baroness will agree that the use of electronic shock collars on cats and dogs is cruel and unnecessary, causing pain, fear and stress in animals we should be caring for. Could she therefore explain why they have not yet been banned, a full seven years after a consultation on their use in 2018 showed strong support in favour of a ban from those with animal welfare expertise? The then Government, with strong backing from the noble Baroness, were fully supportive, but draft regulations brought to this House in 2023 moved with glacial speed and timed out before the election. Since then, nothing has happened, and animals are still being caused pain and suffering. I know Whitehall can move with great speed when it wants to, but is not seven years unacceptable? Can the noble Baroness, who I know is a great supporter of animal welfare and a proud cat owner, tell us when these regulations will reappear?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right that I have been supporting this for some time, and that seven years is an awfully long time. That is why, when I came into my position as Animal Welfare Minister, I wanted to properly review all the animal welfare legislation that had been sitting there, left over from the previous Government. It is why we have been pulling together this overarching animal welfare strategy. We are looking at the available evidence on electronic shock collars. We are looking at the potential impacts on animal welfare, livestock management, dog training, and owner responsibility, which is an important part of it. So, as I say, keep a watching eye out for the animal welfare strategy.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the legislation on electric shock collars was written, scrutinised and approved by this House in June 2023. It lapsed on a technicality, not due to any flaw. Defra’s own research concluded that these devices cause fear and harm, offering no welfare-compatible training benefit. The Government can deliver a swift animal welfare win by immediately relaying this instrument. Will the Minister undertake to do this, instead of waiting?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I said, when I came into my role as Animal Welfare Minister, I asked for a list of animal welfare legislation and consultations, and all sorts of other things that had been undertaken by the previous Government. The list was huge, so my job was to look at where I felt we could make the best improvements for animal welfare in this country. That is why I commissioned an animal welfare strategy, which looks at what makes the biggest difference to animal welfare. If the noble Baroness looks out for that strategy, which will be published very soon, she might find many things that she will want to support.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, the breeding of dogs with extreme conformations for purely fashionable reasons causes significant, and potentially lifelong, ill health. It is illegal under the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) Regulations. A new initiative—the innate health assessment tool—has been lodged to help owners, breeders, trading standards officers, vets and others to avoid this practice in dogs. However, we are now increasingly seeing cats bred with conformations that are seriously deleterious to their health and that of their offspring. Will His Majesty’s Government amend the current regulations to include cats and to encourage the development of innate health assessment tools, or similar tools, to help reduce and avoid these abhorrent breeding practices in cats?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise this issue. As he said, there has been quite a lot of interest and work done on dogs in this area. As a result of the concerns that have been continually and increasingly raised around the health and conformation of cats bred for sale as pets, the Government commissioned the Animal Welfare Committee to produce a report looking at the welfare implications, exactly as the noble Lord talked about. Those recommendations are now with the Government and we are carefully looking at them.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, might I suggest to the Minister, in the same way as I did to her Conservative predecessors when I was trying to introduce legislation to ban the import of hunting trophies, that there is nothing I am aware of in the Representation of the People Act that prevents Governments undertaking popular policies? So could she overcome the institutional lethargy of Whitehall in this and other animal welfare issues and just get on with it?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I think the noble Lord is probably aware that there are an awful lot of popular policies that everybody would like to see put forward immediately, which is why I wanted to spend time on getting an animal welfare strategy that actually looked right across the board at what was going to make the biggest difference for animal welfare and at different bits of legislation that were much more achievable. So again, I say to the noble Lord, as I have said to others: keep a watching eye out for the animal welfare strategy.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood for raising this Question. As he said, the House did pass the last Government’s banning regulations in 2023, but they did not go through the Commons. I welcome the fact that the Government are considering all the evidence on this. As she knows, the British Veterinary Association and many dog trainers say that positive incentives are far better than shock treatment. However, many farmers say it is essential for sheepdog training, although that great sheepdog country, Wales, has banned it since 2010 without any difficulties. I suspect that I am in the same boat as the noble Baroness. If someone tried to put an electric shock collar on my cat, they themselves would get an awful shock. Can the Minister give any indication of when a conclusion may be reached in this evidence-gathering exercise? If Defra does decide to proceed with a ban, could we expect regulations similar to those we introduced in 2023?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I mentioned earlier, we are considering all the evidence around this. It is something that we want to consider how to bring forward. As the noble Lord and others have said, we supported the work that the previous Government did on this. I cannot give a date, but we are looking at the evidence now, and obviously we want to move forward.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her continued support on animal welfare in the UK. I declare my interest as someone who works in the veterinary industry. I hope the Minister has seen the recent report from the APPG on Animal Welfare regarding animal welfare enforcement. What are the Government doing to improve enforcement of animal welfare laws and to support local authorities and charities in protecting domestic pets from cruelty? Will she look in particular at reducing the time that local authorities have to hold seized pets?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord asks a really important question around enforcement. As I have said more than once in this House, what is the point of having laws if they are not enforced? Local authorities, the Animal and Plant Health Agency and the police do have powers to investigate allegations of animal cruelty, including breaches of any disqualification orders. The Animal Welfare Act of 2006 also enables the courts to ban offenders from owning or keeping animals following a conviction. If anyone has any concerns, they should of course report them to the police. Clearly, any legislation where the enforcement is not working needs to be looked at, and I am more than happy to do so.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us were in Downing Street yesterday, and there was a cat wandering around in Downing Street. Can she make sure that the owners are acting responsibly?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Interestingly, I was in Downing Street yesterday as well, and I saw said cat. I foolishly attempted to take a photograph of it and was told that it was not acceptable and would not help the animal’s welfare.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I am much concerned by a piece of legislation passed by this Government that would ban the introduction of animals with mutilations that would be illegal if carried out in this country. We have the Act, but it depends on regulations. When may we see those regulations—in seven years’ time?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises an important point. This relates to ear cropping, for example, and so on and so forth, which was in the Bill that got Royal Assent earlier this week. I cannot give the noble Baroness a date, but I can assure her that we are very keen to move as quickly as we possibly can to bring in the statutory instrument to allow this to actually happen as she says.
Data Adequacy Status: EU Data Protection Standards
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the European Commission’s decision of 24 June to extend the United Kingdom’s data adequacy status until 27 December; and what steps they are taking to ensure that the United Kingdom’s new Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 maintains alignment with the EU data protection standards needed for a future adequacy agreement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government welcomed the publication of the European Commission’s draft adequacy decisions in July, which concluded that the UK continues to provide an essentially equivalent level of data protection. The EU’s six-month extension allowed the Commission to consider the reforms made by the Data (Use and Access) Act. I look forward to the successful completion of the adoption process ahead of the 27 December deadline this year.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased with that reply from the Minister. What I am mostly concerned about is the loss of the provisions relating to law enforcement, particularly the real-time exchange of information, on which our intelligence authorities and police authorities have historically relied. That is no longer available to us; in what is undoubtedly a very dangerous world, surely that is a priority for the discussions that will take place now and in the future on the whole question of data adequacy with our European neighbours.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. He brings a great deal of experience over the years in many areas of data protection legislation, anti-money laundering and the security side. Since the UK and EU leaders’ summit on 19 May, we have been working with the EU to increase the safety and security of UK and EU citizens, to respond to shared threats, and to support police investigations, including through enhanced data exchange. We continue to work and meet closely with the EU on these matters.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the Government are trying to hit a moving target, as far as I can see. The EU is adopting a new digital omnibus, which will change EU GDPR. How confident are the Government about being able to get a decision from the EU in time?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
To take that question in two parts, we are confident about the EU’s scrutiny of our legislation. The Commission has started its review and published the report that I mentioned in July. The European Data Protection Board published a non-legally binding opinion on its draft decision on 20 October. We are confident that a member state vote will take place ahead of the 27 December deadline. The EU’s proposals to change its data protection framework have only recently been published. We will have a look at the details of those changes as and when they become clear and are confirmed.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, related to data security is superintelligent AI. Many recent reports have suggested that this is a huge threat to our global security. Are we discussing this with the EU and other international partners to try to mitigate some of the potential damage that could be caused by it?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
We continue to look at all potential AI threats and are immensely assisted in this by the work of the AI Security Institute, which has deepened our understanding of critical security threats posed by all sorts of frontier AI and the type that the noble Lord mentioned. We continue to talk about this to international partners.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, this is not just about legal frameworks; what is also important is the physical security of some of the data structures. Are we in discussions with other European partners, in particular with Ireland, to ensure that their undersea cables are secure, not just undersea but when they enter the mainland?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that there are risks to undersea cables. I shall have to come back to her on the precise discussions that we have had with Ireland, as I am not completely up to speed with those, but it is something that we are very well aware of in general. We have taken forward a lot of discussions with industry and others about it.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, when it comes to data adequacy, the Government are, of course, aware of a report from the UK Statistics Authority that said:
“Quality problems have manifested into published errors, delays, and de-accreditation of official statistics”.
That is pretty damning stuff. Can the Minister tell us what is going to be done now to improve the situation? Flying blind is surely really rather dangerous in the present world circumstances, particularly for this Government.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I think about the adequacy of the Office for National Statistics and some of the information that it provides, which we all rely on. In terms of the particular programme of enhancement, I shall need to come back to him on that point to set out what is being done in that area.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, if, as the Minister says, this is such an important matter, why did it not merit a single mention in the Chancellor’s speech on the Budget?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
On the issue of data adequacy agreements with the EU, I think we are proceeding quite adequately in terms of the process of it scrutinising our data protection regulations. We are confident that the 27 December deadline will be met.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
Is there a relationship here with concerns over IP and copyright, because our rules for data reuse are relevant to alignment with the EU?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Earl asks a very interesting question but one which I am afraid, again, I am unable to give him any deep answer on. I shall have to revert to him on IP in particular.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, in view of the high stakes for UK services in digital trade with the 27 December deadline fast approaching, will the Government publish the adequacy risk assessment and correspondence that they have shared with the Commission, redacted where necessary, so that Parliament and stakeholders can see how they have satisfied themselves that the Data (Use and Access) Act is not put at risk?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My understanding is that there is a lot of to and fro, and many requests between the EU and UK of a very technical nature to allow the European Commission to make its judgment. Quite a lot of those have been published already, in the European Commission report and in the European Data Protection Board’s opinion. The process by which this is set out is already transparent and clear.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, on the assumption that we get approval on 27 December, will my noble friend the Minister move quickly to make sure, as per the economic reset with the EU, that we reduce trade barriers and boost economic growth, which has been held back in this country by Brexit for far too long?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend is right that the importance of digital trade to the UK and its exposure to the EU is a very significant part of our digital trade agreement, as are the relationships that underpin this. As a testament to the way in which the reset is happening, we welcome the state visit of the German President here today.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, to follow up on what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said to the Minister, digital trade is so important. The previous Government led the way with digital trade agreements, particularly with countries such as Singapore. As chair of the UK-ASEAN Business Council, I see how important these digital trade agreements are and how the UK leads the way as a member of the CPTPP and an observer at ASEAN. I hope that the Minister will keep her nerve as we start to reset our relationship with our largest trading partner, just 20 miles across the channel—the EU.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
That is a very good point. I was able to discuss with my Malaysian counterpart the potential for a digital trade agreement when I was in Kuala Lumpur earlier this year. I very much hope that we can progress that to promote digital trade—and likewise with the EU. I assure the noble Lord that the Government are working extremely actively to progress the EU reset.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is this not just another example of the disaster of Brexit, which was spelled out, in all places, in the Telegraph a couple of weeks ago, demonstrating the damage that has been done to the country? Do we not need to speed up our relations and discussions to get back to some sensible agreement with our main trading partner in Europe?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend is right about the importance of making swift progress to reset the relationship to promote trade and get all the agreements in place under the EU reset, which goes from everything from energy to defence and security—all sorts of areas where we can make real progress to support the UK economy.
UK Citizens in Venezuela
Baroness Rawlings
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure the safety of UK citizens currently in Venezuela.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Rawlings, and at her request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the FCDO continues to advise against all but essential travel to Venezuela. The safety of British nationals abroad is the FCDO’s overriding concern when determining travel advice, which remains under regular review to ensure that it reflects our latest assessment of risks to British nationals. The FCDO has been clear that consular support available to British nationals in Venezuela is limited, but we continue to support a peaceful, negotiated transition in Venezuela.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
In thanking the Minister for her reply, may I press a little on the wider region and ask whether this advice and possible support will be given to British nationals in the overseas territories in the Caribbean, for example? Further, does the FCDO have any plans to close our embassy in Venezuela, as I understand other European countries have already done?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Our obligations to those in overseas territories are very different, and they are clearly prioritised in circumstances when disasters kick in. We have very limited diplomatic relations with Venezuela; at the moment, we have a chargé in Caracas. At this stage, we do not plan to withdraw that, but we are keeping a very close eye. I have spoken to the team there on many occasions, and what they are doing is still of value and their safety is assured. As long as this is the case, I do not see us withdrawing it immediately. Clearly, given the changing situation, we are keeping it under review.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, it is very clear that our Government are nervous about directly criticising Trump. It is undeniable that the extrajudicial killings he has ordered in blowing up small boats off the coast of Venezuela are a grave violation of international law. Does the Minister agree that the notorious double strike that we heard so much about in September, which saw two people murdered while clinging to a boat, should be and must be thoroughly condemned?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am not here to second-guess legal advice or the situation in regard to any specific incident in the Caribbean. What the US does with regard to Venezuela and its position on its activities in the Caribbean are clearly a matter for the US.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the 51 Venezuelans who are on our sanctions list for their role in undermining democracy and human rights remain sanctioned? Will she say whether we are considering imposing sanctions on those who have been involved in the cartels in the illegal smuggling of drugs—many of them lethal—not just into the United States but into Europe and this country too?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord knows that I am not going to talk about sanctions or whether we are about to lift or impose them, but it is absolutely true that Europe is one of the biggest markets for narcotics coming out of Latin America and central America specifically. The demand for narcotics in this country is causing misery, despair and the death of children, among others, in that part of the world.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, even though the Maduro Government there may be authoritarian and corrupt, the extrajudicial killings are not justified. Are we confident that British intelligence has not been used to facilitate those? How is military action against Venezuela consistent with forcing a peace settlement in Ukraine? If there is military action, what steps can be taken to protect all citizens there, including the 7,000 from the UK?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I can tell the noble Lord that the UK is not involved in any way in the activities of the US in this part of the Caribbean. I am struggling to see the parallel between the situations in Venezuela and Ukraine. There are very difficult problems to address in both places. Our position on Ukraine is clear. We do not recognise the legitimacy of Maduro’s Government because of the way in which the election was conducted and the failure of the regime to publish reliable results.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister has said, the situation in Venezuela is very concerning. Given our special relationship with our US allies, what conversations are ongoing with the US Government to ensure that our Government have the up-to-date information needed to safeguard British citizens in the country? I noticed that travel advice for Venezuela was last updated on 23 November. Will this be further updated?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It will be updated if it needs to be changed; just because it has not changed does not mean it is not reviewed. Unfortunately, Venezuela is now in an “all but essential” category, and certain border areas are in a red category. That being said, our citizens do not always adhere to the advice of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. We estimate that there are around 500 British nationals in Venezuela. They are mostly going to be dual nationals or people who have lived there for a very long time and who understand the limited nature of the consular assistance that we are able to provide.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, given the limited numbers in our embassy, are we confident that we have means of communicating with those British nationals? What contingency arrangements have been or are proposed to be made with neighbouring countries such as Trinidad and Tobago?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My noble friend is right that there is a limited team currently in Caracas, but it is incredibly well led and very effective. It is also served by the country-based staff, who do a tremendous job. Communications are a challenge, and knowing exactly where British nationals are—they are under no obligation to let us know—can be difficult. Most of the British nationals that we are aware of are people who are well used to living in Venezuela and are well supported. They rely on their own local networks, but our team is there to provide support, limited though it may be, should that be needed.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, bearing in mind that Venezuela has an unwarranted territorial claim on neighbouring Guyana, can the Minister update us on the advice the Government would have for that particular Commonwealth country?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We have been very clear in our support for Guyana on this issue, and these sorts of disputes must be resolved through the legal and diplomatic means which are available. Occasionally, the Essequibo issue is raised in Venezuelan politics, and noble Lords can form their own judgments about why this might happen at any particular time. From the UK’s point of view, we are absolutely clear about where the border needs to be, and that has not changed.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, according to the US Energy Information Administration, Venezuela has about one-fifth of the world’s global oil reserves—an estimated 303 billion barrels—and the single largest-known mass of crude oil. Are the Government keeping this in mind in their approach to the issues in Venezuela, given the world’s need to keep the vast bulk of this oil in the ground in this climate emergency?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
One of the many tragedies of this situation is that Venezuela ought to be a prosperous, stable country that is able to provide a good life for its citizens; that is not the case. Our concerns are around civil liberties, democracy, the rule of law, the safety and protection of civilians and their rights and the fact that their wishes have not been reflected in their democratic choices. The noble Baroness is right that Venezuela ought to be doing far better than it has been able to do. Whether or not the oil comes out of the ground, it is a wonderful, spectacular country, and it is just tragic to see what has happened to it in recent years.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, is not the fundamental, underlying problem that the prosperity of Venezuela has been destroyed by the corrupt dictatorship, which is being propped up by other dictatorships in Russia, China and Cuba? What help are our Foreign Office and other Governments giving to the legitimate opposition in Venezuela, which should be the Government were it not for the corrupt elections?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I have huge admiration for María Corina Machado. I have spoken to her. She did not run for president, but she is clearly a voice for those in Venezuela who feel that their democratic wishes have not been reflected in the make-up of their Government. We continue to have conversations with groups in Venezuela and, in a limited way, with the regime in Venezuela. We want to see a negotiated transition and the wishes of all the people of Venezuela who participated in that election to be reflected in a democratic outcome.
Autumn Budget 2025
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore
That this House takes note of the Autumn Budget 2025.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to open this Budget debate in your Lordships’ House, and to speak alongside so many distinguished and expert noble Lords. I look forward to listening to, and learning from, all the contributions today. We should perhaps spare a thought for the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, who, as speaker number 72, has to try to find something new to say. I do not doubt that he will succeed.
I take this opportunity to welcome the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth to your Lordships’ House. I very much look forward to his maiden speech.
Undeniably, this Budget has been dominated, even more than usual, by questions of process before, during and after it was delivered. There were months of speculation in advance. On the day of the Budget itself, the OBR made the serious error of releasing significant details before it was delivered and, shortly after the Budget, the OBR made the decision to publish the timeline of its forecasts. The OBR was clear in its evidence to the Treasury Select Committee this week that the Chancellor did not mislead, but I am sure that many noble Lords may, perfectly fairly, choose to focus on these questions today. In opening this debate, though, I will focus on the measures contained in this Budget and set them in the context of our wider strategy to build a stronger and more secure economy.
As noble Lords will know, we inherited an economy with serious flaws—with a crisis in our public services, a crisis in our public finances and a crisis in the cost of living. At the heart of this deep malaise had been a chronic lack of investment, both public and private, weighing down on growth and productivity. Private sector investment was the lowest in the G7, constrained by years of economic instability, a planning system that thwarted projects before they even began, a regulatory system tying businesses in red tape and a Brexit deal that cut Britain off from our largest market.
Public sector investment was no better and was even set to fall again, from 2.5% to 1.7% of GDP. That meant vital infrastructure projects constantly deferred, delayed or cancelled—roads, railways and energy projects that did not get built. Little wonder the IMF repeatedly warned that a lack of investment posed a major barrier to growth.
That is why, since day one in government, we have put increased investment at the heart of our growth strategy and made growth our number one priority. In our first Budget, last year, we changed the fiscal rules to enable and protect £120 billion of additional capital investment—the highest level in four decades—in housing, energy and transport: the infrastructure that Britain needs to grow. We have systematically begun to remove the barriers to investment faced by the private sector, with the biggest planning reforms in a generation; cutting the cost of regulation; investing in skills and apprenticeships, while reforming our visa system to attract the best global talent to Britain; pensions reform to release more capital for investment; and resetting our relationship with the EU.
All this and more is why, since the election, we have seen an additional £250 billion of private investment committed to the UK. It is why, in this Budget, the OBR upgraded Britain’s growth forecast for this year, from 1% to 1.5%. It is why we were the fastest-growing economy in the G7 for the first half of this year and are on course to be the second fastest for the year as a whole, and it is why, just this week, the OECD upgraded its prediction for Britain’s growth next year. But there is, clearly, much more to do.
Ahead of this Budget, the OBR looked back at the productivity performance of the previous decade and concluded that the chronically low levels of investment, together with the effects of Brexit and the pandemic, have weakened the economy by far more even than previously thought. This reappraisal of the productivity performance of the past has directly impacted its view of GDP going forward, driving lower growth forecasts for the remainder of the forecast period. The OBR has been clear that its review reflects not what this Government have done over the past 14 months but the legacy of the past 14 years. Nevertheless, it now falls to us to deal with the consequences.
This Budget continues that work, by taking three deliberate pro-growth choices. First, by choosing to maintain economic stability, getting inflation and interest rates down, we are giving businesses the confidence to invest and our economy the room to grow. Secondly, by choosing to reject austerity, we are protecting £120 billion of additional investment in growth-driving infrastructure. Thirdly, by choosing to back the fast-growing companies of the future, we are supporting the investment, innovation and economic dynamism that will increase growth in the next decade and beyond. Let me take each in turn.
The first pro-growth choice made by this Budget was to maintain economic stability. In the months leading up to the Budget, in countless conversations with business and investors, I heard repeatedly that the most important action the Government could take would be to reduce inflation, helping interest rates—already cut five times since the election—to continue to fall. A growing economy needs strong foundations of economic stability, with borrowing down, inflation down and investment up. So, because of this Budget, borrowing will fall as a share of GDP in every year of the forecast: from 4.5% in 2025-26 to 1.9% in 2030-31. Borrowing will fall more than in any other G7 economy. Net financial debt will be lower at the end of the forecast than it is today and the headroom against our stability rule will more than double to £21.7 billion.
The Budget also took more direct action to cut inflation. We have taken £150 off energy bills, frozen rail fares for the first time in 30 years and extended the freeze on fuel duty. All these things together take 0.4% off inflation next year. To put that in context, it is the biggest near-term reduction in inflation due to government policy ever forecast by the OBR at a single fiscal event.
The second pro-growth choice the Budget made was to protect the £120 billion of additional capital investment that we have committed over the next five years, ruling out a return to the austerity of the past. The OBR has estimated the eventual long-term growth impact of this increase in capital investment as adding 1.4% to GDP. Cutting this and returning to austerity would be the worst thing we could do for growth—the very definition of short-termism. Yet that is precisely what previous Chancellors, with previous fiscal rules, have done.
In the years following the financial crisis, austerity took demand out of the economy when it was needed most, undermining investment in critical infrastructure, weakening productivity and choking off growth. Unlike today’s Conservative Party, we will not repeat the mistakes of the past: the exact mistakes that led to the productivity downgrade that we must now fix. Instead, our increased investment will deliver new roads, improved transport, new homes and new energy infrastructure. We are investing in the construction of Sizewell C. We are investing in the UK’s first small modular reactors at Wylfa and in the Lower Thames Crossing, the trans-Pennine route upgrade and Northern Powerhouse Rail.
The third pro-growth choice this Budget makes is to back the fastest-growing British companies of the future. The ScaleUp Institute described it as
“a budget for scaleups and those ambitious to scale”,
and it is right. The UK is a great place to start a business, but I have heard for too many years that our companies cannot scale at the same rate as their US peers. As a result, brilliant British businesses are either acquired, choose to go abroad to raise investment, or fail. We will change that. We will make the UK the best place to start, scale and stay, because we know that today’s fast-growing firms are tomorrow’s engine of jobs and growth.
By doubling the eligibility of our enterprise tax incentives, investing billions of pounds in research and development, and delivering reforms to boost the attractiveness of UK markets, we will ensure that these companies can access the capital and talent they need to succeed. For all businesses, large and small, we are maintaining the lowest headline corporation tax in the G7 and the most generous full plant and machinery capital allowances in the OECD. To incentivise private investment and encourage growth, we are also introducing a new 40% permanent first-year allowance for main-rate plant and machinery from July 2026.
In this Budget, we faced a choice: we could have made the reckless choice to abandon our fiscal rules and let borrowing and debt increase. Instead, we made the pro-growth choice to get borrowing, debt and inflation down, more than doubling our headroom. We could have made the irresponsible choice and returned to austerity, cutting public services and undermining capital investment. Instead, we made the pro-growth choice to protect the investment in Britain’s infrastructure to build a stronger, more secure economy, but these choices need to be paid for.
The previous Government froze personal tax thresholds from 2021 until 2028. This Budget maintains all income tax and equivalent national insurance thresholds at their current level for a further three years from 2028. I accept that maintaining these thresholds is a decision that will affect working people—the Chancellor said that last year; I said that last year, and I will not pretend otherwise now—but we have sought to keep their contribution as low as possible by making other fair and necessary reforms to the tax system.
A Blackpool terrace pays more council tax than a £10 million Westminster mansion, so we are introducing a high-value council tax surcharge on homes worth £2 million or more, while protecting those on low incomes. We are raising taxes on property, dividend and savings income, which currently face no equivalent of national insurance, by 2% at the basic and higher rates and by 2% at the additional rate for property and savings income. The cost of pension salary sacrifice was set to almost treble from £3 billion in 2017 to nearly £9 billion by the end of the decade, so we are capping the amount that can be salary-sacrificed into a pension without paying any employee or employer national insurance at £2,000, protecting low and middle earners while retaining in full pension tax relief worth over £70 billion a year.
Alongside this, we are making reforms so that our tax system keeps pace with a fast-changing economy by ensuring that motoring taxes cover electric vehicles via a new per mile levy; increasing taxes on online gaming and betting while protecting bingo halls and horseracing; and preventing some ride-sharing apps abusing a tax relief intended for coach tour operators to undercut black cabs. We are also supporting our high streets with permanently lower business rates for over 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties, funded with higher rates for the most expensive properties, including warehouses used by online giants. These are fair choices, with increases in tax coming most from those households in the highest income decile. They are choices that underpin and enable our growth agenda of cutting borrowing and debt while refusing to cut investment.
On Monday, the Prime Minister set out the next phase of that growth strategy. First, we will reform the regulation of our nuclear industry to make it easier to invest and then extend that approach across our entire industrial strategy. Secondly, we will keep moving towards a closer trading relationship with the European Union. Thirdly, we will reform a failing welfare system. In the last five years of the previous Government, spending on welfare increased by £88 billion, yet we inherited a system where children could not afford to eat but taxpayers were asked to subsidise tax breaks on the lease of luxury cars. That is a broken system, and we are reforming it. Britain, one of the richest countries on earth, still has children growing up in poverty. A Labour Government will always fight the social injustice where children, through no fault of their own, go to bed hungry and cold, their life chances shrinking every day.
Poverty scars our society, but it scars our economy too. It drives down growth and productivity; it heaps pressure on already stretched public services. Children who grew up in poverty earn 25% less aged 30 than their peers. All this costs our economy an estimated £40 billion a year. I am proud to have worked for the previous Labour Government who cut child poverty by a million over a decade. I was angry when we had to watch the Conservative Government who succeeded us reverse all our progress and increase child poverty by 900,000, at terrible social and economic cost. Now, I am proud to be a member of a Government who, by scrapping the two-child limit, are lifting 450,000 children out of poverty in a single step. Combined with other steps we have already taken, including extending free school meals to more families, this Government will now be responsible for the largest reduction in child poverty ever achieved in a single Parliament.
I am proud too of what this Budget and this Chancellor have achieved: not just cutting child poverty but cutting energy bills by £150; cutting NHS waiting lists; cutting borrowing more than any other G7 country; cutting inflation; supporting further cuts to interest rates and rejecting austerity. These are the right choices for a stronger NHS, the right choices for investment, the right choices for business and for workers, and the right choices for Britain to continue building a stronger, more secure economy. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I also welcome the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and look forward to his maiden speech and working constructively with him in the months and years ahead.
We have all had a few days to consider last week’s Budget, and the conclusion that the vast majority of commentators have reached is, unfortunately for our country, decidedly negative. The one welcome and significant aspect is the slight increase in fiscal headroom from its low level last year, but this has been clouded over by the flow of misinformation in the run-up to the Budget. The negative aspects are numerous. I turn first to the most disappointing area.
When Labour took power, they constantly assured us that growth was their number one priority. Less than 18 months later, growth as an objective has virtually disappeared. There are few pro-growth measures in the Budget but many that will hinder growth, and there were scant mentions of the subject in the Chancellor’s speech. It seemed that growth had served its political purpose and could be cast aside. The Prime Minister tried to correct this on Monday in an unusual post-Budget speech, but he did not dispel fears that growth would become less of a priority. Since then, the OECD has warned that growth will be sluggish and that UK inflation will remain the highest of the G7 countries this year.
The Minister has said today, in an attempt to talk more about growth, that there is clearly much more to do on growth, and I agree. For growth, we need business and consumer confidence, both private and public investment, a tax system with the right incentives and supply side reforms to lift the burden of regulation. The Prime Minister is promising the latter, but the Government’s actions do not match the rhetoric.
I turn next to the extraordinary pre-Budget shenanigans, which lasted many weeks. Before the Budget was delivered, vast swathes of it, indeed pretty much all of it, were trailed, briefed out, withdrawn and then re-briefed by the Government themselves. What purpose all this activity was meant to serve is mysterious. What is clear is that the whole process, counter to all norms and indeed the rules, was contrary to the national interest. As one illustration, Andy Haldane, the former chief economist of the Bank of England, was explicit in saying:
“One of the reasons we had a very weak growth number … is … Budget speculation”.
That speculation was initiated and carried out by the Government themselves.
On process, the OBR’s view of the Government’s breaking of budgetary conventions is set out clearly for us all to see on page one of its report, in the beautifully understated yet lethal prose of the UK mandarinate led by Richard Hughes. We all suspect that he was eased out as much because he authored it as because of the admittedly serious leak of the OBR document on Budget Day, but I shall quote it so we can all enjoy the performance. Describing the production of its forecast, the OBR says:
“Given the unusual volume of speculation on the subject prior to the publication of this--
report—
“the Chair has taken the unusual step of writing to the Chair of the Commons Treasury Committee to set out the facts concerning the evolution of our forecast over the course of the past four months”.
“Unusual” indeed—it is a devastating indictment of Treasury Ministers’ behaviour over the Budget period by those in the best position to judge the facts. Anyone who thinks this is insignificant should just look at the turmoil on the bond markets between 4 November and the day of the Budget—a gift for hedge funds and investment banks, with small investors and more conservative funds left out. Indeed, savers were frightened into withdrawing record amounts from the stock market over the last few months.
The Chancellor and the Prime Minister fought the last general election with a promise of minimal tax rises. The Labour Party has now increased taxes by £40 billion and £26 billion in successive Budgets, taking the total projected burden to 38% of GDP by 2030, an all-time high. It promised that any tax increases would spare working people. So how has that fared? Badly is the answer, if we consider the freeze in income tax thresholds, or the new tax on dividends and landlords, or last year’s huge employer national insurance increase, which in time reduced pay. The hikes in IHT on family businesses, farms and pension savings, which affect many working people, are still to bite. The Chancellor has delivered a Budget not for working people, not for the country, but for the good of her party and her political career.
Last week, the Chancellor refused to rule out future tax rises. The OBR has said that this uncertainty is harming and will continue to harm our economy. It says on page 6 of the report:
“We expect quarterly growth to pick up only gradually in the near term as … domestic business and consumer confidence remains subdued, including in anticipation of further tax rises”.
But why this fear of tax rises? It is because, just over a year ago, the Chancellor told business leaders at the CBI conference that:
“We’ve put our public finances back on a firm footing. Public services now need to live within their means because I’m really clear, I’m not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes”.
She is in the happy position of providing numerous powerful quotes—for the Opposition.
The Chancellor is shoring up problems for later. Many of the tax rises, notably the increases in thresholds, only kick in between 2028 and 2031. The fall in borrowing depends on this tax tail. Is it realistic to think that this will actually happen in an election year? I think not.
It would be remiss of me not to mention SMEs. What was in it for them? There was a small positive on apprenticeships, but meagre and previously announced reforms to EMI schemes, VCTs and listing reliefs, massive new pressures on payroll from the threshold freezes, minimum wage hikes and salary sacrifice cap, a tourist tax, which will dampen demand, and a hideous mix-up over business rates which will lead to the closure of pubs and hotels.
More than 5 million people are now receiving out-of-work benefits with no work-related requirements. Since October 2024, the number of people in payrolled employment has fallen by 180,000. Yet instead of tackling this, the Government have chosen measures that make it worse. The Chancellor has raised the costs of employing people, raised personal taxes and weakened incentives to work. It is no surprise that the OBR now forecasts that unemployment in 2026 will be 240,000 higher than it expected in March. The decision to scrap the two-child limit compounds this failure. Evidence from the Centre for Social Justice shows that removing the cap interacts with the expansion of health and disability benefits to create benefit entitlements that, for many households, exceed typical earnings by a wide margin. In taxing people and businesses to make it more lucrative to stay at home and not contribute at all, the Government have not only produced an unfair Budget but produced one for benefits street, as the leader of the Opposition has shown us with such energy and verve.
What about our national debt, which is now approaching 100% of GDP? Dealing with this is vital, as in 2025-26 the OBR expects debt interest—yes, interest—to total over £110 billion. Of course, the underlying debt has been accrued over many years. Unfortunately, we do not have a strong plan to reduce it. This is not helped by the fact that we now pay more interest on debt than any OECD country bar Iceland and at a rate higher than that paid during the premiership of Liz Truss, whom the Government are quick to criticise.
The Government have pledged to raise defence spending to 3.5% by 2035, yet the executive director of the Henry Jackson Society has said that the Budget
“talks up defence investment, but the numbers … don’t match the rhetoric … the OBR shows a £32 billion black hole under its 3.5 per cent defence pledge”.
If we want to understand the real effects of this Budget on our economy, we need look no further than the OBR. Its verdict is crystal-clear: the Government’s choices have not improved the economic outlook but made it worse. The OBR has downgraded the UK’s rate of growth in productivity to 1% per annum and, because of decisions taken in the Budget, it states that this package will have
“no significant impact on output”
now, and not even by 2030. Inflation will be higher for longer; unemployment is forecast to rise; increases in household disposable income will collapse from 3% to 0.25% per annum; mortgage costs will rise; the real rate of return on investment by business has been downgraded; the forecast for business investment has been cut once again; public sector net debt rises in most years of the forecast; and a sharp fall in additions to housing stock is expected. Compared to March, the picture is even bleaker: potential output is down, productivity is down, real GDP is down, corporate profits are down and inflation is up.
The Chancellor asked the country for trust; the OBR has told us why she does not deserve it. She promised a plan for growth; the forecasts show stagnation, contraction and diminishing prospects for working people. She promised to protect households; the evidence shows higher taxes, lower incomes and rising mortgage costs. She promised to support business; the OBR shows investment down, profits down and confidence falling. She promised to repair the public finances, yet debt rises in almost every year of the forecast.
The Minister again claimed that our economic problems are all the fault of the last Government. I simply say that it is time he accepted responsibility for his and his colleagues’ failures. After all the noise, all the speculation, all the briefs and counterbriefs, we are left with this unavoidable truth: this Budget does not meet the moment. Our country deserves better than that.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, like the first two speakers, I look forward to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth.
The purpose of this debate is to debate the Budget. We dealt with the omnishambles of the Budget process in the debate on the Statement on Monday. Unlike the Minister, I hope that every Tory speaker is not going to repeat what was said then. Dare I say, we will otherwise assume that their repeated and offensive personal attacks on the Chancellor are only to deflect attention from their mismanagement of the economy in recent years.
There is enough to criticise in the detail of the Budget, although not all of it. We on these Benches are happy with the removal of the two-child cap, the most immediate step that could be taken to reduce child poverty. We welcome the proposals for energy price reduction, even if they do not go quite far enough, and we are glad that the Chancellor has finally listened to the calls of my noble friend Lord Foster and others to tax the big online gambling companies.
The Chancellor says that the Budget is about making choices. We agree, but we think that she has made the wrong choices. Freezing tax allowances, as referred to by the Minister, is deeply unfair to struggling families. Taxing the huge windfall profits of the large banks would have been preferable, but I think the Chancellor did not want to do that because she wanted them to announce investments, which they have subsequently done. For struggling high streets and small business, the Budget brought little hope. Our calls for an emergency VAT cut for the hospitality sector have been ignored. The Budget is silent on the ticking time bomb of social care. We need an urgent cross-party plan to fix it, as without one the National Health Service will never truly recover.
The elephant in the room is our relationship with the European Union. Noble Lords would expect us to say that from these Benches. The respected US National Bureau of Economic Research has concluded that, by 2025, Brexit had reduced UK GDP by 6% to 8%. Investment was reduced by 12% to 18%, employment by 3% to 4% and productivity by 3% to 4%. It said that the original adjustment calculation of 4% estimated by the OBR was true for the first five years but underestimated output over a decade.
My colleague Al Pinkerton, in another place, who has taken over from the noble Lord, Lord Gove, as Member of Parliament for Surrey Heath, is tabling a parliamentary Bill calling for the UK to renegotiate a bespoke new customs union with the European Union—the biggest single step we could take to boost our economy. The Government’s proposed reset with the EU, from a youth mobility scheme to a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, has gone nowhere. We believe that the EU would welcome a bespoke new deal, which would generate over £25 billion a year for the Exchequer.
Of course, the other, rather different elephant in the room, which nobody has yet mentioned, is the impact of artificial intelligence. This is clearly the most significant invention since the internet, and the impact on the economy will be significant. Many of us suspect that the Chancellor is hoping that the impact of AI will enable her to reduce the burden of taxation by the time of the next election. Whether this forecast assumption is correct remains to be seen. I tend to agree with the American economist JK Galbraith that the only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable. Let us hope the stars are aligned for the Chancellor.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, from my perspective, the Budget has been received about as well as could have been expected in the circumstances. It also seems to have satisfied the bond markets and the Government’s own Back-Benchers, which is no small feat. It has been clear for months that the background was going to be challenging, given the slow growth evident across the industrial world, and this has left us with a tax base that is not sufficient to fund planned government spending. This has been the pattern for some time.
The Government’s own actions have not helped, of course. The promise not to increase the three main tax rates was never convincing, nor was setting fiscal rules that did not provide sufficient room for manoeuvre relative to the likely scale of forecasting errors. This encouraged speculation and made the interaction with the Office for Budget Responsibility even more sensitive than usual. Flying so many tax-raising kites, and the indecision over whether income tax rates should be increased, did not help either. However, for me, the big question is whether the action taken in the Budget is enough to give us a calmer position for the future, and whether the Government can avoid the same damaging speculation before future Budgets. The Budget margin for the future is considerably larger than that set last year, and that, for me, is very welcome. The OBR gives the headroom a reasonable chance of seeing us through the next year. However, I am less sure about subsequent years, when the margin of error around forecasts is inevitably much larger and often underestimated.
There are other potential problems. I would have preferred to see income tax rates increased now; freezing allowances may be less visible, but it still bites. That comes into effect only in the later years of this Parliament and will disproportionately affect those earning under £35,000 a year.
There has also been much discussion about the fact that taxes have been running ahead of expectations, suggesting that activity has somehow or other been “tax rich”. However, I would be cautious about this. In my own experience in the Treasury, periods of surprising tax buoyancy were often followed by experiences that meant that was not sustained. The bigger challenge is that debt is not coming down decisively, either absolutely or as a percentage of GDP. In no year of the forecast is it below the ratio for 2024-25. The best that can be said is that it is essentially flat. Around 9% to 10% of total government revenues will continue to be spent on debt interest.
The help on prices is in some respects important because it impacts inflation, but it is important too that this is a short-term device. If real disposable income grows as slowly as is forecast, it will still seem like a cost of living crisis.
Getting a grip on public expenditure remains a very important issue. First, we have seen very poor productivity performance in government activities in recent years. Secondly, there is the issue of welfare payments and how to ensure that help goes to those most in need. We need to avoid the perverse incentives that keep some people out of the labour market, and we need more robust controls over those who game the system.
For me, future Budgets should give much more attention to tax reform. We need to iron out cliff-edge disincentives, widen the tax base and close down loopholes. In the absence of a surge in growth around the world, I fear that the job of fiscal retrenchment is not over. We need to make much more progress on reducing the debt ratio during the welcome calmer periods between crises, so that we are in rather better shape when the next problem arises.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth (Maiden Speech)
I thank the Minister for his opening speech in this debate on the Budget. In this maiden speech, I want to thank all noble Lords for their warm welcome to the House, and to thank the doorkeepers and parliamentary staff for their unfailing kindness, good humour and patience with lost Bishops, and for the support they gave in the run-up to my introduction in late October.
As Bishop of Portsmouth, I lead a vibrant, confident community of communities. The Anglican diocese of Portsmouth lives from a generous, grounded and corrigible faith, a commitment to collaboration and partnership, and a vision of the common good which includes everyone. Wonderfully, in my view, the motto for the city of Portsmouth is “Heaven’s Light Our Guide”.
Working in partnership with neighbours within the wider Christian community, and with the faith communities and voluntary and statutory sectors, the communities I lead are resolved to serve the people, neighbourhoods and communities of East Hampshire, the city of Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight, to find what is good and to strengthen it, and to work with others for the flourishing of everyone.
I also bring to this House a commitment to the flourishing of children and young people in our nation. I chair the governing body of the National Society for Education, established by royal charter over 200 years ago. Today, the society is a long-standing partner in educational delivery, working with successive Governments and serving the work of nearly 5,000 schools and 900 academies, and educating nearly 1 million children and young people. It is engaged at every level of the education system—from early years to higher education—to inspire a generation of new school and academy leaders, and to work with successive Governments in shaping policy.
In responding to the Budget Statement from His Majesty’s Government, there are two particular areas I want to highlight, with a couple of questions to conclude.
I am proud to know that in my diocese of Portsmouth, churches, faith communities, and volunteers of all faiths and none have put their shoulder to the wheel in supporting those facing poverty in these years. In the Charles Dickens ward of inner-city Portsmouth, over 50% of children live in crushing poverty. In partnership, we serve food banks and provide warm spaces and outreach projects, but none of this will have the impact of the Government’s decision to end the two-child limit, which has been a leading driver of child poverty for nearly a decade, crushing aspiration, hope and opportunity. I commend the Government for this decision, but I hope and pray that this is the beginning of a renewed commitment to investment in a generation of young people.
The second area I want to highlight, and the two questions, relate to special educational needs and disabilities. In my routine work and ministry, head teachers and trust leaders across the diocese, in a wide number of communities and across England share frequently that supporting children with SEND and disabilities has become a particularly pressing matter. I commend the families and teachers who are committed so passionately to work for the inclusion of every child. As my diocese bridges multiple local education authorities, I have seen at first hand the postcode lottery of SEND provision as it is played out for families in our communities. I know of looked-after children struggling to access education while waiting years for CAMHS referrals. We can do better than this: compounding the trauma and adverse childhood experience that have already disproportionately shaped their lives.
I note the intention to bring the cost of SEND provision into the central government spending envelope from 2028-29. This will be a relief to councils holding significant deficits, but I am deeply concerned that no indication has been given to date of how the estimated additional cost involved will be covered—according to OBR, £6 billion by 2028-29—without causing a significant fall in mainstream funding for schools. I note, too, that from 2028, the Government will not expect local authorities to fund future special educational needs costs from their general funds once the statutory override ends at the end of 2027-28.
Once again, I note and welcome the intention to end the statutory override, which keeps SEND spending deficits off councils’ books. But I would welcome some assurance from the Minister that accrued benefit deficits in local authority spending on SEND will not be paid off or reconciled by using the mainstream schools budget. Would the Minister agree with me that further cuts to per-pupil funding risk widening inequality and constraining further schools’ ability to deliver outstanding, aspirational education, perhaps especially for our most disadvantaged and vulnerable children?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the right reverend Prelate’s inspiring maiden speech. He is a Bishop far from lost who has already found his feet, I would say. In the absence of my noble friend Lord West of Spithead, it would be remiss of me not to start by mentioning the right reverend Prelate’s affinity with the Navy. Portsmouth is also, as he said, marked by considerable area inequalities and poverty, to which he referred so movingly. They are very much on the Government’s agenda.
As his speech reflected, the right reverend Prelate brings to your Lordships’ House a passion for education, children and young people’s opportunities, the environment and tackling intergenerational unfairness: all issues that resonate so strongly with our work in this House. I look forward very much to his future contributions. They are, as he made clear, also important issues for the annual Budget, to which I now turn.
I, and I know others, shed tears of joy at the announcement that what was dubbed the “worst social policy ever” by an eminent social policy scholar is finally to be abolished. The end of the two-child limit means that not only will 450,000 fewer children be in poverty by the end of this Parliament, but the depth of poverty will be reduced for many. One mother responded:
“Finally, all my children will be seen as equals”.
To those who have reacted hysterically and in language that denigrates thousands of parents, calling it a “Budget for Benefits Street”, paid for by striving working people, I remind them that three-fifths of affected families have a parent in work, with an estimated 70% of the additional spending going to this group, and that raising children on an inadequate income is itself hard work.
I ask them, are they really happy to countenance hundreds of thousands of children suffering desperate poverty, testified to by charities and academic research, because of an ideological belief that punishes children? Are they oblivious to the costs of this poverty, not just to children whose childhoods and futures are blighted, but to the wider society and economy? Are they aware of the depth of public concern about child poverty? Polling by Public First found that this concern meant that, when provided with information about the cost-effectiveness of abolishing the limit in reducing child poverty, support for doing so soared.
Those who conjure up an image of social security claimants enjoying some kind of bonanza conveniently ignore the £50 billion a year estimated to have been chopped off the social security budget as a result of Tory cuts, freezes and restrictions. The real problem today is not the mythical so-called ballooning welfare budget but a social security system that fails to provide genuine security for both those in and out of work. One consequence has been growing reliance on food banks especially among families with children. As the Trussell Trust stated, in welcoming the Budget:
“A future without hunger will only be possible by building a social security system that works for everyone”.
Investment in social security is top of the agenda for many who have given evidence to the Child Poverty Taskforce. I hope very much that it will respond positively in the child poverty strategy. In particular, the impact of the Budget announcement on the depth of child poverty will be dampened if the benefit cap continues. An estimated one in 12 children escaping the frying pan of the two-child limit will be no better off, because they will be caught in the fire of the cap.
Together with the damaging freezing of the local housing allowance, the cap is contributing to homelessness and has a disproportionate effect on domestic abuse survivors and their children. Action on both would therefore contribute not just to the child poverty strategy but the homelessness and violence against women strategies. But, if the cap is to be retained, could my noble friend the Minister at the very least pass on to the DWP the message that its level needs to be uprated annually in line with universal credit, to prevent more and more children being caught in it? As it is, there has been only one increase since 2016 when it was cut.
Abolition of the two-child limit is, as we have heard, the single most cost-effective lever to reduce child poverty. But no one pretends it can do the job on its own—hence the importance of the forthcoming child poverty strategy. UNICEF recently warned:
“Poverty poisons childhood—and our collective future”.
This Budget will draw some of that poison from our society, to the benefit of children and us all.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth on his engaging and humorous maiden speech, which combined passion with making some very serious points. We look forward very much to working with him, and to his future contributions.
On taking office, the Prime Minister said that he wanted to put country before party. He actually said on the day he went into Downing Street that he wanted to govern for those who did not vote for him, as well as those who did. There was little sign of that in this Budget. This was a political Budget: a Labour Budget for Labour Back-Benchers.
The Government continue to blame everyone but themselves for any problems. No one believes them any longer. The Prime Minister talks about international headwinds, as though the previous Government had not faced massively bigger international headwinds, with both the financial crisis—its consequences, which went on—and Covid. Covid inevitably inflated borrowing, pushing it up to 14.7% of GDP. But, thanks to the efforts of the Government, by the time of the election it was back to 4.2%. This was no unknown black hole. As Paul Johnson of the IFS said, not so much an unknown black hole, more a known grey hole. If there was a black hole, it made no sense for the Government to have gone on a spending spree as they did in the Budget last year.
The Government, furthermore, stand accused of selective leaking of confidential information in order to support this false narrative. We shall see and people will decide for themselves but, whatever the result, it is time for the Government to face up to the consequences of their own policies. It is time to abandon the Alastair Campbell playbook.
A key mistake last year was not to allow a realistic degree of headroom against the fiscal rules. This compounded the very late Budget date. Inevitably, it put the Government on the hamster treadmill, with unprecedented speculation and uncertainty. As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, pointed out, Andy Haldane, the former chief economist at the Bank of England, said that this was the reason why the economy had flatlined, because it hit confidence, profits and the property market.
I agree with the Chancellor that putting the finances on a stable footing is the precondition for growth. The question is, how is this consolidation to be achieved: by tax rises, public spending restraint or a combination of both? History shows that fiscal consolidations based on spending cuts are more successful than tax-based ones. They lead to a more sustained improvement in public finances and do less harm to growth. There are plenty of candidates for saving, of which welfare is the most obvious. Even the Prime Minister has said that the welfare bill is “unsustainable”. The OBR has said that the welfare bill is unsustainable. Yet the Government, while talking about reform, do little. They seem powerless to act.
The Chancellor says there will be “no return to austerity”, but by imposing so much of the fiscal adjustment on taxpayers and the private sector, she is inflicting her version of austerity on ordinary people. Household disposable income is set now to grow at an average of only 0.5% per year—the second-worst period for living standards since the 1950s. This is half the average of the last decade and was described by the IFS as a “dismal” prospect. The question is: will the Budget, with all its front-loaded spending increases and end-loaded tax increases just before a general election, finally be seen as sufficient to silence doubts about the UK’s fiscal credibility?
Labour has spent a lot of time camouflaging its character. All the talk about fiscal rules cannot disguise the fundamental reality: this is a high-spending and high-taxation Government. The worst thing is that they will probably be back for more next year, and the British people will pay the price.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, as always, and I welcome the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. I welcome the main proposals of this Budget: some as important measures to combat inequality and support households; others as necessary responses to what remains a very difficult time for the British economy.
As a social democrat, I applaud the Budget’s wide-ranging package of cost of living measures, including the reduction in energy bills, the minimum wage increase, and the freezing of prescription charges and rail fares, alongside the pre-announced expansion of free childcare for working families. This was the most important issue for millions who supported Labour at last year’s election, and the Government are delivering on those concerns.
I welcome the ending of the two-child benefit cap—the single biggest policy driver of child poverty in Britain. I have been disheartened to hear Conservative and Reform voices in the past week caricature this move, which primarily benefits children in working families, as paying for welfare. Children who grow up in poverty are significantly more likely to rely on benefits in their adult life. If you support work and oppose dependency, you should support the end of the two-child cap, not denigrate it.
I also strongly welcome the increase in the minimum wage. The Government already have a proud record on wage inequality. Wages are up more in the first year of the new Government than in the first decade under the last Conservative Government. In 2015, 20% of all employees were low paid—that is, earning less than two-thirds of the median wage. That figure today is 2.5%.
The Chancellor’s commitment to an expanded headroom on her fiscal rules is also welcome. I hope it will give the Government more space to consider big decisions based on their merits rather than operating on the cliff edge of fiscal rules and living in fear of events that cause small changes in fiscal parameters or bond market reactions.
Much has been said about the OBR-Treasury relationship, and I will make just one observation. The process of dynamic scoring, estimating the long-term growth and productivity effects of major policy measures, is an important part of forecasting, but everyone can see that there are clearly issues and tensions in the way this process currently works, on both sides—in particular, which measures are considered sufficiently significant to score and using announcements to fish for dynamic scoring from the OBR. I hope this is an area where clearer rules of the game can be worked out in time for the next Budget.
I also support the Chancellor’s fiscal stance: spending and borrowing more in the early years of the Parliament, increasing taxes and tightening spending growth in the latter years, all while maintaining a significantly more expansive approach to capital spending. Yes, it is a strategy with risks, but taking a more aggressive fiscal stance now to improve growth and protect long-term investment spend is, in my view, the right approach after a decade of stagnation.
I also welcome the proposed council tax surcharge on high-value homes. There will, of course, be issues to sort out through consultation—for example, developing a system that is fair to those who are asset-rich and cash-poor, and the challenge of adding a tax system based on current prices of high-value homes on top of a council tax system that is still based on 1991 valuations.
This brings me to one last point on which the Budget had less to say: long-term tax reform. Tax policy is deeply political; nothing is more political. But, as the joint proposal from nine think tanks across the political spectrum argued last month, there are many sensible structural tax reforms that all parties could endorse and that would increase fairness and revenue, such as addressing punitive marginal tax rates, reforming the VAT tax base, updating council tax valuations, and equalising tax rates on income from different sources. In opposition, Labour spoke positively of such reforms. I hope that we will set up work to address some of these in the remainder of this Parliament.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the maiden speech made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. My former constituency, Havant, was within the diocese of Portsmouth, and I recognise the valuable work that the diocese does.
The media story around this Budget has been about the downgrading of the productivity estimates from the OBR. As we now know, that downgrade, which reduced forecast revenues, was off-set by a forecast of higher wages than previously expected, boosting revenues. In the neat arithmetic of the Treasury, lower productivity was off-set by higher pay. In the real world, an economy where we are less productive and paying ourselves more is not one with the best prospects. That is why it is so important to raise the growth rate.
I look across the Chamber and think of the intervention we just had. We now have a definition from the Office for Budget Responsibility of the materiality of measures as having an effect of 0.1% of GDP, and there are no measures that pass that requirement. Indeed, I rather suspect that the vote in your Lordships’ House only a couple of weeks ago to increase the period before people enjoy full employment rights from day one to six months may have done more for youth employment and the economic prospects of our country than any specific measure in the OBR.
There has been a focus on the growth of benefit spending. It is worth, however, reflecting on where this growth comes from. Of the growth in benefit spending since Covid of approximately £45 billion, £21 billion is extra spending on pensions and £24 billion is extra spending on health and disability benefits, off-set by a £1 billion cut in benefits for families of working age. Whatever one thinks about the exact size of the welfare and social security budget, is this reshaping of the welfare state away from families and towards disability benefits and pensioners the right direction in which we should go? My belief is that we are in a situation where we should focus on the problem of where the growing spending lies and not expect further sacrifices from families who are clearly not the reason for a growth in social security expenditure.
Even now, this year, when there is going to be an uprating of benefits, benefits for families will go up by 3.8% and benefits for pensioners will go up by 4.8%—despite the fact that pensioners are now less likely to be poor than families. We need at some point to rebalance this system.
Finally, we have been distracted from these issues about the need for economic growth or the balance of the welfare state by a focus on exactly whether the fiscal rule for a balanced Budget in 2029 is £10 billion pounds off or not. That is a ludicrous focus for the debate about the state of the British economy and the state of public spending. I very much hope that the increased headroom that we now see in the Budget—the main reason for the increases in taxes—means that we can now focus on the things that really matter, rather than the micro-forecasting for that Budget. It is the Government’s intention, therefore, that there shall be no fiscal measures when the spring economic forecast is produced. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the House exactly what the Government’s plans are for handling the announcement of the spring economic forecast and whether the Chancellor will be giving a Statement on that occasion.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, the Budget contains a set of measures that reinforce the three pillars which support investment and growth: financial stability, growing demand and institutional reform. Financial instability, as many have commented, is the enemy of investment, as painfully illustrated in the years since the global financial crisis. That is why the £21 billion headroom is important, securing confidence in our financial future.
Given that stable financial framework, growing aggregate demand is the fundamental stimulus to investment. Happily, the Budget’s commitment to fairness, in the removal of the two-child cap, the commitment to an increased minimum wage, and the mansion tax, in itself stimulates demand by transferring income to those with lesser means. Those in the most challenging economic circumstances necessarily spend every pound that they receive, hence boosting demand, while those who are better off do not. The Budget also boosts demand by protecting the growth in public investment foreshadowed in the spending review. This is terribly important. Indeed, public investment is brought forward to accelerate delivery of major infrastructure projects in 2026-27.
The third component of the growth trilogy is the institutional reform that is needed to provide the resources for growth. We have heard a lot about planning reform, but the lack of equity investment for SMEs is one of the major inhibitions to growth in the UK. Britain lacks the creative venture capital sector that is enjoyed by the United States. The Budget addresses this issue. The National Wealth Fund now has £28 billion available to invest. The British Business Bank—essentially a venture fund—sees its funds boosted from £1.5 billion to £2.5 billion every year. It is not just financial reform that is needed but new sources of skills. In the Budget, £1.5 billion is made available for additional employment and skills support, including fully funded apprenticeships offered by SMEs.
These developments in the architecture of financial and labour markets are typically ignored in Budget commentary. They are seemingly too technical and perhaps too practical. Yet in the long run, they will be far more important than debates over the minutiae of taxes and allowances. However, the Budget does embody a characteristic that is unfavourable to growth, as a number of noble Lords have already mentioned; namely, it adds complexity to the tax system. As Adam Smith made clear, tax complexity is not only costly and damaging to enterprise but the cornerstone of tax avoidance and evasion. Various attempts have been made to simplify taxation over the years, but they have foundered on the pressing immediacies of political life.
The Government, in pursuit of the growth objective, should establish now a commission on the simplification of business taxation. The commission could build on the excellent work done by James Mirrlees in his IFS report, Tax by Design. For example, Mirrlees argued that the tax system should be designed as a whole, not as a patchwork of taxes and benefits. Is that recognised by noble Lords? Surely noble Lords will recognise how right Mirrlees was and how the patchwork needs to be turned into a coherent design.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. I want to give some relief to the Minister by not following up the justified criticism that he is receiving from my noble friends but referring to one new policy in the Budget which I approve of and which I suspect that no one else will mention: the move towards road pricing. I declare an interest as the owner of an EV.
Although there had been some speculation about this before the Budget, the announcement surprised me because on 18 September I asked the Minister whether he had any plans to introduce road pricing. He said no. He said it not just once but seven times in 10 minutes. He could have used the reply that we all grew fond of hearing, that he could not anticipate the Budget Statement, but he did not. I once held the job that the Minister has, Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I am familiar with the Budget process and the long gestation. A radical policy such as road pricing, raising over £1 billion a year and involving consultation with the DfT and the DVLA is unlikely to have been a last-minute idea, particularly when we read in the consultation document that, regarding the loss of fuel duty:
“Doing nothing about this would be fiscally irresponsible”.
Therefore, I take with a pinch of salt the statement that some nine weeks before the Budget there were no plans to introduce road pricing and that fiscal responsibility was discovered at the very last minute.
There my welcome for the policy ends because the Government have ruled out the possibility of using road pricing to reduce congestion and pollution or to help motorists in rural areas for whom there is no alternative by denying the use of telematics to introduce proper road pricing. The consultation document says:
“The government has taken an approach that protects motorists’ privacy; there will be no requirement to report where and when miles are driven or install trackers in cars”.
The notion that motorists have privacy is for the birds. All new cars manufactured since 2018 have a system called eCall, which automatically contacts emergency responders with the vehicle’s location in the case of an accident. It also enables owners to track a vehicle if it is stolen. There are now between 4 million and 6 million CCTV cameras in the UK. They are ubiquitous, with between 16 and 24 cameras for every square kilometre, one per 11 people. Also, 20% of home owners now have video doorbells that capture passing traffic. ANPR is everywhere. More and more motorists have dashcams. While some motorists switch off GPS in their car, most motorists have their mobile with them, which can be tracked. So the notion that motorists have privacy does not withstand scrutiny.
No one expects an all singing, all dancing road pricing to be introduced in the near future. A crude pence-per-mile is a start, although I have doubts about some aspects of the timing. But the UK has a chance to lead the world in this field as all countries grapple with the move away from fossil fuels to EVs and are looking at how best to replace lost revenue. The Government should have announced a progressive move over time to road pricing for all vehicles based on a smarter charging system using existing telematics. This would deliver wider benefits on congestion, decarbonisation and network management. It would also improve reliability of journey times for motorists and reflect how other transport modes are priced. By all means start with this crude pence-per-mile rate, but please do not rule out a more sophisticated system on wholly illusory grounds of invasion of privacy.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, the Prime Minister made strong welcome statements to NATO allies about the UK’s commitment to defence at the summit in The Hague on 24 June. He pledged the United Kingdom to increase spending on defence and wider security to 5% of GDP by 2035, with a projected split of 3.5% for core defence and 1.5% for resilience and security. He also indicated that by 2027 the UK expects to reach 4.1% of GDP on defence and security combined. This was presented as an historic commitment, aligning national security with economic security, and signalling Britain’s determination to remain a credible and capable partner in NATO.
However, when we turn to the Treasury’s position, as expressed by Ministers in recent Statements and in the Budget, the difference in tone is striking. The noble Lord, Lord Livermore, has been all too clear. In March this year he said at the Dispatch Box,
“our fiscal rules are non-negotiable”.—[Official Report, 27/3/25; col. 1824.]
He said that decisions on major spending, including defence, would be taken in the usual way, guided by forecasts and fiscal rules. Again, in July he stated:
“The Chancellor will ask the OBR to produce a new forecast in the autumn before the annual Budget and will take decisions based on that forecast”.—[Official Report, 10/7/25; col. 1461.]
The Chancellor’s Budget Statement is largely silent on defence and security. Yes, a conditional “set to spend” 2.6% of GDP by April 2027 is floated. Is this the same as the Prime Minister’s 4.1% of GDP on defence and security combined by 2027? It is hard to tell.
Much of this money has been found at the expense of overseas aid—soft power raided to pay for hard power. There is no mention by the Chancellor of the intention to reach 3%, let alone 3.5%, of GDP in the next decade. Defence does get a mention in spending to buy, make and sell more defence products and to support newbie Team Derby. This is putting the cart before the horse. Surely the Chancellor should speak in terms of the need for stronger defences in today’s world. This should have a firmer place in important government statements of national fiscal priorities. Indeed, did the Minister once touch on national defence just now? If he did, I am afraid I missed it.
The nation should be reminded of the urgent need to start paying more to enhance our conventional forces. Credibility rests on not just words but firm resources being allocated. Armed forces cannot be built up overnight. Long-term planning and certainties are necessary. If Treasury Ministers signal hesitation, or, worse, indifference, while our Prime Minister signals resolve, that sends a mixed message to allies, to those who challenge us and to our Armed Forces themselves. To treat defence as a residual claim on the public purse is to invert the priorities that safeguard our national interests. Will the Treasury now share the Prime Minister’s strategic vision? Will the Treasury accept that increasing defence expenditure for the next decade must be planned and signalled now, not judged later by the elegance of some inflexible fiscal rules or by changeable, maybe dodgy, forecasts?
Lord Hollick (Lab)
My Lords, when the Chancellor took office, she made economic growth founded upon fiscal stability her priority to escape the fiscal straitjacket that she had inherited. She has made a good start by raising and then maintaining public investment to 2.7% of GDP throughout the forecast. That is 18% above the trend since 2010, and well above the trend data of 1.6% over the last 40 years. Our infrastructure and the public realm fail to meet the demands of a growing economy and a population which has grown by 10 million since the turn of the century. Restoring fiscal stability after the battering that it has taken over the last two decades is essential. This Budget helps to achieve that by increasing headroom to a more realistic £21.7 billion, but the spending, including the welcome decision to drop the pernicious two-child benefit cap, is front-loaded and, with fiscal consolidation, achieved only at the end of the forecast.
The many tax changes include moves to improve fairness through the introduction of a mansion tax and the taxing of unearned income nearer to the level of tax paid on earned income. It is therefore surprising that magic circle lawyers on £2 million a year continue to save £300,000 by avoiding national insurance. However, other tax changes have increased the cost of business, which will dampen growth and employment, particularly for the young. The reduction of tax-advantaged salary sacrifice to only £2,000 will reduce the level of savings and investment into the economy and weaken pension security. Many of the measures have added to the complexity and unpredictability of our tax system. The Government should publish, as my noble friend Lord Eatwell said, their strategy to make tax policy fair, simpler and predictable.
The OBR is predicting low growth and low productivity up to 2030. Radical and bold measures to address the root causes of our economic malaise must be implemented now if growth is to be delivered in the near term. The generous triple lock has given pensioners in recent years a 10% real increase in income compared with the average worker. The lock has become an unfair intergenerational transfer and an unsustainable cost. Reform is overdue.
The attempts to reform welfare need to be revisited urgently to address the unaffordable rising costs and the growth of worklessness, particularly among the young. The Chancellor has announced a welcome improved offer for under-25 apprenticeships. This should be part of a range of policies to increase training for people of all ages, many of whom will need to retrain as the adoption of AI sweeps across the workplace. The construction industry alone has assessed that 1 million additional skilled workers are needed to build 1.5 million homes and the infrastructure we are building for the 21st century.
There is an urgent need to repair some of the damage from Brexit, now described in the Telegraph, surprisingly, as an unmitigated disaster. The latest forecast of up to 8% GDP and an annual loss of £100 billion of trade means that government must accelerate the negotiations to move us closer to the trading terms of the customs union.
The recent commitment of £38 billion into UK research, innovation and AI is a welcome move to capitalise on many of the UK’s great strengths. The OBR forecast is not able to include any boost from these exciting growth opportunities, but my forecast is that AI will significantly boost both productivity and growth.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hollick. Much of what he said, but not all, I agreed with. It is also a pleasure to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth on his excellent maiden speech.
There is much to criticise in this Budget, which manages to increase tax rates, tax take and debt all at the same time, as my noble friend Lord Lamont so eloquently explained. However, let me try to bring out two positive areas in the Budget and look at how we may be able to improve them further.
The first relates to the EIS and VCTs, and I declare an interest as an investor. A small group of us met James Murray when he was Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, and I am pleased to see that the Government have listened to concerns raised and have lifted some of the size restrictions on those investments. This is essential because there are real difficulties for UK companies trying to raise capital from UK investors right now. I hope that it is a subject on which we spend more time on another occasion.
I am sure the Minister will be the first to recognise and appreciate that these changes are possible only because of Brexit. We have left the EU and are no longer restricted by the EU state aid laws, other than, of course, in Northern Ireland. So, because there have been changes only to the rates but not to other restrictions, I urge the Minister to have a look at restrictions, such as the seven-year rule and the family restrictions on investing in companies to obtain EIS rates. This can now be done. As a result of the changes to the VCTs, one would hope that more people will go into the EIS directly; however, it is not clear that it will happen. A survey conducted by the Wealth Club on 1 December reveals that 85% of investors will invest less, and of that, 42% no longer invest in VCTs. Only 13% will go into the—admittedly riskier—EIS, which is, of course, what the Government wanted. So 85% of these investors believe that as a result of the move on VCTs—the restrictions—they will decrease their investment.
Another area I want to highlight are the changes to the low-value import customs duty relief, which the Minister will remember we debated in my Oral Question on 14 July 2025. Many congratulations to the Government on listening and acting. Unfortunately, it comes in only in March 2029. Why is that? I suspect the reason given by HMRC is that it is all too complicated and difficult, but that is not acceptable. I urge the Minister to get stuck in again and go back to HMRC to see whether we can bring this legislation forward, because this is having a damaging effect on small retailers up and down the country.
Finally—and not to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Razzall—I add my name to the calls for the Chancellor to reflect on what she has done. She did mislead the public deliberately—these are not my words but those of Chris Mason of the BBC. This is not behaviour becoming of her or any public figure; as a result, it will be very difficult for her to be believed at any future press conference she gives. That is not a sustainable position for our country. I do not expect the Minister to agree with me publicly, but I hope that he will use his position of power and responsibility to deal with this unsustainable position.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to be participating in today’s debate on the Budget. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, has continued to vilify—unfairly—my right honourable friend the Chancellor. Last Wednesday, the Chancellor delivered a Budget that eases the cost of living, reduces national debt, brings down NHS waiting lists and lifts nearly half a million children out of poverty, building on the progress made to date on delivering our plan for change with this Labour Budget.
I intend to speak about two matters. The first is the contribution of co-operative social enterprises and mutuals to the regeneration of our economy. I remind the House that I am a Labour and Co-operative Member of the House and refer noble Lords to my register of interests as founding chair of Social Enterprise UK and a senior associate of Social Business International. Secondly, I wish to raise a couple of questions on the impact of the Budget on women.
The manifesto on which my Government were elected included a commitment to supporting a diversity of businesses to tackle the growth in the economy. The Co-operative Party is committed to doubling the size of co-operatives in the UK. It will be clear that I am very keen on the growth of businesses that trade for a social purpose, but to achieve this will require change in business development support across government.
This was the first time in a generation that co-operatives were mentioned in a Chancellor’s Budget speech. I hope that the proper review of business support for co-ops will help drive this ambition forward. Will this be extended to social enterprises and mutuals?
Co-operatives and social enterprises are proven to be productive, resilient, long-lasting and equitable. They provide business models that do not extract wealth from local places and hoard power in the hands of shareholders. An example of that is the profit-gouging of companies making excess profits in providing residential care for our most vulnerable young people. At the moment, there is a lack of appropriate and encouraging legislation, regulation and access to financial measures and development support or education for social enterprises and co-operatives. I raised in my contribution to the King’s Speech debate last year that we see scattered regulation in this sector—the DBT, DCMS and the Treasury being the main regulators. Financial mutuals, for example, are excluded from the business department’s call for evidence on co-op growth because they fall under the Treasury’s remit. Will the Treasury consider launching an equivalent review on their contribution?
I turn briefly to the impact of the Budget on women. As my noble friend the Minister will be aware, women face structural inequality throughout their lives, and policy impacts differently on men and women. Some positive steps were definitely taken for women, but more ambition is needed, as the Women’s Budget Group said, and I agree. Was an equality impact assessment carried out on this Budget, and if not, will this happen for the future? Was there an assessment, for example, of the impact on women of freezing personal income thresholds? Is it the case that the majority of those who earn under the personal allowance tax band are women and freezing it means that more women will be paying income tax for the first time? Because women have lower incomes on average, does this mean that women will lose a greater proportion of their incomes through the freezing of this income tax threshold? I would really appreciate clarification on this from my noble friend.
Lord Hintze (Con)
My Lords, at a time of profound fiscal pressure, the question before us is not how we slice the pie, but whether we are expanding it. A responsible Budget must be grounded in economic reality. Incentives matter, savings matter, and what truly determines whether our citizens are becoming better off is growth per capita, not headline GDP; to do otherwise is misleading. I ask the Minister to consider the analysis. We can think about growth only as growth per capita. The 1.5% to which he alludes is more like 0.3%—if we are lucky. Without understanding what the proper economic drivers are, we cannot have proper policy formation. This is not a political point; it is a point for policy. To that end, I ask the Minister to please consider that if we fail to support those who produce, invest and innovate, we endanger the very foundations on which fairness and opportunity rest.
I turn to the economic principles that illuminate this challenge. These are principles we can work with. One of the most influential contributions to modern economics comes from the British Nobel laureate, Sir James Mirrlees. The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, talked about him earlier. He was very effective in the IFS and looking at British tax policy 2006-11. His seminal work in 1971 on the theory of economic transfers and optimal taxation demonstrates a simple but profound truth: redistribution changes incentives. Incentives matter. When marginal taxes rise sharply, high-productivity individuals reduce effort, invest less or relocate their activity beyond the UK. Recent examples, such as the relocation of wealth creators such as Mittal, are not ideological anecdotes but precisely the behaviour that Mirrlees predicted 50 years ago. It is a principle. As a nation, we are poorer for these people leaving—not just billionaires but the young strivers who are leaving these shores to make the UAE and other places in the world richer, not us.
Likewise, when transfers become too generous relative to wages, labour participation falls. Anyone attempting to take a train on a Sunday—we all do—encounters the resulting shortages. It is a clear expression of weakened incentives in essential services. I could go on, but please can the Minister think about that: this is economics at work.
These pressures are compounded when the state grows beyond its optimal scale. The Scully curve, demonstrated through strong academic analysis by Gerald Scully in 1989—this is an old piece—shows that excessive government activity suppresses growth. A larger state requires higher taxation, which reduces the savings that form the pool of capital for investment and innovation. When the state crowds out capital formation, it crowds out the future—our children’s future. I suspect that what we are seeing in our world at the moment is that crowding out.
This argument is for fairness for working people, savers and innovators. Fairness must also protect the fragile in our society. The elderly, the sick and the disabled cannot simply “adjust incentives”; they depend on a state strong enough to provide support, yet disciplined enough to ensure that that support is sustainable. When our growth falters, it is the most vulnerable who suffer first. Thus, the defence of our fragile citizens is inseparable from the defence of economic growth.
Baroness Moyo (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will centre my remarks on whether the Budget will help to catalyse economic growth in this country. In her Budget speech the Chancellor referred to economic growth as
“the best means of improving wages, creating jobs and supporting public services”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/11/25; col. 385.]
I will address two persistent chokeholds on the economy: high energy prices and low private sector investment. To my mind, neither issue has been adequately addressed in this Budget.
Let us first remember where our economy lies today: the OBR has lowered the UK’s economic growth forecast to 1.4% in 2026, and it is stuck at 1.5% in all of the following four years. In September, the unemployment rate stood at 5% and, worse still, more than 15% of young people aged between 16 and 24 are unemployed or not in school or training. Inflation, although it has dipped a bit, is stubbornly at 3.6%, in excess of the 2% Bank of England target. Given this backdrop, lowering energy prices and increasing private investment levels are both urgent matters.
On the cost of energy, I note that the Government have cut the green levy to lower household energy bills. However, the Budget does not address the structural forces behind high energy costs for households, business and public services such as the NHS. Britain’s high energy cost of 40 cents per kilowatt hour is an international outlier and a distinct disadvantage. France is at 28 cents, the US is at 18 cents and both China and India are at 8 cents. Such energy costs in the United Kingdom undermine attempts to build economic growth. As I have noted in your Lordships’ Chamber before, cutting energy costs is the ultimate non-inflationary economic stimulus and one that this country urgently needs. Thus, government policy should embrace all forms of energy, including those we have in the North Sea.
On investment, I point noble Lords to my registered interests as a member of the board of directors of Starbucks and Chevron, and a member of the Oxford University Endowment investment committee, all of which have notable investment interests in the United Kingdom. A Government with a stated mission to pursue economic growth must encourage private sector investment, which supports jobs, innovation and the economy. This Budget attempts to do so, but there is, as ever, considerable scope to do much more.
The Budget outlines constructive measures such as encouraging ISAs to invest in equities as well as cash, stamp duty holidays on newly listed companies, and reforms to the Enterprise Management Incentives scheme. However, these measures will have a marginal, not transformational impact, not least because other Budget measures such as higher taxes on dividends for investors will likely offset these benefits. Only a more holistic approach can be catalytic in driving investment.
We must not lose sight of the growth objective and imperative. Therefore, the Budget trade-offs in tax, spending and debt need ultimately to stimulate growth. Lower energy prices and higher private investment are not only crucial for propelling growth; they are a pre-requisite for prosperity.
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
My Lords, there is no disguising the scale of the economic challenges facing our country, and the Budget had commendable clarity in its central objectives: tackling the high cost of living, which has hit so many families so hard; maintaining the investment in our economy and our public services, which is crucial to delivering growth; and cutting debt and borrowing to create a more prudent level of headroom.
The evidence for the previous Government’s economic mismanagement was all around us when Labour took office: bulging NHS waiting lists, crumbling school buildings, the prison service on the point of collapse, the courts system in disarray, and wages stagnant right across the economy. I could go on. However, this gave the Government a choice: to accept the public realm descending further into chaos, or to commit to the sustained investment alongside key reforms that could begin to restore the vital public services that most of us rely on. They have made the right choice.
Sustained investment is being delivered too in our infrastructure, transport system, energy security and housing, with the £120 billion of capital investment set out in the June spending review fully maintained. These will be key factors in driving future growth. In the past, we have seen Governments turn off vital capital investment at the first sign of economic strain, but the consequences were predictable: damaged confidence, and any previous economic momentum hitting the buffers hard. This Government are rightly clear that they will not go down that blind alley. These decisions meant that, in some areas, taxes have been increased and of course nobody likes that. In a fantasy world, difficult choices can always be sidestepped, but that is not the world this Government choose to inhabit.
One critical factor that influenced the OBR’s judgment was the relatively poor productivity performance of the UK economy. Of course, a number of factors are crucial to that. How well do the capital markets work at allocating resources where the growth potential is most significant? Investment in skills is vital too. I therefore welcome the reforms to apprenticeships, and the increased support to SMEs that is now to be provided alongside the youth guarantees.
Improving productivity will require innovation in so many areas. AI will be a major driver of change and, as we meet those challenges, I hope that we do not forget about the people we need to carry with us to deliver the changes we need. Workers and their unions want to be partners in shaping lasting economic success, and the Employment Rights Bill will provide positive change in that area.
We should acknowledge that a corner is being turned, with the forecast for growth now upgraded from 1% to 1.5%. We are on course to be the second-fastest growing economy in the G7 group. New deals with important trading partners, long-sought and now at last achieved, will play their part in driving growth. Critically, real wages have seen increases after a lost decade and more under the previous Government. Falling interest rates will give an additional boost to household incomes.
Let us therefore focus on the substance of the Budget and not the confected outrage about the communications around it, accompanied by an unhealthy dose of misogyny in the cynical, over-the-top personal attacks on the Chancellor. There is of course more to do, but this Budget has not been about flash-in-the-pan gimmicks but serious and sustained reforms. It deserves our support.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I cannot welcome this Budget. It is a bad Budget for Britain, in terms of not only lack of growth but rising unemployment and inflation. Looked at from pretty much every angle, it is a bad Budget for the average working household. I will not get into process; the only process I care about is the payslip that people will open next April when they are paying higher taxes, having been promised by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor that that would not be the case.
The Prime Minister and the Chancellor also promised before the election last year that they would not scrap the two-child limit because they said it was not affordable or fair. I completely understand that it is open to a Government to make different political choices, but if they then say that they were not misleading anybody, that is simply not the case. I appreciate that Labour MPs were very keen on scrapping it, and I notice that the Liberal Democrats and, I think, the Reform Party also support that.
Since this Labour Government came into power, we have already seen a rise in the proportion of workless households, we have seen an increase in the proportion of households where only one person is working, we have seen more than 100,000 more people, unfortunately, join the ranks of the NEETs and we have seen a rise in the number of unemployed people. On the 450,000 figure that the Minister cites—I resent children just being considered statistics; they are individual children—I would be interested to know whether that relates to relative poverty or absolute poverty and whether it includes or excludes housing costs.
Paragraph 2.20 of the Budget book, which relates to the increase in universal credit, says:
“these reforms will have a positive impact”
on the labour supply. But that is not true, as is set out in box 3.2 of the OBR publication, which says that the cuts to benefits will increase the labour supply by about 26,000 in average hours equivalent. According to the OBR, the rise in the standard allowance, which I think will cost more than £500 million more on its introduction, will reduce the number of people working.
And what are we hearing from the Government? On the one hand, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said that it was unsustainable to have a welfare system where people got stuck on benefits. But we are starting to see the same behaviour from this Government that they deployed in the design of other elements relating to whether people will be better off in work than not.
The tax credits regime was subsidising low wages but, more importantly, people very rationally would not work for more than 16 hours unless they were guaranteed a full-time job, because it would be to their detriment to do any more. This led to employers around the country redesigning jobs to make sure that they could accommodate more people working solely 16 hours a week. Eventually, with universal credit, we have managed to get rid of that ridiculous cliff edge, but I am concerned that we will now start to see similar calculations going on.
It is not just about the numbers; I appreciate that the Minister was very proud of the fact that other measures are being extended. But, as Darren Jones said, we have to try to encourage people to make that decision not just on whether they will be better off on benefits. Will it be the case that universal free school meals will encourage people to work more hours? The answer is no. We already know that nearly a quarter of a million households with a household income of over £35,000 will now get free school meals. In what way is this an encouragement for people to do what is best for their children and to try to have even fewer working households on benefits than there are today and to encourage people to get into work?
There is a lot to be said on this Budget, but it really worries me for the future of our children and our economy. That is why I regret that so many Budget resolutions were passed, including that on the farm tax. Therefore, I hope that the Government will reconsider when they start to see the unemployment figures rising at a ridiculous rate.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth on his first contribution. I too have a couple of firsts to record in my contribution today. In my 28 years in your Lordships’ House, this is the first time I have ever spoken in a Budget debate, and it is also the first time I have spoken in the same debate as my noble kinsman Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town.
I may be in a minority, but I am recording great and unequivocal satisfaction with a Budget announcement, and that is the announcement that the Government are to right a long-standing wrong. The Chancellor has set aside £75 million to fix systematic failures that cause hundreds of thousands of unpaid carers to be hit with huge bills after unwittingly breaching complex and confusing benefit rules. Unpaid carers who look after loved ones for at least 35 hours a week are entitled to £83.30 a week in carer’s allowance, provided their weekly earnings from part-time jobs do not exceed £196. If they exceed this limit, even by as little as a penny, under the cliff-edge rules, they must repay the entire week’s allowance. So a carer who oversteps the threshold by one penny a week for a year must repay not £52 but £4,331.60, plus a £50 civil penalty.
These draconian penalties were exacerbated by the failure of the DWP to alert all unpaid carers who overstepped the earnings limit, even though they had access to real-time data. This meant that, in some cases, overpayments were allowed to accumulate for years before unwitting carers were handed huge bills. This caused terrible distress, real hardship and even imprisonment.
This problem was known about for years. Carers UK began its campaign to alert the then Government to it in 2018. That year, the National Audit Office published a devastating report on the DWP’s handling of carer’s allowance, but we were assured that the problem was under control, even though a whistleblower revealed that this was far from the case. In April 2024, a Guardian investigation revealed that tens of thousands of carers were still being asked to repay huge sums, while others were being pursued for fraud claims. Still the DWP did nothing, although by then £357 million had been paid out in error.
It was a great relief when the incoming Labour Government launched an independent review, led by the much-respected disability campaigner Liz Sayce, and the then Secretary with responsibility for welfare pledged to fix the mistakes. In that year’s Budget, the earnings limit was hugely raised. The independent review found a catalogue of failure by the DWP. It found that the breaches of the rules were not wilful but honest mistakes made as a result of unclear guidance or administrative errors by the Government. There will be a review of hundreds of thousands of overpayment cases going back to 2015, which means scores of carers could be reimbursed and have unjust criminal convictions overturned.
This is a huge victory for carers, and the £75 million allocated in the Budget will make a start on fixing what the Secretary of State at the DWP has called a “mess”. It is a vital step towards addressing the injustices that have faced carers for far too long. Of course, it is as yet unclear how much of the funding will directly benefit carers, but we shall keep a close eye on how this progresses. For the present, I congratulate the Government and thank the Chancellor for making a start on righting this terrible wrong.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, I have a lot of personal regard for the Minister, and I listened to his speech carefully, but I did not hear a single word about unemployment, so allow me to help him.
Many of us, sadly, are old enough to remember the Government of Harold Wilson. He came in promising “white heat” and left with more people out of work, which I suppose was unfortunate for a Government formed by the party of the workers. It was even more unfortunate when Labour next got in. It was Wilson and Jim Callaghan—Sunny Jim, a decent man whom I liked very much—but once again, when Labour left office, unemployment was up. Then came Blair and Brown and—surprise, surprise—after 13 years of the Chuckle Brothers, it was up again, at nearly 8%. How can it be that every time in living memory that Labour has got into power, it has left with more workers out of jobs than when it started?
And now, dear Keir: after just a year, and an avalanche of election promises about growth and new jobs and not taxing workers, can you guess it? Unemployment is up. “Come, friendly bombs, and fall on Slough. They all blew up; I know not how. And when I look into the sky, all I see are pigs that fly”. I hope for Santa’s sake, this Christmas, that the reindeer are going to be able to find it past all those squadrons of flying pigs.
It is really all the fault of the OBR, of course, and so its boss joins the growing list of all those who are losing their jobs under Labour. And he will not be the last. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that, by this time next year, unemployment will be lower. I ask him for that assurance, but I fear he will not give it—he cannot; that is why he did not mention it in the first place. At the last Budget, we were promised that things were sorted. “I’m not coming back for more”, the Chancellor said. Well, I bet she wishes the BBC had done one of its special editing jobs on that one and left great chunks of it on the cutting room floor.
“Those with the broadest shoulders must carry their fair share of the burden”. It is a good phrase, but those with the broadest shoulders also have the fastest feet. They are leaving, and so are the young. Almost all emigration from this country is made up of people under 35, taking their future, and ours, with them. Every time Labour gets into power, it puts more people out of work. That cannot all be the fault of Brexit, can it? The working men and women of this country deserve better than they are being given.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, on behalf of the veterinary sector, I thank the Government for confirming in the Budget the commitment to a consultation on reform of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. This is sorely needed, as the sector has seen significant structural change in the last 15 years. I was asked to note my registered interest as the operations director and a shareholder of a large, independent veterinary practice, which is an SME.
I speak today with SMEs and employees in mind. I think that many who own and work in SMEs would accept a tax rise if the extra funds could be used to reduce the national debt and encourage growth. We recognise the need to support people in need, but continued growth of spending on benefits will not support growth within our economy. I also welcome today’s announcement by the Health Minister of a review into mental health overdiagnosis to encourage those on benefits back to work, and SMEs would welcome them.
This Government came in on a manifesto promise of change to support and encourage growth in the economy. There was an opportunity for the Chancellor to make significant changes to simplify the tax system, but these were not taken in this Budget, which certainly did not encourage or support SMEs in investment and growth.
The Budget added further tax burdens to both employees and SMEs. I have three requests for the Minister to take to the Treasury for possible future adjustment to reduce those burdens. The first is to reconsider the student loan freeze on plan 2. Surely this is not a tax; it is simply a repayment process for students who invest in their future. For an economy to grow, we need aspiring individuals who want to work hard and get rewarded by higher salaries. Freezing this limit will reduce their take-home pay further, at a time when they desperately need funds for high housing costs and possibly to raise a family. Will the Chancellor please reconsider this change and remove the freeze? This would help our younger generation to aspire to a working life and not to feel that they are just paying down the country’s debt, from which they have not benefited.
The second request is to take out pension payments from the change to the salary sacrifice scheme. Businesses’ employees are encouraged to sign up to the auto-enrolment scheme, and most do, to help save for the future and to help fund retirement and not be a burden on the state. This change will take a small amount of money away from individuals’ savings and their disposable income, as NIC will be charged on auto-enrolment at 5%, which they and employers cannot avoid. The majority will be above the median salary in the UK. It will bring an additional cost to SMEs employing skilled workers whose salaries are over £40,000. It will also stop employers supporting their staff in saving for the future and increase costs. This does not help productivity or growth.
My final request is for further consideration of the IHT changes to APR and BPR in last year’s Budget. Family businesses and farms welcome the small change for the allowance of £1 million to be kept and transferred to spouses in the future, but it does not go far enough. Further relief is needed to protect family businesses with high asset values, such as land and buildings, that generate low income. Could the Government look again at increasing the limit further or even at a transitional relief—for example, for five years—to allow families to move assets to the next generation or distribute them among family members to reduce the IHT tax burden on assets that do not generate significant income, so that an unsustainable tax bill for these marginally profit-making farms and small businesses that are vital to our economy is not incurred?
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the Chancellor’s measures to combat the cost of living crisis, particularly for those on lower incomes, were the touchstone for this Budget. The Government were right to make this a priority. The Trussell Trust had to increase its provision of emergency food parcels to 1.4 million between April and September in 2024. That was a shocking 69% increase on 2019.
The most unjust and harmful impact of this is on children. As the Chancellor said,
“there is the future cost to our economy and our society, of wasted talent, and a welfare system that bears the cost of failure for decades to come”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/11/25; col. 394.]
Any responsible Government would take action to address this. We know that removing the two-child cap is the quickest and most effective way to lift tens of thousands of children out of poverty. The Chancellor’s decision to remove the cap is a major victory for anti-poverty campaigners, but, more importantly, for the 450,000 children it will lift out of poverty.
I want to focus on social and affordable homes. One of the most transformative, sustainable and long-term ways to tackle cost of living pressures is by delivering a major programme of social and affordable housing. Analysis from the National Housing Federation found that sub-market rents in general need social housing properties and provide savings to residents of £21 billion per year, compared with what they would have to pay in the private rented sector. That represents a saving of nearly 49%. Living in social housing saves the average household more than £5,000 per year in rent. This translates to an estimated £13 billion per year saving on support for housing costs through the welfare system.
At the spending review in June, the Government announced a transformational package of investment in social and affordable homes. One of its key pillars was a decision on rent convergence, with a consultation over the summer. Certainty and urgency are needed, so that housing associations and councils are able to put in strong bids for funding in the new social and affordable homes programme to deliver on the Government’s housebuilding ambitions. Any delay to this decision would delay investment and reduce the impact on new homes within this Parliament. Can the Minister explain why this decision has been delayed? Can he confirm whether the Government still intend to implement social rent convergence from April 2026?
Can I also put in a plea for supported housing? Many schemes are closing across the country due to many previous years of cuts. Without these homes, more people face homelessness, longer stays in hospital or in-patient mental health units or homes that do not meet their care needs. Will the Minister assure us that supported housing will feature prominently within the Government’s forthcoming homelessness and long-term housing strategies?
I want finally to raise a different topic: growth in the economy and the vital role of higher education in its delivery. I congratulate the Government on their decision to link undergraduate fees to inflation. That was difficult, important and courageous. I am also thrilled at the decision to increase QR in line with inflation and the science Minister’s cast-iron commitment to curiosity-driven research. I therefore ask one final question of the Minister. What impact will the international levy have on the university sector and what is the net result of that tax, set against those improvements?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to contribute to this important debate. I will confine my remarks to the Budget announcement on funding for special educational needs and disabilities, in particular how the annual and cumulative deficits historically borne by local authorities will be funded in future when they form part of overall government spending.
As I said in the House yesterday, on this side we want the Government’s SEND reforms to succeed. However, the Government’s announcement has caused considerable anxiety. The expected deficit on the dedicated schools grant is projected to be £6.3 billion in the year 2028-29, with a cumulative deficit of £14 billion by the end of this spending review period. This is not just a one-year problem. The three years of projected deficits beyond the spending review set out in the OBR document total more than £20 billion. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that this is correct, assuming no further reform of the system beyond what the Government have already announced but not yet published.
The Government have said clearly that this pressure will not fall on mainstream school budgets. Tom Josephs of the OBR described this to the Treasury Select Committee following the Budget as a very large pressure, estimated at around £6 billion, being shifted from the local authority sector to central government. He highlighted that the Government have not yet set out either how this will be funded or where offsetting savings will come from. In that context, can the Minister explain to parents and to schools where the £6.3 billion for 2028-29 will come from, and the £20 billion-plus for the three years to 2030-31, if it is not coming from the schools budget—and I appreciate that that has been definitively rejected? The phrase I think that has been used by Ministers is that this will be “absorbed across government”. I am tempted to speculate what the noble Lord would have said to me if I had stood at the Dispatch Box and tried to argue that that much money could be absorbed.
Turning to the cumulative £14 billion deficit, can the Minister set out what the Government’s plans are for dealing with this? The Institute for Fiscal Studies, in a recent article, has raised concerns that writing off these deficits could weaken the financial incentives for councils to control SEND spending, and suggests that the recent acceleration we have seen in that spending might indicate that this is already occurring. It is important that the Government set out how they plan to avoid this risk. I would be very grateful if the Minister could address these points when he winds up, but if he runs out of time—and I realise that that is a high probability—I would be very grateful if he could write to me to provide answers.
As I said at the outset, there is a genuine wish to see these SEND reforms. It is an incredibly complex and sensitive area that matters hugely to parents of all children. But if the Government want to build confidence in their reforms and prioritise outcomes for children, as they have so clearly said, they need to give credible answers to these questions.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I will focus on the Government’s support for start-ups and scale-ups, as outlined in the entrepreneurial prospectus published with the Budget, and on the work needed beyond investment to fulfil the Chancellor’s promise to become a better customer to innovative procurement. That promise, aimed at achieving revenue for companies for exports and growth to boost the economy, will remain an illusion until we eliminate Whitehall’s four horsemen of the apocalypse—pestilence, war, famine and death—rampaging deep within our procurement and innovation systems.
Pestilence commandeers intellectual property in grants and contracts, stripping innovative tech businesses of their competitive edge and deterring investors. War forces indemnities, demanding that fledgling companies shoulder risks that are impossible for them to bear. Famine blocks procurement, as in the new Department for Transport’s technology programme, which excludes the very innovators it claims to champion. Death is delivered by exercising the harshest terms in innovation loans, compelling the wind-up of viable companies, refusing flexibility and extinguishing enterprise. These are not abstract flaws: they are lived realities.
Last Wednesday, the Times exposed the strangulation trap that Innovate activated against Wootzano, with a government agency looking more like an asset stripper. It is not the only example. Crown Commercial Services publications show that the new transport technology framework rejected every single start-up and scale-up applicant. Companies such as Vivacity Labs, with nearly $20 million raised to optimise traffic networks with AI, were rejected. Caura, backed by £4 million from Lloyds Bank, and contributing to the National Parking Platform, was rejected. Liftango, advancing shared mobility with $10 million raised, was rejected. Each rejection is not only lost contracts: it is a lost opportunity for Britain’s future. Many others have given up applying, knowing they will be assessed by big-company criteria—by EBITDA—when they do not yet have revenue. That is what they need the procurement for: the Government’s role is to be first mover, not a follower.
I commend the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, for his valiant efforts to reform the IP-grabbing terms in Innovate UK contracts over this last year since I first raised the matter. But it shows the uphill task, and there are all the procurement departments yet to tackle. Therefore, in line with the prospectus promise, I appeal to the Minister to meet with me, examine the evidence and bring the Treasury’s weight to bear in all departments to bring rapid change. The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys, the ScaleUp Institute, which the Minister referenced in his opening remarks, and countless companies have all sounded the alarm on these issues. We are not all wrong, whatever the Government are being told. Will they stop the rampage of these horsemen?
Baroness Curran (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by offering my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth on his inspiring maiden speech. In the short time I have, I want to make two key arguments. First, the Government are right to tackle the fundamental challenges that were undermining the British economy, leading to years of sluggish economic growth. Secondly, they are also right to invest and innovate through key measures such as building infrastructure, reforming planning, developing new skills, investing in public services and taking measures to tackle the cost of living—because as this Government know, investing in public services helps an economy grow.
We have paid a heavy economic price for the policies of the last Government. According to the House of Commons Library, prolonged austerity has weakened the UK’s economic growth by suppressing demand, reducing investment and eroding public services. According to the OBR—although I note that many noble Lords have said that this is a critical underestimate—Brexit has permanently reduced UK GDP by around 4%. I firmly contend that in this Budget, the Government have got the balance right between addressing these legacy challenges and moving forward to growth, stability and economic confidence.
That balance has been brought about by a number of measures: as has been mentioned, the £150 off energy bills to tackle the cost of living, but also crucial investment in skills and apprenticeships, with £820 million set aside for a new youth guarantee of employment. There are to be increases in pay after decades of wage restraint, leading to an increase in annual earnings for about 2.4 million workers, thereby stimulating demand. The measures go further, encouraging innovation investment opportunities through increased budgets for UK research and greatly improved regulation of the nuclear industry, and opening up new development across the country. Sadly, that is not an option available for those of us in Scotland, as the SNP Government have taken the shortsighted decision to block nuclear power development, cutting Scotland off from huge opportunities for investment, jobs and skills.
I am sure the Minister will know that Anas Sarwar, Labour’s leader in Scotland, has vowed to end the seemingly “economics-free zone” of the Scottish Government, and commissioned Professor Anton Muscatelli, former principal of Glasgow University, to report on how to stimulate growth in the Scottish economy. He called for
“greater coherence in policy design”,
better use of Holyrood’s levers to support regional strengths, and
“stronger collaboration between Scotland’s governments”.
I know that the Minister will support such collaboration, so I ask him to study and consider the recommendations in the Muscatelli report.
The Minister has had a lot of asks today, and I am sure he is going through the list, but may I add one more? Can he also consider the representations of Prosper, an organisation in Scotland that brings together key stakeholders, including industry, seeking to promote economic growth? It has many insights and some direct requests—for example, that UK Government departments involve Scottish industries directly in developing targeted sector plans.
In conclusion, we should be clear in this House about the achievements of the Chancellor. She has cut NHS waiting lists, child poverty, inflation and borrowing costs. This Government are innovating and reforming the economy to ensure the stability and growth from which all citizens can benefit.
Lord Saatchi (Con)
How they laughed, my Lords. Seeking for economic growth in Britain, I went to the fount of economic wisdom at the London School of Economics and asked a roomful of professors whether anyone had a brilliant idea for how to get economic growth. How they laughed. It would take a complete change in the entire culture of the society—inconceivable; impossible.
Undeterred, I went to the citadel of economic power, the UK Treasury. Seated at a huge mahogany oval table, surrounded by gilt-framed portraits of great former Chancellors on the elegant oak-panelled walls, I told them, “You are torturing people with your tax and benefits system. You are telling people flat out not to work. Maybe they are sick, or maybe they’re not, but the one certainty is that they are not stupid. You are telling them that their after-tax income from a job is less than they get on benefits. No wonder half the population of Britain is now means-tested for benefits. This has to change. People need more incentive to work, not less, or we will never get any growth”. So I said. The response? Just that—total silence.
The top official then spoke in a stern, grave voice, adopting the tone of a strict headmaster admonishing a child brought before him for unruly behaviour in class. He advised me to regard the enormous table as if it were the universe, with the tax system as the solar system—the sun, stars, moon and planets all in their proper place. He moved the coffee cup by one inch and explained that, although that might seem a minor change in one corner of the universe, it could have untold repercussions at the other end. Bearing in mind, he said, the danger of unintended consequences, it was therefore best not to upset the balance of God’s creation.
There it is: the professors say it is impossible; the Treasury says it cannot be done. Is there any hope? Of course there is, because we have in our hands the greatest underutilised social and economic weapon of all time—tax. Long ago fallen from the grand role of social engineering, tax has been reduced to the junior role of revenue generation, as is well illustrated by this Budget. Yet it is at least on a par with the NHS or the criminal justice system in its impact on the culture of our society.
The worst of all worlds would be a continuation of the status quo, where we have to accept as inevitable the present combination of high taxes and inadequate public services. We need someone to emerge who is intelligent enough to match the massed ranks of the LSE professors and the Treasury officials. Do such people really exist? Can they exist? Of course they can, and they do. We need someone like President John F Kennedy. Had he ever left Dealey Plaza in Dallas on 22 November 1963, he would have gone to Austin, Texas to give a speech that night in which he would have addressed the American situation. We have the words of that speech. It would have ended with exactly the six words we urgently need now to end Britain’s endless economic malaise. It is not complicated; this is what is required:
“Neither conformity nor complacency will do”.
Lord Jones of Penybont (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth for his maiden speech. As I know, it is always nice to get it out of the way. There is a build-up towards it and it is a relief when it finishes.
It was my destiny—some might say my misfortune—to spend most of my term as First Minister of Wales dealing with a UK Conservative Government. There were occasions on which there was genuine co-operation. The city deals were one example but, by and large, we saw our budgets cut in real terms year after year through the block grant. Each time that happened we were accused by the Government in London of not spending the money we did not have in the first place. It is a relief and a joy now to see the money that has been allocated to Wales as a result of this Budget—£505 million extra on top of £425 million as the result of the reshaping and reconfiguring of the fiscal framework. This is welcome news indeed.
I will also refer to some of the projects that have been announced in Wales. In the past decade, I sat and watched the ending of a subsidy for solar panels, which was removed in the middle of a consultation on precisely the same point. I saw the effective banning of wind farms in England. I saw the failure to support the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon.
On top of that was the failure to support the Wylfa nuclear power station on Anglesey. This was a very good project with a reputable Japanese company involved in delivering it, so I was delighted to see that it has been resurrected in the form of an SMR. Six hundred jobs were sustained on the island of Anglesey as the result of Wylfa being there. I hope to see those jobs return to the island. I ask the Minister to consider whether Trawsfynydd, the previous site of a nuclear power station, could also be considered for an SMR. These are rural areas, but they are also areas of strength for the Welsh language. Without the jobs to sustain them, young people have to leave, with the consequent detrimental effect on the language, so this announcement is very welcome.
I also welcome the announcements regarding Cardiff Parkway and Cardiff Central railway stations, which are long overdue. I suspect that Cardiff Central is one of the most overcrowded stations in Britain; there are trains that queue to get into that station. Reshaping it and bringing it up to 21st-century standards is hugely important, and I welcome that. I contrast that with the promise made by a previous UK Conservative Government to electrify the south Wales main line to Swansea—a promise that, sadly, was never kept. The people of Wales will welcome this investment in their transport network, together, of course, with what is being done by the Welsh Government through the establishment and financing of Transport for Wales.
We have also seen extra money from the Budget for the freeports, first with £25 million in Holyhead—not too far from Wylfa—and £4 million for land reclamation at Port Talbot within the boundary of the Celtic Freeport. These are all examples of a Labour Government in London and a Labour Government in Cardiff delivering for the people of Wales. It was also good to see the investment in AI in both north and south Wales, and the proposed semiconductor cluster. Wales is one of the world leaders in the production of compound semiconductors, so to see that being taken forward and invested in is hugely important.
Many of us on these Benches will applaud the lifting of the two-child cap. Some 69,000 children in Wales alone will be taken out of poverty as a result, and many more will benefit as a result of the lifting of the minimum wage. Does the Minister agree that Wales is best served when there are Governments in London and Cardiff of like mind? That is the best way to deliver. This Budget has delivered and I look forward to seeing further delivery from both Governments working together in the future.
Lord Bird (CB)
I am not here to congratulate the Government, nor to commiserate with the Opposition. I am here to talk about what the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, has called for, which is: not more of the same. I think that is what he asked for.
I came into the House of Lords—I am sorry that I keep repeating this—to get rid of poverty, not to make the poor more comfortable, which every Administration since the Second World War has been trying to do. As a person who comes from that class, I know darn well that if you spend all your efforts on trying to make the poor comfortable then you will destroy their future, because there is no such thing as a future if you are stuck in poverty.
I was astonished to hear from the Minister that poverty costs £40 billion. I am astonished because of the fact that roughly half of the budgets for our NHS hospitals—this is according to the doctors I have spoken to—are spent on trying to keep the poorest among us as healthy as possible. Look at the fact that 50% of people who suffer from cardiac arrests and cardiac illnesses are those who have food poverty in their background. If you look at the prison system, it is almost a poverty system. All right, we have some middle-class and upper-class people; we have had the occasional posh person join the prison estate, but it is mainly a gateway for people to go into a closed society who themselves have inherited poverty. What I do not understand about this Government, and did not understand about the previous one or the one before, and the one before them, is that they never stop and say, as the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, is asking us to do, that it does not work.
Some years ago, I developed something called the PEC system. I am very proud of it, because it has been used by Governments elsewhere and by local authorities. I have spoken about it in the House. PEC stands for “prevention, emergency, cure”. Why is it that all Governments have a number of initiatives and projects around prevention and cure that never go mainstream? Why is it that 80% of the money that this Government are spending directly on poverty is spent in the emergency of poverty: in holding the hands of the poorest among us? When are we going to wake up to the fact that it is a great risk to democracy? We are going to see it coming down the line. Reform is riddled with poverty. The people who are getting on the boats coming over here are riddled with poverty. Yet Government after Government, department after department, Minister after Minister, still keep this shambolic governmental system, with a Treasury that is hidden from sight on most occasions and does not get down into the dirt and look at the damage done by poverty.
I will end there, but I would like to congratulate the Government on their Budget. I would love to see some real, serious intervention in this House and the other place around the idea of when we are going to dismantle poverty rather than doing these stop-gap things.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, to be frank, I am not entirely sure where to begin. There is much to consider and even more to be concerned about. This Budget, at its core—in a deliberate political choice—is about welfare over work. We are asked to believe that this Budget strengthens the economy and supports working families, but, once you look past the presentation, a very different picture appears: rising inactivity, weakening incentives—a point made by my noble friend Lord Hintze—and a welfare system growing far faster than our economy can sustain. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I focus my limited time on that core issue.
Politics is about choices, and the choices in this Budget are unmistakable. At every turn, the Government have chosen welfare over work. We on these Benches and, I am sure, all other Benches in the House are absolutely clear that help should be given to those who really need it, and should be given at the time that they need it. We see this most clearly in the decision to abolish the two-child limit. We are told this is an act of compassion. But compassion first requires honesty, and the evidence is clear: workless households are the strongest predictor of poverty. Removing the cap, which I have no doubt is well intentioned, will mean more children growing up in a family where no one works, at a time when the economy has already shed 180,000 payroll jobs in the past year and when labour supply growth is falling.
What makes the choice all the more striking is that Labour once knew this. As my noble friend Lady Coffey already said, the Chancellor herself argued that keeping the cap was the right thing to do. She did it so strongly that colleagues were suspended for disagreeing with her. People respond to incentives, and the incentives in this Budget are in danger of pointing people firmly away from work. Many on welfare now receive around £2,500 a month, which is more than someone earning the minimum wage takes home. Meanwhile, the Chancellor’s inflammatory policies and tax rises are stifling take-home pay for those in work.
Additionally, new analysis shows that a jobless family on combined benefits will now take home £18,000 more each year than a working family with the same number of children. Why would you go to work? We are in danger of creating lifestyles that are unsustainable through paid work. When the system pays more not to work than to work, people are not being irresponsible but responding to the incentives that the Government have created. Their choices are rational; the Government’s choices are wrong.
This is not a strategy for growth or a route to higher living standards. It is the story of a country slowly drifting into deeper dependency and a Government content to let that drift continue. We want resilience, not reliance. We want independence, not dependence.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, while I welcome much in the Budget, I will raise a single issue: the reforms to council tax. On a number of occasions over recent years, I have raised in Westminster and in the northern media anomalies in the levying of council tax. The classic example is that the levy on a Cumbrian council house is the same as the charge on a £60 million house in Mayfair. Harold Pinter would have revelled in all its absurdity.
How has this come about? We need to go back not only to the antecedent valuation date, or AVD, set in 1991, but to the potential for revenue raising being available primarily from parking revenues. With that in mind, some years ago I undertook a project comparing local authority charges in the north with charges in a selection of boroughs in the south, all charging lower rates. My findings and data were widely disseminated, provoking an avalanche of mail and the use of my data in the House.
My conclusion was simple: we need to revisit the system and introduce new bandings. Earlier this year, I proposed new bandings I, J, K and L. The Government are proposing the use of cash thresholds, and I cannot quite understand why. I am sure there will be an explanation and I wait with interest to hear it. Why can we not have new letter bandings, set perhaps at £2 million, £3 million, £4 million and £5 million-plus? We could then begin the slope of progressive movement down the scale of letter revaluations.
I am more than aware of the sensitivities in dealing with amendments to local taxation. Some say that the late Baroness Thatcher lost her leadership over her decision to introduce the community charge in the late 1980s. I understand that we need to act with care. The establishing of council tax liabilities under a 1991 AVD is becoming increasingly abused and administratively complicated. At some stage, we will have to bite the bullet and reform the system. The question is whether we can do it without generating widespread anxiety and an electoral backlash.
We have a number of options. During revaluation transition, we could freeze households to existing bandings for a number of years: let us say 20. We could freeze bandings to current occupancy or even limited successor occupancy. Whatever we do, we have to deal with a system in which problems are inherent: levels are often too high and remain unchallenged or are too low, due to factors widely recognised in the House. It is perfectly possible to progressively create a system based on current letter valuation principles, where council tax payment levels remain broadly unchanged yet which at the same time deals with the absurdities in a system that has long passed its sell-by date.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. He is very courageous in the way that he still contributes to the proceedings of this House, albeit over the internet.
You do not have to be a rocket scientist to have been able to tell way before the last election that Labour was going to win it. That seems to have been a pretty well-established fact long before the general election was held, although we did not know that the majority was going to be as big as it was. We all knew that Labour was going to win, so why did it not have a more coherent policy vis-à-vis the economy of this country?
We are talking now as though the unaffordability of the welfare state is something new. It has been there for a very long time, and Labour should have known that for ages and produced ideas for how to tackle it. When it was looking around for policies to follow, surely it could have done a lot worse than many of those of the Blair Government. They were re-elected more than once as a Labour Government and can be put down as one of the successful Labour Governments in this country in recent history. Why did Labour not look at what the Blair Government did and think, “Should we be emulating that as way forward in running the economy?”
The Government have put an enormous premium on the whole matter of growth, and that is absolutely right. But the problem with infrastructure growth is that it takes a very long time to come through. Orders get disputed the whole time. There is a dispute about a major nuclear power station, I think in Essex, because there is bird sanctuary next door, and it says that a number of rare birds will be wiped out if the power station is built. It is the first time I have heard of birds being affected by building power stations; you very much feel that any excuse is better than none to try to stop the progress of building this power station. The Prime Minister himself pointed out that £100 million was spent on a bat tunnel on HS2. Going by reports in the newspapers, none of the bats has gone into the tunnel but their number has increased in the meantime. It seems that we are getting slightly carried away by all these environmental concerns which slow everything down.
The answer is to look to the private sector. Before the election, it was very keen to expand and confidence was growing. As my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe pointed out, there was a lot of Budget speculation which meant that a lot of people who might have taken the decision to expand their business said, “There’s so much uncertainty around, I’ll sit on my hands and wait to see what the Budget produces”. To their alarm, the first Budget produced a whole mass of taxes that were damaging to small businesses, so they not only sat on their hands for that period but continued to do so and did not expand. That is why the economy is rapidly slowing down and unemployment is rising.
There was no question of the Blair Government ever taking this view towards the private sector. Indeed, they kept most of Thatcher’s reforms in place; they did not drive away the non-doms and rich people. The noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, who was a big chief in the Blair Government, went around saying that he was very comfortable with the filthy rich. It is extraordinary that no lessons have been learned from the Blair Government, and the result is that I do not think that this Government’s mismanagement of the economy will survive the next election.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, but I will not be discussing power stations in Essex.
On Budget day, at 2.44 pm and six seconds—I know because I double-checked—the Chancellor spoke the following words:
“Our job is to make Britain the best place in the world to start up, to scale up and to stay”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/11/25; col. 386.]
That was key message in the Budget and there was action to demonstrate the intent. The £38.6 billion that the Government have announced for UK research and innovation projects over the next four years will be crucial to the achievement of the primary objective of growth. The House should also note that the Budget gives solid backing to British-based AI in four new AI growth zones spread out within the UK—the north-east, Oxfordshire, and north and south Wales. There is also £500 million for a sovereign AI fund to back promising British businesses.
This is all very welcome, but more must be done. We need a step change in the way we fund the growth of science and technology businesses, to ensure that they scale up and stay in the UK. I am advancing today the argument put by your Lordships’ Committee on Science and Technology, chaired by my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Mair, and of which I am a member, in its report last month, Bleeding to Death: the Science and Technology Growth Emergency. This is at heart an economic report, which is why it is so relevant to today’s debate. The argument can be very simply put: this country is brilliant at research and good at start-ups but is failing at scale-ups. As a result, we are losing potentially world-class science and technology businesses, often to the USA.
As a matter of fact, a good example took place while we were conducting our inquiry. In a deal formally completed in September, Oxford Ionics, a quantum tech company based in Oxford, was bought for $1 billion by an American company. Some of the research will continue to go into the UK but the benefits and the finance will go to the USA. If we do not find a way to succeed in scaling up science and technology businesses in the UK so that the benefits and the success are felt here, we will miss out on some of the best prospects for future growth in our economy.
The Select Committee made a number of recommendations. I cannot go through them all, but I will mention a couple. First, it called for leadership at the top, from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor and across government. In our view, we need to exert this through a new national council for science, technology and growth. We have a National Security Council; now we need a growth council. It should include Ministers from all the relevant departments: DSIT, DBT, the Home Office, the MoD, the Department of Health and Social Care, DESNZ, the DWP and the Department for Education, and especially, of course, the Minister of State for Science, together with key public investment bodies and scientific advisers.
Secondly, we need to do more to encourage institutional investors. There has been a shocking decline in the proportion of domestic pension fund investments in UK equities. We need the Mansion House reforms to succeed. If countries such as Canada can amalgamate their pension fund to invest in UK science and technology, so should we.
Thirdly, we need more co-ordination among the public investment bodies that play such a key part in the growth of science and technology companies: Innovate UK, the British Business Bank and the National Wealth Fund. There is a case for amalgamating them, and there is certainly a case for what might be called a concierge service, which guides start-ups through the business of trying to get the additional money needed to scale up.
Fourthly, we must start to exploit the power of public procurement, because it can unlock the growth of innovative science and technology companies. My time is fast running out, but I will say that we should move from grants to contracts because they better enable businesses to grow. We should also have mandatory government targets to invest in UK-based SMEs.
My time is up, so I can only repeat that we need to take this question much more seriously. In the long run, success in this area will be more lasting and important than any of the transient budgetary headlines of the last week.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
I agree with a great deal of what I have just heard. I will say a few words about growth, but before I do, I will touch on a couple of other recent controversies. First, the creation of the OBR has given forecasts an air of respectability that no economic forecast should ever have. The one certainty we can be sure of with forecasting is that any forecast will be wrong—usually, seriously wrong.
However, now we have the OBR, we had better make it work. Uniquely among government appointments to senior jobs, and mirroring what is commonplace in the United States, the senior appointments to the OBR, as well as their dismissal, are subject to a veto by a parliamentary committee, the Treasury Committee. That committee should now use that power to help identify good candidates in a way that is capable of helping to restore some confidence to the OBR’s work.
The second quick point directly concerns the Chancellor’s Budget, which is largely a reflection of what happens when a Government become prisoners of their own Back Benches. I have no doubt that the farago over the pre-briefing and the row over the OBR partly owe their origins to a misguided attempt to manage Labour Back-Bench expectations. The Chancellor may have made mistakes here, but I would be surprised if she lied. I know her well. I have worked with her and I found her to be an extremely reliable and likeable counterparty.
The most important question is growth. The main planks of a policy are relatively easy to identify, although very difficult to implement. First, we need to restore our trading links with the EU. There is a huge debate about how much we have lost in GDP terms, but it is several percent, and in the studies that have been done the average estimate is about 5%. Restoring those links will bring back a sizeable proportion of growth. But no party will touch this because Reform is doing so well in the polls.
Secondly, there are the bottlenecks in the labour market, which now need to be addressed. Some of the Government’s measures make this worse. On immigration, the most sensitive issue, the crucial question should never have been how many but who. The UK must make it easier for firms to recruit from abroad, and, at least for a time, bottlenecks in the NHS and care services need to be filled by facilitating the return of good-quality and relatively inexpensive recruits from abroad. Again, Reform’s polling strength is in action here, blocking much change.
Thirdly, much greater pace needs to be injected into the reform of planning law. The shortage of houses is a major obstacle to labour mobility and growth. The problem is that, by not acting quickly, majorities are beginning to form in former Tory seats now held by Labour MPs, who know that their fragile electoral prospects would be extinguished if they voted for more houses. Fourthly, the public finances need to be put on a much sounder footing.
I will end with just one further point. I have said how difficult all those recommendations are to implement, but the Government have had at least two opportunities to create the political space to tackle such an agenda. Their first opportunity came immediately after the election, in using the argument that the legacy was worse even than they thought. They should not have got attached to £22 billion. They should have just said, “Things are worse than we thought and we have got to re-examine our pledges”. The second was provided by President Trump, when he tore up the post-war trading order and replaced it with penal tariffs on much of the rest of the world. Both those opportunities have been missed. Growth will be the major casualty. Regrettably, the Government remain trapped by their pre-election pledges.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, with whom I have made common cause on a number of issues—most notably, the evils of extraordinary rendition.
In my four minutes, I want to raise two points. The first is the strategic choices the Government have made in this Budget and how that is going to set the tone for the country’s economic performance over the rest of this Parliament. Secondly, picking up the point made by my noble friend Lord Saatchi, I will say a word on tax.
If you talk to experts about tax—I do not just mean economic experts but sociologists and so on—they will tell you that an ideal tax needs to have a clear purpose, be simple to understand and universal in its impact, raise a sufficiently large amount of money immediately to off-set the frictional costs of its introduction, and be progressive and fall more heavily on broader shoulders. Amid all the ferocious pitch-rolling before the Budget was announced, I thought I heard the Chancellor prepare to undertake an action of considerable personal, political and economic courage by raising income tax. That, as my noble friend Lord Tyrie said, would be simple and straightforward, and it meets almost all the tests that I have just outlined. However, it was not to be. Instead, we have ended up with a smorgasbord. This has broken nearly every one of those golden rules. Indeed, the Minister was good enough to say that it was regressive as far as the thresholds were concerned, though he did not say what my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said—that there will be no money coming from it for several years to come.
As many other noble Lords have said, this is a strange policy choice for a Government and a party who pride themselves on claiming to be in favour of the working man. Instead, the Government fell into the trap of believing, as they say, that they can make all sad hearts glad by making a raft of changes to assuage different groups of recalcitrant Back-Benchers, a policy that is bound to fail. It was said, “Don’t offend this lot, don’t alienate that lot, and eventually you become a vaporous, borderless blur—a grey mush impossible to understand or even defend”. That quote is not from me and not from a Tory commentator, but from Andrew Marr, who is not a friend of the Conservative Party, writing in the New Statesman about this Budget.
This takes me to my second and final point, which is about the dog that did not bark: the failure in the Budget to address in any serious way the conflict between guns and butter. For 80 years, and certainly the last 40 years, we have lived comfortably under the American umbrella, and we have been able to eat a lot of butter. That umbrella is now being withdrawn and slowly dismantled, and we will have to take more responsibility for ourselves. At the same time, behind that, we as a medium-sized power can expect to be caught in the backwash of the shifting tectonic plates as the struggle between the US and China as to who will lead the world in the second half of this century intensifies. Nowhere in that Budget speech did I see any recognition of this strategic challenge. There was certainly no suggestion that we might have to draw in our belts a notch or two to provide funds to address it.
I conclude with a Russian proverb that the Government could study with advantage:
“Better bread with water than cake with trouble”.
This is a cake budget, and we are going to have some trouble.
Baroness Nichols of Selby (Lab)
My Lords, I warmly welcome a Budget which will ease the pressure of the high cost of living, continue the process of fixing the NHS and make sure that we see debt falling over the course of this Parliament. These are the priorities of the British people and that is why they are the priorities of this Government.
When I think about some of the measures contained in the Budget, I think about people back home, in Selby: those who work extra hours to make sure that they can give their children the Christmas that they deserve; those who work tirelessly to keep our public services running; and those who work long hours in their small businesses to bring employment and growth. They are the backbone of this country, but for too long working people have been failed by our country’s crumbling infrastructure. When a hard-working small-business owner hits a pothole with their van, costing hundreds of pounds that they can do without, or when a young person is signed off sick because they cannot get mental health treatment, that is damaging for them personally and for the wider economy. When the incomes of working people stagnate or fall, as they have since 2010, that is money no longer being spent in the local economy. That is bad for high streets and bad for prosperity.
That is why the measures included in this Budget give me reason for optimism. The Government are investing hundreds of millions of pounds in our roads, continuing to reform and fund the NHS with millions more appointments, and we have seen wages rise more in the first year of our Labour Government than in the first decade under the Conservatives.
Not everyone is feeling this relief yet, which is why the Government have gone further in this Budget. It will take £150 off people’s energy bills, with more for lower-income households, see rail fares and prescription fees frozen, and see hundreds of children lifted out of poverty. This Budget delivers on the pledge that we made to British pensioners, with those on state pensions receiving an almost 5% increase from April. I am particularly happy about what this Budget does for former mine workers in the BCSSS. After delivering on the miners’ pension scheme last year, the Chancellor has committed to doing the same for those recipients of the superannuation scheme, who will receive an average of £100 per week increase.
We are doing this because to govern is not to tinker around the edges to change some figures in a spreadsheet. We were elected as a Labour Government, and people wanted to see change. That is what this Budget delivers, easing the squeeze on the cost of living while reforming our tax system so that it taxes more fairly and asks everyone who drives on our roads to contribute to their funding. It will tax the most expensive homes more, beginning to right the wrong of a band D property in Blackpool paying more in council tax than a multi-million pound mansion in Mayfair.
Some have claimed that this Budget punishes aspiration, but there is nothing aspirational about an economic system that sees us spend more on servicing government debt than on defence, education or investment. There is nothing aspirational about presiding over public services that simply do not work for people. Those are the wrongs that this Budget rights, and that is why I am proud to support it.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, it is good to see so many on the Government Benches here to support their failing Chancellor and her miserable Budget. They are in a very small minority. In polling after the Budget, only 10% thought Labour were the best party to run the economy. That is lower than the score achieved after the Truss-Kwarteng mini-Budget.
The run-up to the Budget was chaotic. Whatever the Chancellor intended with the constant press briefing and that excruciating early morning Downing Street speech, the fact is that pretty well everyone was misled about what was going to be in the Budget. This chaos was then followed by a Budget designed to please fractious Labour Back-Benchers rather than sort the economy out. The gilt markets were unimpressed and maintained our position as the advanced economy with the second-highest borrowing costs. Since the Chancellor has been appointed, the gap above the average advanced economy borrowing cost has been growing.
The Budget confirmed that this is a tax-and-spend Government. The tax burden will be a record 38.3% of GDP by the end of the forecast period, while public expenditure will be more than 44%—way above pre-pandemic levels. The Minister claimed again today that growth is the number one priority, but the OBR has pointed out that there is nothing for growth in this Budget. The Minister bragged about growth in the first half of this year, but he knows that a large chunk of that is down to one-off factors. The outlook for growth is at best lacklustre.
Businesses are in despair. We have a tax system that is ranked 32nd out of 38 countries in the tax competitiveness index, 1960s-style employment laws are about to be imposed on business, and taxes and inflation are sucking demand out of the economy. It is no surprise that the OBR sees business investment falling away. Working people too are in despair. Their taxes are rising—by stealth, largely—to fund an increasing number living on state handouts. The rich and the young are leaving the country every day, which simply compounds the problem.
The Budget dodges some tricky issues that may well derail the Budget arithmetic. I have some questions for the Minister. Like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, I want to know when the 3.5% committed to defence will be achieved. It certainly is not showing up in the current Budget numbers. Like my noble friend Lady Barran, I ask the Minister to say how much will be spent on SEND after 2027-28, which budget will pay for it and what will happen to the accumulated local authority deficits that have been growing while they have been funding the rising SEND bill over recent years. In addition, how many billions of efficiency savings after 2028-29 are still to be identified? How will the £1.8 billion bill for digital ID cards be paid for? Whose budget will that come from? One thing is clear: we need a change of leadership in the Treasury if the UK is going to have any chance of economic success.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the scrapping of the Conservative two-child benefit cap. Sustained economic growth is a key objective, but that cannot be achieved by eroding the spending power of the bottom 50% of the population. There is no justification for freezing the income tax threshold until 2030-31. This freeze forces 780,000 additional people—that is, the poorest—to pay income tax for the first time. Another 920,000 will be pushed into paying income tax at a higher rate. Some 24 million people already live below socially acceptable living standards, and the freeze would lengthen queues at food banks.
Just one change—taxing capital gains at the same rate as wages—could have raised around £14 billion and enabled the Chancellor to increase income tax personal allowances by more than £1,000 a year, reduce poverty and stimulate the economy. However, the Government chose to appease the rich. There is no increase in the top rate of income tax. Dividend and capital gains will still be taxed at lower rates than wages. The poorest 20% will pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes than the richest 20%. Just 1% of the population will continue to have more wealth than 70% of the population combined. That is utterly unfair.
Energy companies have made £125 billion in profit since 2020, directly fuelling poverty, but there are no curbs on profiteering and no windfall taxes. The big four banks made pre-tax profits of £45.9 billion in 2024, but there are no windfall taxes. Even worse, banks receive a hidden subsidy of over £23 billion a year in the form of interest payments on central reserves. Since 2023, the European Union has mostly stopped paying interest on central reserves to banks. The Budget makes no attempt to curb corporate welfare payments. Can the Minister explain why the Government continue to subsidise banks?
Direct investment by the state in infrastructure remains neutered. Instead, it is channelled through PFI-type arrangements. For every £1 of private investment, the Government repay £6, which is very poor value for money. Such policies guarantee corporate profits but have not stimulated growth. They burden the public purse and public bodies with extortionate costs. There are alternative ways of funding these investments. The UK invests around 19% of its GDP in productive assets, compared with 26% for France and 25% for Germany. The average for OECD countries is 23%, while China invests 40.4% and India invests 30.5%. Despite low investment, there is no reform of corporate governance and no attempt to curtail shareholders’ ability to extract vast dividends, as we have seen in the water industry, for example.
Inequalities, profiteering, regressive taxation and neutering of public investment do not provide firm foundations for the economy. We need a Budget for the masses, not just for the super-rich, bond markets and corporations.
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in this debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. We disagree on many things, but whenever he speaks he always raises in my mind that economics is not just about money: it is about values and principles. In that sense, what he raised in his speech is a challenge to us.
I want to refer in my speech to two fundamental judgments that I believe the Chancellor and the Treasury made when they drew up this Budget. The first was the refusal to tackle the scale of the problem of public sector debt, and therefore to live with the problem of economic stability or to make it precarious. At present, public sector debt, as we have heard, stands at roughly 95% of GDP. It is twice the average of other advanced economies. The reason why our interest rates and 10-year gilts are higher than in other advanced countries is precisely that. Borrowing is set to come down annually, but national debt is not. In fact, it is due to increase annually for the next three years, as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, reminded us, and then it will come down by a very small fraction.
It is painful to tackle the problem of national debt, in both economic and political terms. Roy Jenkins found it difficult in the 1960s, as did Denis Healey in the 1970s, Geoffrey Howe in the 1980s, and my colleague and noble friend Lord Lamont in the 1990s. I believe, however, that there is no way to tackle the size of our public debt without cutting expenditure. Even though debt is rising, there are still spending risks. We do not really know what the outcome of the welfare bill is because we do not know what the demands will be. We do not know what immigration is. We have NHS strikes—will there be more? We have a defence budget that, frankly, does not really meet our defence needs. We also have the issue of public sector wages.
The OBR’s conclusion is that despite the greater headroom, which is welcome, it
“remains a small margin compared to the uncertainties”.
It mentioned, first, our economic forecast; secondly, our fiscal forecast; thirdly, the uncertain yield from tax changes; and fourthly, fundamental departmental budgets. There is one other element that is at risk, which is to do with the Bank of England. The Bank has a difficult situation: fixing interest rates, and yet not pulling them down enough to deal with the challenges of inflation.
My second point is that every successful economy needs a vibrant middle class that creates wealth. This Budget is really an attack, and a road to a two-class system between the very wealthy and workers, but with a shrinking middle class. Frankly, that is not grounds for hope through the Budget.
Lord Rosenfield (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths. I regret that this Budget falls short on both process and substance. On process, yes, there was a major error on behalf of the OBR in publishing its documents too early on Budget day. However, the real error was in not publishing the OBR forecasts even earlier—not on Budget day, but on 4 November. For let us be in no doubt: 4 November was a significant fiscal event. The Chancellor updated markets and the public on the public finances and potential policy changes. There were no supporting documents. There was no transparency. There was no rigour. It has damaged confidence.
Turning to the substance, there are three areas where I fear this Budget falls short. First, the Government are rightly committed to what they call a relentless pursuit of growth, but why does the Treasury’s own analysis show that government policies announced in this Parliament, far from driving growth, will reduce outputs in the coming years? I refer noble Lords to chart 1.5 on page 18 of the Budget document. It shows that, while there may be some long-term benefits to growth, the overall supply-side impact of the Government’s policies is to reduce output this year, next year and the year after. We now know too that the OECD believes that these negative output effects will endure for longer. Far from a relentless pursuit of growth, this will feel to many like a relentless assault on growth.
Secondly, the Chancellor sets out a laudable ambition in the Budget to outperform the OBR’s economic forecast. I would love that to be the case, but how can raising taxes on workers and savers to fund U-turns and policy choices on welfare be consistent with that ambition? We need a plan to boost employment, support private sector output and grow confidence, and I fear that this Budget does the opposite.
Thirdly, the Budget rightly emphasises responsible choices to secure the long-term sustainability of the public finances. Yet the Government’s longer-term spending plans seem to be more process than substance; reviews not policies—the review of the state pension age, the Pensions Commission, the Timms review of welfare, the Chief Secretary’s review of value for money across government spending, and the strategic review of assets. We are yet to see choices, details and costings. Even if there were detail on spending, why should anyone have confidence in this Government’s ability to deliver future action on welfare and spending, given their track record to date?
Given the importance of confidence, will the Minister, for whom I have enormous respect, take back to the Treasury the suggestion that, in the pursuit of growth and confidence, the Chancellor confirms that should the UK economy perform at least in line with the OBR’s economic forecast, there will be no further tax increases in this Parliament?
Lord Skidelsky (CB)
My Lords, first, I distance myself from the Opposition’s onslaught on Rachel Reeves. To my mind, she is a tragic figure rather than an incompetent one. She is trying to do her best for her people and the country but is in hock not just to the bond markets but to mistaken academic orthodoxy which, via the OBR, polices her choices. As Keynes wrote—this is the first time Keynes has been mentioned this afternoon—it is the ideas of economists
“which are dangerous for good or ill”.
The Treasury and OBR officials, newspaper columnists and market traders who make up today’s conventional wisdom are slaves of recently defunct economists.
The OBR gives a rare glimpse into the official mind when it writes:
“we assume that forward-looking households and firms save some of extra after-tax income from the near-term fiscal loosening, in anticipation of the future fiscal tightening”.
Economists know this as Ricardian equivalence: there is no such thing as a free lunch; do not spend more now, because you will have to pay for it later. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said much the same thing in her speech. Now, the Chancellor front-loads her rather meagre spending increases, back-loads her much larger tax increases and hopes that something good will turn up in the meantime.
A rare glimpse of sensible dissent came from the Guardian editorial of 27 November. It said:
“The state can create fiscal space whenever it chooses, and the economy will revive when it spends. Stagnation ends when the government stops starving the system”.
I have two questions to expand on this heretical insight. First, what has happened to the £900 billion quantitative easing money printed since 2009? I think the answer is that a large part of it has stayed in financial circulation, raising the price of bonds, equities and properties, but doing little to raise current output. Keynes referred to this attitude as liquidity preference. Others call it the financialisaton of the economy. The point is that money does not just fructify in the pockets of the people; it has to be spent on things which can be produced.
Secondly, there is the productivity puzzle. Where has all the productivity gone? A nation’s standard of living depends upon its productivity, and productivity largely depends on investment. When firms invest in new capital, skills and infrastructure, output per person rises. The UK is not just the lowest-investing countries in the G7; it is near the bottom of government investment as a share of GDP. It is the prolonged failure of private and public investment that has trapped us in low productivity and flat incomes.
So what is the answer? I do not decry the importance of business and supply-side reforms, but if businesses see no profit in investing, the state has to step in, not step out, and produce the additional demand that will give businesses the confidence to invest. Public investment has to be intelligently done, of course, and proper attention paid to distribution—this was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. And this was Keynes’s message; it is not original to me. It served us well for 25 years. But now Keynes has been cancelled, leaving the Chancellor in her fiscal straitjacket and the people of this country poorer than they would otherwise have been.
Lord Parekh (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak not so much about the results of the election but about its consequences and two important features that came up in the course of the debate: namely, the Budget and the manifesto. They raise some large theoretical questions, and I will share my thoughts on them.
The Budget is an annual event of great importance, and great preparation goes into it. There is a lot of anticipation about it, and then the date arrives. On that day, the question becomes, “Why is it so important? Why do we have a Budget every year?” The answer, obviously—although it is not that obvious—is that this is when the Government share their thoughts on what they want to earn, what they want from us and what they want shared in public services. This is a way in which the Government let people know what choices have been made—or, if we want to look at it democratically, this is a way for people to control how the Government should spend and what the limits should be.
I want to suggest that this is outdated. Simply put, it is outdated in the language itself that we use. We are beginning to realise that the Budget is largely concerned with economic matters, and economic matters are never confined to the economic life alone; they have political consequences, cultural consequences, social consequences—and therefore we cannot have a Budget in isolation. If I had time, I would take the House through the Budget item by item, clause by clause, to show how it has profound social and cultural consequences that we recognise and regret. I suggest that it might be a good idea to think of the Budget as a national event where we take the pulse of the country as a whole. We can discuss the role that economic matters play, but also the role of cultural, social, educational and other matters, and look at what progress is being made in these areas.
My second point—and I wish to touch on this very briefly—is the debate that we had with the Chancellor on a manifesto commitment not being respected in the Budget. What is the relationship between a manifesto commitment and the Budget? How does a manifesto commitment acquire its own legitimacy, so that we can take it as a point of reference and judge our policies in light of it? I think that it has this authority because it embodies the party’s vision and policies. In this case, when the party becomes the Government, the expectation is that the policies to which it committed itself would be followed through in the Budget. The manifesto should automatically translate into the Budget, so that it cannot be questioned. I want to suggest that it is never like this.
Obviously, the Government or the political party might promise lots of things they have no intention of doing, and therefore for many the commitment is critically important to catch the party and to stop it from misuse. The question is: why is it we can organise it to do this? We cannot allow for this kind of continuity. There are lots of things that can happen once you are in power. There are things that are not seen or anticipated; therefore, you have to take decisions on the basis of that information—not the information you had when you were drafting the manifesto. I suggest that the relationship between a manifesto of a party and the policies it follows should be close but not so close that it cannot be superseded.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, in my four minutes, I thought I would focus on the good, the bad and the ugly of this Budget. Starting with the good, there was the welcome emphasis from the Minister in his opening speech on some of the measures for growth. These included: raising the threshold for the enterprise management incentive scheme; expanding the limits for the EIS; stamp duty exemptions for companies listing in the UK; and, after a little extra effort and persuasion, committing to delivering the nuclear regulatory review. The problem is that this represented so little of the Budget that we are debating, which brings me to the bad.
Growth forecasts are down and taxes are going up, hurting working people, as the Minister acknowledged. Inflation and interest rates will be higher for longer. Business investment will be down, housebuilding forecasts are down and rents are forecast to go up. Living standards are forecast to be lower than they would otherwise be, and debt interest is going up. As my noble friend Lady Noakes and others noted, according to the OBR not a single measure in this Budget will have an appreciable impact on growth.
That brings me to the ugly. As the Minister acknowledged, there has never been a Budget so dominated by speculation, with briefing before, during and after the event. Before last week, the Minister valiantly claimed there was nothing unusual in this process. At least by Monday, he recognised the unique nature of the Chancellor’s pre-breakfast pre-Budget speech. Unique is one word for it, and we do not need to relitigate who said what when. The heart of the matter is that trailing the expected downgrade to productivity without the more-than-offsetting unexpected upgrade to tax receipts left people feeling misled, and that is still unacknowledged. That unexpected upgrade was still unacknowledged in Monday’s Statement and in the Minister’s speech today.
That matters for two reasons. First, we have heard from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and others that the speculation damaged growth. Secondly, and more than this, it has damaged people’s trust in the Government. People were told before the election that every policy was costed and funded. Then, in last year’s Budget, we had record tax rises. The Chancellor and the Minister told people they had wiped the slate clean and there was no coming back for more, but last week they came back for £20 billion more.
The reason the Government have been tying themselves in knots is the attempt to justify this through claiming that the facts and circumstances have changed. But the facts have not changed; it is just that the Government have changed their mind that fairness does not mean taxing working people to fund increased welfare spending. Fundamentally, they have changed their mind that growth was the number one priority and only once you have that growth can you—to coin a phrase—share the proceeds of that growth. That is the reason I ask the Minister not who said what and when, but whether he can understand why people feel misled by the Chancellor and acknowledge that the speculation in advance of the Budget did real harm? If it cannot be acknowledged, then we cannot hope that the Government will learn from the events of this Budget and the last.
If the Government can learn those lessons, we can end on a note of hope. We are only 18 months into this Government—it may feel like more—so there is still time to change course, to genuinely focus on growth. We have heard ideas today for tax reform, welfare reform, cutting energy costs and increasing private investment, because it is growth that is the means to deliver everything else, whatever the Government determine that to be: tax cuts, spending increases, driving down waiting lists, or driving up housebuilding. I hope, therefore, that the Government will return to their number one priority of growth next year, and that is something in a Budget that we can all welcome.
Lord Hannett of Everton (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to participate in this important debate on the Budget. When I was thinking about my contribution, I was determined not to descend into tribal politics, because four minutes would not give me the opportunity to do it justice, so I will resist the temptation. I have to say, though, having listened to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, that he nearly drew me in. His view of the Labour Party, which he is entitled to have, was one that I did not recognise, and you would say, “Why would he?” I was looking for a little bit of humility in his contribution. Alas, it was not to be the case.
I understand there being many contributions about the economy, fiscal responsibility and sound judgment. Many come from different directions, and that tells us of the complexity of the challenges that Chancellors have to face. I want to place on record my congratulations to Rachel Reeves, my noble friend Lord Livermore and the rest of the Treasury because, in a short time in office, they have applied something that is very important in addition to the finances, and that is values: policies that matter on the ground. We can use terms in this Chamber, as we would and should, but in the world outside, it is policies that matter. I am confident that—be it a short time in office—if Labour is successful in achieving a lengthy period of governance, we will see the difference and the contrast; but we have to earn it, and I believe we will.
I look at the detail in the speech made by the Chancellor and at the policies, and I realise the challenge we face. At the moment, the view of politicians from outside is not exactly one of respect. We all have a responsibility to connect with the public. A way of doing that is to understand what matters to them. We do not all start from the same background, do we? Some people have come from a privileged position of good education; some have even had better economic starts, but we should not forget those who contribute substantially to our well-being but who also require extra help. That is the fundamental DNA of the Labour Party. Look at the history of the Labour Party. Yes, you may pick out certain times and certain challenges, but look at some of policy.
I served for 11 years on the Low Pay Commission. The figure that has been increased for young people is a message to them that they matter, and that work can pay. In those 11 years, we reached a unanimous agreement every year. The figure that Rachel Reeves has used for young people did not come out of the ether; it came out of research on the detail of the economy with economists, trade unions and businesses. It has survived since 1999, and it is going well today.
I also then look at poverty-related issues such as challenging child poverty. There can be no more important issue than this, because people who are born into poverty have a legacy of deprivation going forward. We debate in this Chamber many times why the ills of society are such. Perhaps one factor is that people do not have the good start in life that they require. This is why, to me, economic competence and values have to go to the root of what politicians do. There will be variations on the theme, but we should not lose sight of the fact that if politics matter, they are as much about the people at the bottom as about those at the top.
Lord Harrington of Watford (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I should mention my entry in the register of interests—I am chairman of Make UK. But that is more than an entry into a register, because it is really what my whole speech is about today.
Make UK represents 26,000 manufacturing companies in this country. People often forget that manufacturing is still very important to our economy; it is 2.6 million jobs; 42% of our exports are from manufacturing, and 48% of R&D spending is ours. The Minister is aware of this and very kindly hosted a reception for manufacturers earlier this year in No. 11. However, as anyone would know, manufacturing jobs depend on us being competitive, and all the evidence we have shows that there are many aspects where we are not competitive. I hope that in his response the Minister will comment on which part of the Budget was relevant to that and which was not.
First, on skills shortages, I congratulate the Chancellor on some improvements with the apprenticeship levy, making it easier for smaller businesses to take on apprentices, et cetera. Still, there are 50,000 skill vacancies. The Minister might be interested to know that among those vacancies are tool makers—perhaps when he is next at No. 10 Downing Street and discussing this issue with the First Lord of the Treasury, he could mention it. Why are there so many vacancies? Why has the number of apprenticeships in manufacturing gone down from 130,000 in 2016 to about one-third of that today? Something needs to be done about this, because the skills shortage is one of the things that is holding back the economy. While there was something in the Budget for it, as I have said, many things were not.
On energy prices, we had in June a huge announcement from Jonathan Reynolds, the Secretary of State, that we would have a British industrial competitiveness scheme for all manufacturers—and he thanked Make UK for lobbying very hard on behalf of them. That was 19 June, and today, six months later, it has only just gone out to consultation, with no detail as to which businesses will be affected and how it will be funded. Of course, from a business point of view, all our members want is the price of electricity and gas bills to come down. It was announced by the Secretary of State; they are not interested in consultations and mechanisms. I am afraid that the Budget, apart from announcing the consultation, showed no development in that regard.
I congratulate the Government on the increase in the money that is being spent on research and development. On access to capital, the manufacturing sector will benefit in future from the British Business Bank and the National Wealth Fund. The Government are to be applauded for that—but, in the end, this Budget was 1% of GDP extra taxation and 1% of GDP extra spending on benefits. I am afraid to say that many manufacturing businesses look at that and wonder what is in it for them. How can that really help growth? The last year has seen significant increases in energy prices and national insurance, as well as changes in minimum wage and thresholds, such that many of our members have seen a 40% increase in costs. How can that help growth?
I know that the Minister means very well, and he is always very responsive to us, but the Government have to understand that while business engagement is a good thing, it is listening and acting that are most important to most of the manufacturing sector in the UK.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, like the financial markets, I am reasonably comfortable overall with the Budget, with its focus on endeavouring to reduce the cost of living and improve the circumstances and prospects of children and on investment in and protection of essential public services. Many of those were neglected by the previous Administration. Brexit, which was not Labour Party policy, means that we have lost 6% in the value of our way of life. Austerity was lauded as a virtue, but it had its damaging effects on public infrastructure, yet we have had low productivity and growth under the previous Governments.
We did have some growth in a particular area: we had growth in our waistlines and in obesity. The previous Government aided this. Duties on alcohol were frozen consistently over many years. I welcome the Government’s restoration of the indexing duties with RPI.
I also welcome the initiatives on gambling. The previous Government saw a great growth in gambling but took little action on it. In particular, I congratulate my friend the Financial Secretary on the interest he has taken in sugar. I am sure that members of the recent Select Committee on Food, Diet and Obesity will be similarly pleased to see so much movement taking place on tackling the problems with sugar. Announcements made last week on changes in this area will benefit our health and in particular, I hope, that of our children.
I welcome the encouragement from my noble friend Lord Wood for the Government to continue looking for other areas to raise funds for public investment. No matter who is in power, if we are to develop and grow, we need investment and money going in. That means revenue has to be found from as many sources as possible. It may not all be through income tax: there are other sources which I believe we do not explore.
We should be looking at the new, unaddressed addiction of compulsive digital use: scrolling, mobile phone dependency and so on. This is now having a wide-scale effect on health in a variety of different ways. We do not really have a public framework for digital addiction, nor any related fiscal approach to how the fastest-growing addiction in the UK should be tackled. It has measurable economic costs. We could tax digital features: those that are intentionally engineered to maximise compulsion. We could consider levies on the infinite scrolling in which so many people are now engaging. We could look at the autoplay video and bottomless “For you” feeds. There is a whole range of changes taking place where there are opportunities to raise funds. What work is being done in the Treasury in these areas?
I am personally very much in favour of AI, but it has its damaging effects and we must address them. If the Government continues to focus on it, I believe that AI will find a way to generate great growth in our economy. For those noble Lords who question the wisdom of AI, I suggest getting an app and having a look to see what it suggests on taxation and the ways that funding for public investment can be found.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, I will speak about my fears in the Budget for the poorest communities in the country. Many of our Labour colleagues in the Chamber chuntered when they heard the words “benefits Budget”. As someone who spent 35 years working in some of the poorest communities in this country and who hails from one of those communities, I want noble Lords to be in no doubt that it will be perceived as a benefits Budget.
The Labour Party has a proud history of trying to represent those who have the least financial power in our society. A Labour Party that has forgotten that the antidote to poverty is not welfare but work, leaves those poor communities at risk. Let us be very clear: if working does not pay, people will not work. Anybody who has worked in a poor community knows that there is more to work than the pay at the end of the week: there is dignity and there is freedom. Was it not this Prime Minister who said how unfair the benefits system was, how it trapped people in benefit and how he had a lifelong mission to free people from that? Fast-forward two months and he seems to have forgotten that: I hope Labour colleagues can remind him of it.
This Budget has been part of building a welfare system with perverse incentives which trap people on welfare. That is not fair or right. The economic impact both on people’s family finances and on the country are unbelievable. The Chancellor said that the welfare bill was not sustainable. She seems to have forgotten that. Please go back and remind her.
I now want to comment on the two-child benefit cap being lifted. Many colleagues in the House have stood up and said that it will lift lots of children out of poverty. They are wrong—very wrong—and I will tell them why. When the Chancellor left those levels in place that will lift more and more people into paying tax and more people higher up the taxing, that will wipe out any saving or change to household finances that those benefits may have given. I return to my theme: make work pay. If you want to support poor people and eradicate things such as domestic violence, you have to make work pay.
We have 1.79 million unemployed people, a figure that is growing, and it is young people who bear the brunt of that. We have 111,000 fewer young people in employment than when the Government took office. This is something that they have to turn around. If young people do not learn the skill of working, they may never learn the skill of working. You have young people who cannot go to university unless they can get a job to finance themselves at university. You have households where, if a teenager or someone in their early 20s cannot get a job, the household is no longer financially stable.
One noble Lord here made a comment about not turning this into party-political gesturing. I will do my level best but, as someone who comes from a poor community, I need my Labour colleagues to remind the people in their Executive that this is not about their jobs; anyone here could fill their jobs. We need a Labour Party that is realistic for poor people, a Labour Party that will tell its Chancellor she has done the wrong thing. I ask the Minister: what happened to his leader’s lifelong passion for freeing people from the trap that is our benefits system? What will the Chancellor do about making sure that work pays for the people at the lowest end of the salary scale? That is what will make a difference to this country, that is what will help us replace our economy and that is what will help us get on with growth.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, the implications of this Budget for our arts and cultural sector are significant. While the Government have prioritised stabilising the public finances, we must be clear about what this means for a sector that is economically vital, globally respected and central to the cultural life of communities across the country. There are welcome elements: the continuation of enhanced creative industries tax reliefs for theatres and orchestras provides stability; the 40% business rates reduction for film studios until 2034 offers long-term certainty; and the additional funding for school libraries to buy books strengthens early cultural engagement. But these sit against a stark reality.
At the June spending review, the Chancellor announced that most departments will grow in real terms by 1.5% annually to 2028-29, while DCMS will see a 1.4% annual cut. At a time when inflation, wage pressures and incomplete post-pandemic recovery continue to strain the sector, culture is the only area scheduled to shrink. The question is whether we are building a coherent strategy for cultural investment or offering selective support while underlying infrastructure erodes.
I turn first to the tourism levy. The new power for mayors to introduce a modest levy on overnight stays could be transformative. Cities such as New York, Paris and Barcelona reinvest such levies directly into culture and the public realm. Edinburgh’s 5% levy is projected to raise £50 million a year; Liverpool expects around £17 million. If well designed, this could provide the stable, long-term cultural funding that the National Lottery developed and delivered a generation ago. Concerns from the hospitality sector, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, must be weighed carefully, but international evidence is clear: reasonable levies do not deter visitors. The current consultation is therefore welcome and necessary.
A more urgent challenge is the business rates change facing grass-roots music venues and, equally, artists’ studios and visual arts spaces. As Music Venue Trust and UK Music warn, removing rate relief results in effective increases of around 28%, with some venues reporting rises of up to 91%. Across roughly 600 venues, this is an additional £5.6 million burden after a £7 million increase last year, far exceeding the sector’s entire gross profit of £2.5 million. Between 200 and 300 closures are forecast over the next four to five years.
The same structural vulnerability applies to artists’ studios, small galleries and artist-run spaces, as CVAN highlights. Here, I declare an interest as a former studio-holder. These studios rely heavily on retail, hospitality and leisure relief to keep rents affordable. Its removal will force rent rises on artists already at breaking point or trigger studio closures, undermining the creative workforce, community provision and the Government’s own creative industries strategy. These are the spaces where new talent is forged. Without them, the pipeline dries up.
What assessment have the Government made of these impacts? Will temporary, targeted intervention, such as restoring relief or providing bridging support, be considered until the reformed rates system takes effect? The tourism levy offers promise, but the crisis facing grassroots venues and artist studios is immediate. I urge the Government to pursue the opportunity while acting urgently to prevent irreversible cultural loss.
Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)
My Lords, this Budget continues to build the foundations for a more stable, more resilient and ultimately more productive economy. Some noble Lords in this debate have questioned whether this was a Budget for growth. I remind noble Lords that restoring fiscal credibility is a precondition for growth, and that is what this Chancellor has done.
The Chancellor made the right choices, not least because measures she announced will particularly benefit households on low and average incomes. Several of my noble friends today have noted all the ways in which the Budget helps families battling with the cost of living and the poorest households. I will not run through the list again, but I emphasise that the lowest-paid are going to get a real-terms pay increase next April.
That follows the Low Pay Commission’s recommendations for national living wage and minimum wage upratings. This continues an unbroken record since 1998 of Chancellors accepting or going further than the Low Pay Commission’s recommendations. Like my noble friend Lord Hannett, I served on the Low Pay Commission for many years. The independent, tripartite Low Pay Commission methodology has demonstrably stood the test of time, and that is why I ask the Minister to disregard some of the voices off that are questioning how the UK sets the pay floor.
Next April’s uprating meets the Government’s aim to see the wage floor not drop below two-thirds of median earnings, and this target was set by a Conservative Government in 2020. This year, the commission, chaired very ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, comprehensively considered the available evidence and judged that the recommendations would not damage the labour market or the economy.
Noble Lords will know that most minimum wage workers are in small and medium-sized businesses; some of these businesses are struggling, and for some the minimum wage rises will be challenging. The Government must support these businesses, and they have done so. The Budget supports our high streets. Our pubs, restaurants and leisure properties will see new lower tax rates. For the smallest businesses in those sectors, rates will be the lowest in more than 30 years; these discounts will be permanent and will benefit over 750,000 properties.
At the same time, I acknowledge that some small businesses will be hit in April by increased property valuations because of post-Covid revaluations. These revaluations are independent of the Government, who are stepping in to cap bills. I welcome the £4 billion support package for small businesses. Most small businesses with property values of under £100,000 will have increases capped at 15% or less, or at £800 for the smallest. All of this builds on measures introduced last year to help small firms grow, access finance and survive economic pressures. Pubs, cafés and shops are the heart of our high streets and provide employment for some of our lowest-paid workers, so will my noble friend the Minister ensure that the effectiveness of support for small businesses is kept under review?
Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell (Con)
My Lords, I will focus on two distinct groups in society: those on welfare requiring work; and wealth creators, who are vital to job creation. Both groups have been let down by the Budget. The welfare changes are not geared towards helping people into work, and the tax rises further repel the people who create jobs.
First, on welfare to work, according to page 65 of the OBR’s forecast, the Government’s welfare measures will help just 55,000 people into work over the next four years—a long way off the 2.2 million people who require jobs for us to get back to 80% employment. Let us not forget that the OBR’s calculations do not factor in the Employment Rights Bill, which even the Resolution Foundation recognises will hinder getting people into work.
Sir Charlie Mayfield’s review into employment for the long-term sick is a truly superb piece of work, but its conclusions need to be implemented at pace. As things stand, to get the number of people on long-term sickness down to 2019 levels, we will have to wait until 2078. This worklessness is a fiscal millstone around the economy’s neck. Paying for the £34 billion increase in universal credit and disability benefits will absorb all of the income tax receipts from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the north-east and Lincolnshire combined.
That said, the Government are having more success in their efforts to reduce the rate of relative poverty. Why is that? With 16,500 millionaires set to leave the UK this year alone, relative poverty as a measure will improve as our economic prospects suffer. These wealth creators take two valuable things with them: tax revenue and jobs. A former Labour donor, Lakshmi Mittal, who has previously topped the Sunday Times rich list, has left for Switzerland. The CEO of Revolut and the founder of Improbable have both left for Dubai. Optasia has cancelled its plans to list on the London Stock Exchange, opting instead for South Africa. In the words of its founder,
“we have looked at it from every angle and it just doesn’t make sense to stay here”.
Page 82 of the OBR forecast is right to describe the predicted £34 billion revenue from last year’s non-dom tax changes as “highly uncertain”. The temporary repatriation facility will yield nothing like the sums the Government are currently banking on.
There is a long history of people leaving sclerotic economies to join prosperous ones. Whether from East Germany to West Germany, North Korea to South Korea or California to Texas, the exodus of talent and taxpayers is nothing new. Of the 693,000 people who have left the UK in the past year, a disproportionate number are entrepreneurs, investors, employers, philanthropists and, crucially, the wealth creators and job creators of the future. This brings me back to worklessness. We need to create an additional 1.4 million new jobs to get the employment rate back up to 80%. Who will create these jobs if the job creators are leaving?
When the Prime Minister launched the Labour Party’s manifesto, he said:
“With Labour, those who can work, will work. We want more people into work … to get the benefits bill down”.
He went on:
“When I say our number one mission is economic growth, you could say our number one mission is wealth creation”.
I could not put it better myself. I hope that the Government revert to this approach. Not only is it what the public want; more importantly, it is the key to prosperity through growth.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Oh, I do feel ill at ease on these Benches. I welcome the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth to his place and look forward to his future contributions.
This is the second Budget from this Labour Government and I still cannot see the vision. It does not seem to be there in any direction; it is not at all clear. People voted for change and to fix broken Britain, but this looks like more of the same and it will do hardly anything to fix our public services or make bills cheaper. I hear a lot of talk from the Government about big projects and growth, but how much of that is just a taxpayer subsidy for private corporations? I welcome a new generation of local health centres, but why are taxpayers paying several times over for these via PFI schemes? I also welcome fixing our neglected sewerage system, but why are private water companies allowed to up their prices by almost half when water bill payers have already paid for this work to be done?
There is waste in the public sector and that waste is the billions of taxpayer and bill- payer money that gets siphoned off into private profits. Around a quarter of our energy bills ends up as private profit. The solutions are obvious to anyone apart from the corporate lobbyists who infest Westminster. If we want cheaper energy, then take the energy companies into public ownership. If we want lower water bills, then let the water companies fail and take them into public ownership, and free the captive consumers.
As for the Government’s green agenda, I am afraid that this Budget does not measure up. Oil and gas companies are due to get taxpayer millions to try out carbon capture and storage, which is a simply rubbish and untested idea which wastes money that should be spent on insulating homes. We have airport expansion and more pollution, but no tax on aviation fuel, private jets or frequent flyers. My fear is that much of the £1.5 billion being spent on moving the M25 to allow Heathrow to expand will end up being funded by taxpayers. Meanwhile, there are hundreds of bus and rail improvement schemes around the country which get absolutely nothing. The planning system has been changed to allow developers to make a bigger profit with a “trash for cash” approach which will impose schemes on local people which damage nature and do not meet the needs of those communities.
The Budget is meant to be about growth, but Labour is promoting the unhealthy growth of corporate profits and greenhouse gases. The Green Party solutions would cut energy bills by enabling consumers to pay for cheap electricity separately, rather than having energy prices linked to expensive and polluting gas. We would fund any policy measures via tax and reduce energy bills that way. We would also take the big six into public ownership and stop the drain of bill payers’ money into private profits.
Water companies would be expected to do their job and if they fail, they lose the licence. Instead of the Government signing off on higher and higher bills for consumers, we would take them into public ownership and consumers would no longer spend a third of their water bills paying off debt. We would bring in local rent controls, similar to those that have just been granted in Scotland, by giving local authorities the power to control rents.
We would introduce an annual wealth tax of 1% on assets over £10 million and 2% over £1 billion. This would raise at least £14.8 billion. We would also align rates of capital gains tax with income tax, and close loopholes. This would raise at least £12 billion, even after accounting for changes in behaviour. Both these measures are designed to address growing inequality, as well as providing government with the funds to bring down bills for ordinary people.
A Green Budget would be the beginning of the end for a system of privatised utilities fleecing bill payers and the ultra-rich getting away with not paying their fair share. Where is Labour? Where is its vision?
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I strongly welcome this Budget, particularly the removal of the two-child limit. The remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, failed to change my mind on the issue. I took them as being the latest iteration of the age-old tactic of the immiseration of those who deserve social support.
Most of my remarks are devoted to the issue of pensions. I agree with my noble friend Lady Nichols of Selby, who is not in her place, about the action on the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme and the fact that members will get the full value of the contributions that have been paid on their behalf. I welcome the action being taken in relation to the Pension Protection Fund and the financial assistance scheme, where credit will be given for the increases that were guaranteed before 1997.
I welcome the action on salary sacrifice. The concern that has been expressed about the change is extraordinary. Private pensions get massive tax advantages, which, broadly speaking, I support. Perhaps there should be a proper review of how they work, but taking away less than 1/20th of those advantages in a way that targets that removal of support for those on higher incomes seems an entirely appropriate and reasonable measure.
I also welcome the action on the problems that arise when there are index-linked benefits and frozen tax thresholds. There is a clear potential problem, which I have been warning of since I entered the House about five years ago. This is the first time that any Government have formally acknowledged that this is an issue that needs to be tackled.
First, it is not that it becomes a problem when the new state pension overtakes the tax threshold. It is already a problem, because many pensioners have larger than that standard level of pension, on which they are already having to pay tax. That is entirely right; I am in favour of pensioners paying tax. However, at the moment, because the state pension is not included within the PAYE system, it creates difficulties. People get a brown envelope in the post saying that they must pay a certain amount of money, or their tax codes are adjusted in ways that cause them considerable problems. So this is already an issue and will increasingly become one; action was definitely needed.
My Government have not explained in detail how this simple assessment will work. I have some fears, because whenever a system is introduced as being a simplification, it all too often ends up making things a lot more complicated. So I welcome an assurance from my noble friend the Minister that this will be taken into account when we see what the appropriate solution should be.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My right honourable friend Kemi Badenoch hit the nail on the head when she described this Budget as one “sold on a lie”. It is a house of cards built on misleading claims about the public finances to justify sweeping tax rises. This is not responsible management; it is politics dressed up as economics.
This Budget does not simply mislead; it takes the country down a dangerous path, drifting towards the very collectivist policies that history warns us against. I say this not only as someone with a background in economics but as someone who, once a fluent Russian speaker, travelled to the Soviet Union many times from 1965. I saw what happens when a Government pursue centralised control, forced redistribution, the stripping away of private property rights and the erosion of individual incentive. It produced stagnation, corruption, loss of freedom, and eventually culminated in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Innovation withered because there was no reward for effort. Bureaucracy flourished because it was the only route to advancement.
While communist elites shopped in secret underground luxury stores filled with western goods, ordinary citizens queued for hours for basic goods. As the old Soviet joke put it, “We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us”. With this Budget, no one will even need to pretend to work.
People aspire to wealth for security and a better future for their children. Why else do they buy lottery tickets? It is because they dream of being rich, yet the Government fuel resentment toward the rich—the very people who invest, create jobs and contribute most to HMRC’s revenue. Punishing aspiration has never produced growth; it simply drives ambition and talent away. As has been said before, more than 250,000 people have already left the country, with many more following. Companies are relocating operations overseas. Meanwhile, public spending, borrowing and unemployment are up, productivity is flat, investment and construction are falling and growth forecasts are anaemic.
Milton Friedman put it with typical clarity:
“Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own”.
Yet the Government demand ever more of the public’s money while showing ever less discipline in how they use it. This is not stability, competence, fairness or compassion, and it is certainly not a responsible plan for growth. It contradicts the Government’s own manifesto and ignores the most basic principle of economic growth. It expands the state while shrinking the economy. How can the Government look our citizens in the eye and explain that families on full benefits will receive £18,000 more a year than some working families? I do not mean rich people; I mean hard-working families. The Budget will make families poorer, businesses less competitive and our economy weaker. These policies expose inexperience and an overconfident Administration, guided not by economic reality but by rigid ideology. I ask the Minister, have this Government learned anything from history?
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I start by congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth on his excellent speech. I look forward to working alongside him on some of the social issues he raised. As we consider the Government’s Budget, I want to focus on education, an area that should form the backbone of our nation’s future prosperity, yet one that the Budget neglects. Let us begin with SEND provision.
Local authorities across the country will breathe a sigh of relief, albeit temporary, on hearing that from 2028-29, the full cost of SEND provision will be absorbed within central government budgets. The Liberal Democrats have long called for a national body for SEND, precisely to end the postcode lottery that forces parents to fight endlessly for support that should be guaranteed. What we see before us is not a plan; it is just an announcement without substance, clarity or the financial underpinning needed to make it real. The Government have identified no offsetting savings—none whatever—to cover the estimated £6 billion this shift will require. Will the Minister comment on this when he responds? Meanwhile, local authorities, as we heard earlier, are racking up an accumulated £14 billion in SEND-related deficits by 2029. Those deficits do not disappear just because Government have centralised SEND in Whitehall.
Turning to student finance, the Budget includes yet another stealth tax, the freezing of repayment and interest thresholds for plan 2 student loans from 2027. Graduates, many earning modest wages in an increasingly uncertain job market, will now be asked to pay more simply for having pursued a university education. This is not reform, it is a quiet raid on the incomes of young people who are already facing unaffordable rents, rising living costs and shrinking opportunities.
Then we come to the education budget itself. By 2028-29, it will fall by 0.1% in real terms. Schools are already in crisis. They are expected to fund breakfast clubs, free school meals and teacher pay awards—not with new investment but by carving out even thinner slices from their already overstretched budgets. To put that into perspective, an 0.1% cut amounts to a shortfall of around £70 million in real terms. That money simply vanishes before it reaches the classrooms. This is intolerable.
Where would the Liberal Democrats get the additional investment needed to fund the education sector properly? We would raise extra funds by implementing a time-limited tax on the big banks, levied on the massive windfalls that they are able to make only thanks to a technical glitch in the financial system. These windfall profits are due to inflation interest rates shooting up. Our measures would raise around £7 billion a year. We also know that increasing taxes is not a solution to a stagnant economy, which is why the Liberal Democrats have consistently called for a new UK-EU customs union raising over £25 billion a year.
As we heard earlier, new research by the US National Bureau of Economic Research has revealed that the previous Government’s Brexit deal is costing British taxpayers £90 billion each year in lost revenue. It is time for the Government to resolve this. Under our plans, we would increase core funding for schools and colleges above inflation year on year. Teachers’ pay and free school meals would be funded properly—and not at the expense of SEND pupils’ learning. SEND provision would be managed fairly and consistently through the national body, eliminating the postcode lottery and ending the chronic underfunding. Maintenance grants for further education and higher education would be expanded without saddling universities with damaging levies.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to welcome a Budget that puts fairness at the heart of decision-making. I particularly welcome the reversal of the travesty of austerity and the lifting of our most vulnerable children out of poverty. I welcome a pro-growth Budget that invests in infrastructure.
I led on energy poverty in the European Parliament, so I strongly welcome cutting the cost of living, bringing down the average energy bill and investing in green energy infrastructure. I strongly welcome our strengthened relationships with our partner economies in the EU and our beginning to mitigate the disasters of Brexit. I was particularly moved by the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and look forward to working with him.
As a city councillor in the 1990s, I represented the poorest ward in Liverpool. When we speak of hydrogen, it has to be green hydrogen derived from renewables. We also need to invest more in energy efficiency—after all, the cheapest fuel is the fuel that you do not use at all. Talent and potential exist in every town, city, rural economy and county. However, they are not yet evenly matched by opportunities, high GDP jobs, skills training or adequate transport links, especially in the north.
While I welcome Northern Powerhouse Rail, the Government must build on the Budget to enhance city region powers and ignite growth in every region and between northern regions, building a sustainable economy and transport links to eradicate, once and for all, socioeconomic disparity for communities such as Liverpool, Crewe and Blackpool. In the European Parliament, every time someone stood up and asked, “What about London?”, I retorted, “What about Manchester, Liverpool and Carlisle?” Our economic recovery must fully embrace the challenges and opportunities of the north.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lord, any competent economist alive or dead recognises that a crucial part of a Government’s economic performance, particularly one which is predicated on getting more growth, is to control public spending. Margaret Thatcher, although she was not an economist but a chemist, recognised that. When she took over, public spending was 45% of GDP. After 11 years, it was 36%. As a consequence—it was obviously not the only factor—growth in the five years at the end of Margaret Thatcher’s period of office averaged 4% a year, a percentage this Government can only dream of. So, the question the Government face today—when again, public spending is 45% of GDP—is, are they willing to take the decisions about public spending and relief, and getting the private sector going, that Margaret Thatcher did?
It is obviously not easy. It is not painless. I remember that when I was a Cabinet Office Minister under John Major and my noble friend Lord Heseltine, we had a similar problem. There were five quangos—public sector bodies which collectively were losing millions of pounds. We decided to privatise them. One of them was Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. As soon as this got around, I received a call from Betty Boothroyd, who was the Speaker at the time. She had me in and said, “Minister, HMSO also prints Hansard. I will not have it”. Recognising that taking on Betty Boothroyd in full flow was rather like encountering the Brigade of Guards, I said, “Betty, what if we leave Hansard in the public sector and privatise the rest?” I got a beatific smile, and the deal was done. Today Hansard is still published by the public sector, and we saved the taxpayer £30 million by privatising the rest, as an excellent company called Banner.
That shows what can be done. It is not difficult. It is not impossible. Did this Government do that? No: instead of controlling and ameliorating the public sector and the problems of welfare and pensions which they inherited, they instead increased taxation by £26 billion. The verdict is in. The OECD yesterday published the economic growth forecast for the next few years: 1.4% this year, 1.2% next year and 1.3% in 2027. Professor David Miles, giving evidence to MPs from the OBR point of view, said that this, combined with inflation, would mean only a 0.2% average increase in living standards during the next four years. It is a complete standstill. There is no progress. None of the change that the public were entitled to expect from a Government who were elected on change has happened. It is more of the same. It is politics for decline, politics for defeatism. It simply is not good enough.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
I must begin by making a declaration relating to my interests as listed in the register: I am a farmer, a landowner and a businessman in Cumbria. We are today asked to take note of the Budget, but that cannot be done as an exercise in textual exegesis because it is set in the context of the world we live in. I believe the Government’s starting point is right. We must have growth, and secondly, the broadest shoulders should bear the heaviest burden.
We are living in an economic land of two nations. The first is the Westminster bubble writ large: the world of university theses, computer models, think tanks and digital technology that handles more or less virtual money, and so on and so forth. The other is rather less glamorous and somewhat grubbier: the world of what my children call “doing stuff”. Much of this happens outside the penumbra of cosmopolitan glitz, and many of these businesses and people are, as the Minister told us in his opening remarks—I will use a neutral phrase—experiencing hard times.
For these businesses, the intellectual elegance of the computer model is a plaything of fantasy. Many of them are the warp and weft of most of our country, at the centre of place, the bedrock of communities. Many of them are struggling to pay the wages, keep people in employment, remain solvent, and keep on trading. That is where the welfare payments come from—not to say jobs. Many of them are not branch businesses; they contribute pro bono to the communities in which they are set. The Budget is compounding their cash flow challenges as the state sucks away their working capital, just as Count Dracula sucked the blood from young women’s necks. Their economic shoulder blades are being broken, and whatever the law or a computer might say, badly broken shoulder blades cannot carry anything. To survive, their working capital must be kept in situ until it is cashed in. I believe it is as simple as that.
I would like to conclude on a more general level and look at what might be called l’Angleterre profonde—rural Britain. I hasten to add that I do not mean the Cotswolds, which I hear about with increasing incredulity through the media. I am particularly thinking of the part of the north-west of England I know best, where businesses—not only agriculture—are increasingly being starved of the lifeblood of cash, which threatens their survival. Yet they are providing a very large range of valued public goods, for which, in many instances, they receive a derisory amount of money, or none at all.
Agricultural economics has always been a discrete subject of economics more widely. In the case of the Marshallian triangle of land, labour and capital, in agriculture, land and capital are the same. This is at the heart of my own local recently elected MP’s brave and principled stand in the other place. He is standing up for his constituents, which is what my friends and neighbours sent him there to do. He, like me, sees a dismal picture. It is a dismal prospect engendered by a dismal science, which prioritises policies generated by computers, algorithms and so on over the various realities and actualities faced by businesses and those working in them the length and breadth of the land.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I congratulate my right reverend friend the Bishop of Portsmouth on his excellent maiden speech. Not least as our lead Bishop on education, I believe he will have an immediate and valuable contribution to make to the remaining stages of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. He and I first met as opponents on the cricket field many years ago; I am sure he will build as long and solid an innings here in your Lordships’ House as ever he did at the wicket.
I also join many noble Lords in adding my deepest thanks to the Government for bringing the two-child limit to an end. I never felt it right or just to push a child into poverty simply for having too many sisters or brothers; it makes even less sense when we badly need a birth rate that will provide Britain with tomorrow’s workforce without having to rely on migration to fill the labour market gaps. I look forward to seeing the wider child poverty strategy.
I further welcome moves to reduce household energy bills, changes on apprenticeships, and the freeze on rail fares. Gambling addiction remains a blight on our nation, especially online, so I support the increase in tax on online sites. My right reverend friend the Bishop of Hereford is currently attending on His Majesty and hence is not in his seat; I know that he would like attention drawn to how the Budget impacts the farming community, particularly family farms, and the rural economy. I was going to say more, but the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has pipped me to the post—and with rather more colourful words than I might have mustered myself.
A 19th-century Act of Parliament determined that vicars should live in their benefices. Residence ensures that parishioners have easy access to them and that the vicar is a visible face on the streets of the parish, not merely another middle-class commuter. The modern vicarage is rarely as large and luxurious as some of former times; however, it needs not only to accommodate the priest and their household but to host meetings, provide a meeting place for parishioners, and provide study and office space. In many parts of London and the south-east, location factors mean that even in a relatively poor parish, the vicarage will have a capital value over the £2 million threshold for what we are learning to call the “mansion tax”. Few parishes will be able to pay this additional tax, nor can dioceses simply absorb the costs. If we are to maintain the important principle of clergy living where they serve, including those from other denominations, I urge the Minister to meet with church representatives so that we can discuss how the existing tax exemptions applying to the residences of ministers of religion can perhaps be extended.
Finally, places of worship are often anchor buildings on our high streets and in village centres. Their work is not just on Sunday mornings but throughout the week, with activities from pre-school groups to a warm welcome for the lonely, including a growing network of baby banks—several have started in my own diocese—which tackle poverty among families with very young children. Work to repair and improve such properties is not cheap, but it is vital if they are to continue to serve their communities and help to sustain flourishing village centres and high streets. Much-needed renovation and improvement work is currently being stalled by the lack of a secure, long-term future for the listed places of worship repair scheme. Will the Minister commit to reviewing the future of this vital scheme so that it can be extended in time, and commit to withdrawing the harmful limit of £25,000 a year, which was introduced only recently and makes many larger refurbishments unaffordable?
Lord Kempsell (Con)
My Lords, this is quite rightly a wide-ranging debate and there is much to deal with when it comes to the Government’s handling of the economy, so I will confine myself to two points. One is an area that has been very gracefully elided and skated over by so many noble Lords on the opposite side of your Lordships’ House: the question of the process, rather than the policy, that led up to this Budget. Surely the distinctive nature of the Budget event was the chaotic handling of the process around it. The pre-Budget period was marked by briefing, counter-briefing, leaks, press conferences and indeed market speculation. It became—I think noble Lords will agree—a national embarrassment.
Even if we put aside the OBR’s error, an accident that is now being employed as a smokescreen by the Chancellor, we now know that, ahead of the Statement, a very large number of savers withdrew money from their pensions. For many, that was a one-off, irreversible financial decision. I refer noble Lords to the Financial Times this morning, where professional wealth managers are quoted at length on this. One said that there have been “elevated withdrawals from pensions” as a result of concerns and speculation about the removal of tax-free cash. They said that this led to
“hundreds of millions of pounds of additional outflows from our business”.
Another professional wealth manager said that people act on speculation and, if they take money out of their pension prematurely, they have damaged their pension going forward. People’s pensions have been damaged due to the speculation.
I previously served as a special adviser in government. I know exactly how the briefings and press conferences emerge. Usually, they are political chaff that can be ignored as tomorrow’s chip paper, but not in this case. We know without doubt that the political and media activity of Ministers and special advisers ahead of the Budget drove market speculation to sky-high levels, leading to real-world financial consequences for savers. So I ask the Minister: when the Treasury undertakes the investigation that I know the Chancellor has ordered into Budget leaks, will that investigation also include consideration of the deliberate media strategy in the run-up to the Budget? It was clearly planned, followed and designed by the department, including the sudden breakfast TV appearance by the Chancellor as the prime example.
Secondly and in closing, I turn to the excellent speech made by my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington. He adumbrated with great insight and with clear thought the difficulties that are now faced by the most struggling families in our country after this Budget. As one of the youngest Members of your Lordships’ House, and an aspirational one at that, I add that this Budget did nothing for young aspirational people across the country. We have the freezing of student loan interest rates; the tax threshold freeze; job creators and entrepreneurs who create entry-level jobs all over the country leaving as quickly as planes can carry them; the costs of employment going up for the youngest workers; and indeed the ballooning welfare budget. None of that is good for young strivers—the ambitious young families who want to build careers and wealth. So I ask the Minister: how will the Government correct their course for the youngest in our country?
Baroness Rafferty (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to add my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth on his excellent maiden speech. I look forward to working with him in the future. I speak as a nurse, past president of the Royal College of Nursing and fellow of the Queen’s Institute of Community Nursing.
I counter the challenge from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about the lack of vision in the Budget. When I look at the health elements of this Budget, I see that it speaks very much to the wider social determinants of health and the impact they have on health outcomes, as well as specific health-related investments. Several non-health parts of the Budget, such as housing, education and the environment, can boost future health.
As we have heard, according to government and independent estimates, changes to welfare, including removing the two-child limit and boosting support for low-income families, will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, rising to around 550,000 with the expansion of free school meals. That is no mean achievement. As a result of this, together with the cutting of energy bills, the raising of the national living wage and the protection of pensions, households are more likely to be able to afford food, heating and other essentials that underpin good physical and mental health, both for parents and for children, by reducing chronic financial stress.
I turn to health per se. The £300 million capital investment in tech infrastructure seeks to ensure co-ordination between primary and secondary care through the NHS app. This is to be welcomed as the tech “front door” to connecting care through a single user interface. In many ways, this is the digital dream come true and, if I understand it correctly, it promises to bring together patient records from different parts of the system that cannot now talk to each other. It will help patients not only to navigate and co-ordinate their own care but to deal with some of the barriers to care co-ordination that are growing in complexity with an ageing population contending with multiple comorbidities.
The Government’s establishment of 250 new neighbourhood health centres across England will help with another of the Government’s shifts: bringing care closer to home. These one-stop shops bring together a range of services to support more preventive and sustainable health care. The programmes will be provided through a combination of public investment and public/private partnerships, and I hope they will be informed by lessons from the previous PFI initiatives.
The Queen’s Nursing Institute and the Royal College of Nursing have welcomed the investment in neighbourhood health centres, but we must ensure that the Labour Government’s NHS workforce plan supports these hubs via adequate staffing. The Nuffield Trust notes a staggering 43% decline in district nurse numbers since 2009. Secure staffing is essential if the policy goal of moving care closer to home is to be achieved. Although the new centres are to be welcomed, they will require such investment to reverse the cuts to public health services such as health visiting and school nursing. Can my noble friend the Minister assure me that the investments to achieve this will be made available? I am sure he joins me in supporting the Budget’s welcome ambition of more nurses. I would welcome his reflections on how these numbers will be translated into the reality of the NHS workforce plan and its implementation.
Baroness Morrissey (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Kempsell has rightly just spoken about the shambolic orchestration of this Budget and the damage it has done: the erosion of public trust, the damage to business confidence and how it has undermined Britain’s credibility abroad. That is particularly important, because there are two other major issues that I will focus on that have created more of a problem as we try to move on from the Budget.
I hope it is fair to suggest that many Britons have an ambivalent relationship with ambition, certainly compared with Americans, who celebrate success as fulfilling the American dream. There is, sadly, no equivalent British dream, although there have been times when the Government of the day have encouraged aspiration. I was just 13 when Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister. I attended the local state school—originally a secondary modern—and I longed for a brighter future. The Government’s approach then encouraged me to seek and to seize opportunities: to be a worker, not a shirker. Contributing to society, aiming high, being productive and self-reliant: that is what my husband and I now encourage in our family of nine children—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester might be pleased to hear that we are doing our bit for the birth rate.
This Budget sends the opposite message. It says, “Work hard and we will come after the fruits of your labour; succeed and we will penalise you. We will tax your income, your home, your dividends, your pension, your savings, your inheritance and school fees—if you dare to send your children to private school—and we will give that money to those who do not work, including 1 million foreign nationals and 9 million working-age economically inactive British adults”. This is disastrous for the future of our country. The brain drain of the best and the brightest, referred to by my noble friends Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell and Lady Meyer, will only get worse as the ambitious and entrepreneurial leave for countries that do offer, as Margaret Thatcher put it, an
“economic background which enables … private enterprise to flourish for the benefit of the consumer, employee, the pensioner, and society as a whole”.
Without wealth creation, Britain will quickly run out of money: in fact, we already have. We are living far beyond our means. What is more worrying is that we may also quickly run out of road to borrow in order to sustain this. That is my second big concern.
I was a bond fund manager for 15 years, and now chair an endowment fund, as set out in my registered interests. In my view, the risks of investing in gilts far outweigh the potential rewards now. The gilt market is unusual in two important respects. UK Government debt is an average 14 years to maturity, much longer than in other G7 countries. In France, for example, the figure is eight and a half years. That means we have now locked in high borrowing costs for far longer than other heavily indebted counties.
The second idiosyncrasy is a much bigger proportion of index-linked bonds, 25% of the total, so stubbornly high inflation—as we have today—adds more to interest costs, and we could not inflate our way out of a debt crisis, even if we wanted to.
Both factors increase the risk of a borrowing crisis. The gilt market initially reacted benignly to the Budget, because it was not as bad as was feared. But the harsh reality is that it is a “spend now, tax later” Budget. We are increasingly dependent on the kindness of strangers to keep our credit lines open: a third of gilts are held by foreign investors. We are walking a borrowing tightrope and, without fundamental reform of our welfare system, the only route to the other side is stronger economic growth. That is clearly the Government’s objective, as the Chancellor is fond of repeating. But the reality is that her economic policy is dampening growth now, and significantly limiting its future potential. This Budget makes us dangerously exposed to the next economic crisis, and increases the chances of that happening. It takes Britain backwards at a time when we badly need to reignite optimism, economic activity, ambition and aspiration.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, it is axiomatic that, if you want to land a difficult message, it is best to start with some positives: so here goes. First, all credit to the Government for sticking to their fiscal rules, and increasing their safety margin. I admit that I had my doubts this time last year. Secondly, the overall Budget judgment looks about right: supporting the economy this year and next, but tightening policy thereafter. Thirdly, the measures to reduce inflationary pressures in the coming year should help the Bank of England ease monetary policy further. I am therefore not surprised by the positive response of the gilt market. Given the size of the national debt, it will be the interest rate demanded by the market that will determine the Government’s future room for manoeuvre.
So why has the reception of the Budget been so negative? Pre-briefing is partly to blame. There is a reason, over and above market sensitivity, why Chancellors as different as Nigel Lawson and Gordon Brown have favoured Budget secrecy. It allows them to control the narrative and tell the economic story on their terms. I have considerable sympathy for the Chancellor on the OBR leak, but the endless briefing and leaking before that point was surely the Treasury’s responsibility. In 2013, following a similar leak, I carried out a review in which I recommended that the Treasury introduce a ban on the pre-release of the Budget: that is, the economic and fiscal projections, the fiscal judgment and individual tax rates, reliefs and allowances. The then Government, and I think the Official Opposition, accepted my recommendations. Can the Financial Secretary confirm that the Government still accept this recommendation?
I also worry about the Budget measures themselves. I, for one, celebrated when we were led to understand that income tax rates would be raised. I know it would have broken the manifesto commitment, but at least it could have addressed the issue of the growing number of people facing high, sometimes penal, marginal rates as child benefit, childcare support and the personal allowance are withdrawn.
I continue to worry about intergenerational fairness. I feel that better-off pensioners—I speak as one—could have contributed more. Not only is my triple-lock pension safe, but my dividends are not going to be taxed more and I still do not pay any national insurance on my earnings. I am broadly in favour of abolishing the two-child benefit cap. I do not accept the argument that it will worsen work incentives; that is the beauty of the universal credit system introduced by the previous Government. But surely this should have been announced at the same time as sickness benefit reform, the better to get the Government’s Back-Benchers to accept it.
I also worry about the timing of the proposed tax increases. I criticised the previous Government’s Augustinian approach to fiscal policy. The Government appear to be adopting the same approach, albeit with different sides of the ledger: more spending today financed by tax increases several years down the line. Given demographic pressures, the tax take has to rise, but I fear that the Government will find it all but impossible to deliver. There is a reason the tax take has been so stable over the last 75 years, never going below 28.3% or above 35.2%. Getting revenue in is a difficult business, and the tax base is less buoyant than it was.
The optimist in me hopes that the economy will grow, that some of the tax increase may prove unnecessary and that the Government can cut taxes in the run-up to the election as Mr Healey did back in 1978. But I have to say, I am less than confident.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, we all know the economy is in a fix. We are spending far more than we can afford, taxing at dysfunctionally high levels so that businesses and people—this was laid out very clearly by my noble friend Lord Elliott—are fleeing the country, and regulating the economy to death. The future is a downward spiral of recession, inflation and economic crisis.
As we all know, the solution is economic growth, as many noble Lords have said. The Government say it is their top priority. But do our Government have any theory at all as to what produces growth? Growth does not come, as so many Lords on the opposite Benches seem to believe, from spending more money. It comes from a smaller state—the evidence is irrefutable—lower taxes and less regulation.
Please let us stop the economic illiteracy of claiming that, had we stayed in the EU, we would have grown up to 8% more. We have heard 8%, 7% and 6%. I am sure the Minister will want to up his game from the traditional 4% that he likes to trot out on all occasions when he is summing up. We hear that we would have grown 8% more than Germany, France and Italy, which we have grown at the same rate as since Brexit, had we stayed in the EU. Noble Lords may not understand—and appear not to understand—that the papers on which they rely, so-called “doppelganger papers”, say that we would have grown that much faster if we had grown at the same rate as the United States. Do they understand that or do they just read the headlines?
It is correct: had we grown at the same rate as the United States, had we adopted its economic framework, yes, we would have grown that much faster because the United States did. Therefore, we needed a deeper—not a so-called softer—Brexit if we wanted to grow faster. Our poor productivity record, which all in this House agree, it seems to me, has caused low growth, is almost entirely in the public sector. The private sector has grown its productivity by 30%. Are noble Lords asserting that, had we stayed in the EU, our civil servants would have forsworn their four-day weeks, their working from home, their gold-plated pensions, or their higher and higher salaries? I do not think they are. Are they saying that that is what would have caused us to grow faster—that, had we stayed in the EU, the public sector would have become more productive? I beseech noble Lords to think a little bit harder about the basis of their assertions.
Being kind is not going to get us out of this jam. Just to get back to Tony Blair levels requires some £300 billion less of expenditure. There are many opportunities to spend less. Our cost of electricity is the highest in the world, four times that of the US. We should stop pretending and get rid of net zero. We would be £220 billion better off had we done so.
An out-of-work family gets to be some £18,000 a year better off than a working family. That is unconscionable and unjustifiable. Work must pay more than unemployment. Benefits, therefore, must be cut by large amounts.
On regulation, we should stop thinking that we know best. Nuclear power stations in South Korea cost a quarter to one-sixth the amount that it costs to build nuclear here. Had we done that, we would never have gone with solar and wind. The construction industry has collapsed because of regulation.
To conclude, there is no money. Until we are spending at some two-thirds of the current rate, the economy will get worse. It is a failure of leadership not to acknowledge that. We have to tell the electorate. We have to settle on how much we can afford to spend, what cuts are needed to achieve that, which taxes should then be reduced and which regulations abolished. Until we have a programme that addresses those questions, this Government are only playing at governing.
Lord Rook (Lab)
My Lords, it is an honour to speak in this debate, and to welcome the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth to your Lordships’ House. As someone who grew up in Portsmouth, I can say that it is great to have more of Pompey in this place, and some of the remarks from the right reverend Prelate’s excellent maiden speech will probably be echoed in my speech.
Growing up in Portsmouth afforded me many pleasures and privileges. Among these were my first attempts at youth work at a Salvation Army youth club in Southsea. I say that for a reason. This Budget marks a welcome shift toward us valuing young people in this country, and the Chancellor deserves recognition for that. Two decisions in particular provide hope. The first is the abolition of the two-child limit. This is not an expansion of welfare spending. It is fully funded, through commitments to reform Motability, reclaim waste, tackle fraud and error, and close tax loopholes. Most importantly, it is an investment in our long-term prosperity. It is quite clear that a child growing up in poverty is less likely to work, will earn far less as an adult, and will rely longer on the state for support. Child poverty is costly to us as a country. Poverty today reduces productivity tomorrow. Less support now results in a higher welfare bill in the future. Ending the two-child limit is both a morally and an economically responsible choice to make.
The second decision is the creation of the youth job guarantee. By replacing benefits for young people who have been unemployed for 18 months with a guaranteed job, apprenticeship, or training programme, we reduce the welfare bill, promote work over dependency and help young people into good work. Given the success of the future jobs fund under a past Labour Government, I ask my noble friend the Minister only whether young adults might become eligible for the programme slightly earlier, perhaps at 12 or six months out of work.
While this Budget provides a way forward, we should not ignore the reasons why we are here. Successive Governments have rightly protected and invested in greater security for older people but, at the same time, we have quietly dismantled services for children and young people. Sure Start closed, youth services were stripped back, and statutory youth work disappeared. When the pandemic struck and experts told the Government that £15 billion of investment was needed to support pupils who had fallen behind, only a fraction was provided. The current crisis is not accidental; it is the result of a continual and considerable disinvestment in our young people, and the consequences are there for all to see: a youth mental health crisis; hundreds of thousands of young adults struggling to find work; more young families relying on food banks than ever before; fraying social cohesion and fractured communities; and a generation increasingly disengaged from civic life.
A country that disinvests in its future citizens cannot expect the next generation to invest in their nation. While these Budget measures are welcome, we can all do more and better, and we must, because it takes a society to raise a generation. It takes schools and colleges, yes, but it also takes charities and employers, volunteers and youth workers, faith communities and millions of good neighbours. Today I want to argue for something ambitious and necessary: a grand coalition of the youthful, not defined by age but by all of us who have a youthful spirit and an unswerving commitment to the next generation. It should be a coalition of institutions, leaders and citizens who believe that Britain’s national renewal depends on a new deal for young people, where: no child grows up in poverty; every young person has a route to work; every community has safe spaces for young people to gather and belong; mental health care and housing are available when needed; and every young person can discover their vocation—not just a job, but a purpose. The future belongs to those who can give the next generation something to hope for. I hope that we will be a grand coalition that will give the next generation a reason to hope.
Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)
My Lords, I will make some general comments about the Budget and then some suggestions that might help the Government to generate some growth via the financial sector. I declare my interest as a director of a financial services firm.
This was a budget for politics, not economics. Other than restoring some financial headroom, this was a Budget for ideology at the expense of the promises made to voters about tax and growth. It was a reinforcement of the culture of dependency that is slowly but surely strangling the economies of western Europe. We are living in a society where rights and entitlements are everywhere, but duties and responsibilities no longer seem to matter. Of course, there should be a safety net, but we are now in a position where in many cases it is more remunerative, as many other noble Lords have said today, to stay at home than go to work. This is a disaster for our economy, our culture, and the development of our children, as my noble friend Lord Bailey said earlier.
The abolition of the two-child benefit cap magnifies the problem—and, which has not been mentioned, adds to the pull factors attracting even more immigration to this country, both legal and illegal. The dependency culture was illustrated by a radio interview given this week by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, who described the additional benefits in the Budget as
“an investment in support for poorer families”.
The UK needs more investment, but transfer payments do not add to real growth or competitiveness. What we need is investment in the businesses of the future that can create jobs and wealth.
The Government recognise the importance of private sector investment, as the Minister said in his opening speech, and of scale-ups, and sensibly increased the thresholds for qualifying EIS and venture capital trusts in the Budget. This was welcome—but in the same breath the Chancellor reduced the incentive to invest in these high-risk companies by cutting the income tax relief from 30% to 20%. The last time the Government cut relief in this way was in 2007, which led to a catastrophic reduction in inflows into venture capital. Inflows actually fell by 80% over the subsequent years, and it took 16 years to recover to the original peak.
Investor demand in high-risk companies from private investors is, understandably, very sensitive to levels of tax incentives. We are already seeing a substantial reduction in demand for AIM stocks following last year’s reduction in the BPR from 40% to 20%. I urge the Government to look again at the impact of the reduction in tax relief, which may lead to a much sharper decline in investment than is currently envisaged.
In addition, it is worth looking at these measures in relation to AIM. The reductions in BPR and VCT relief affect listed companies, but not unlisted companies. EIS and unlisted IHT schemes now have a clear advantage over AIM. This may be an unintended consequence of these measures, as I know the Government are keen to promote London public markets as they are so important for scaling up.
Another source of potential growth for UK plc is the stocks and shares ISA. ISAs attract more than £100 billion of investment from private individuals. Two-thirds of this goes into cash ISAs. The Budget reduced the investable limit from £20,000 to £12,000. I understand this decision, as cash ISAs do little to generate growth. I will make a suggestion for the future of stocks and shares ISAs, which constitute a significant £30 billion of investment. The reality is that most of the investment going into these ISAs ends up in foreign companies, as is the case with our £3 trillion defined benefit pension schemes, where only 4% is invested in UK companies. Why do we provide tax advantages to invest in Microsoft of Nvidia when there are excellent investment opportunities here which would help grow our economy? Given our urgent need for investment—on which I think we all agree—now is the time for the Government to get a return on their tax breaks and require ISA investors to buy UK companies only. There is an opportunity here to kick-start a recovery—
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
I ask the noble Lord to bring his remarks to an end, as he is over the time limit.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, this is a Budget that punishes anyone who tries to do the right thing. I have driven electric cars for 10 years, only to find that there is no benefit. I would not blame anyone who now decided to buy a petrol car while they can.
The Prime Minister hails the abolition of the two-child benefit cap as a moral advance towards reducing child poverty. Yet it could equally well be said that it is immoral when working families have to support those who have more children than they do without counting the cost or working. This is not the fairest and most effective way to tackle poverty. The cap reflected fairness. Taxpayers should not subsidise family size choices that they themselves funded.
Critics argue that children should not suffer for birth circumstances. This is true, but welfare generosity has overridden good parenting aims and work incentives. Evidence shows that removing the cap could reduce employment incentives. By 2026, an out-of-work family with three children will get more in benefits than a working household on the national living wage. For single parents, the gap is equally true. We can all see that work does not pay and there is no disincentive to dependency on benefits.
Lifting the cap does nothing to address deeper causes of poverty. Consider child maintenance. As of March, parents owed nearly £493 million in unpaid support, leaving more than 300,000 children without legally owed payments. The Child Maintenance Service has failed to enforce compliance, with hundreds of millions in arrears. One in five separated parents fails to pay full child maintenance. Enforcing maintenance payments would move 100,000 children out of absolute low income each year. It is almost taboo to say that Governments should not be incentivising family break-ups and unstable cohabitation arrangements. They need attention. I ask the Government to help the Child Maintenance Service get the money for these children.
Child poverty is predictable. Tower Hamlets, for example, now records the highest overall rate at 46.5%. Families there have higher birth rates, with the lack of extra benefit having no effect. Families from ethnic minority backgrounds are disproportionately affected, with nearly half of children from black and Asian communities living in relative poverty, compared with a quarter of white children. Up and down the country, the extra cash will go where these conditions are found, but the lifestyle is unlikely to change for the better.
There are better alternatives. Early interventions, such as more provision of affordable childcare, encouragement to girls to get as much as education as possible before starting a family, as well as encouraging women to go out to work, would bring long-term benefits for health, education and family stability. Strengthening social services and expanding childcare would address root causes more effectively than lifting the cap, and it would do more to ensure that child poverty is not handed down generation to generation.
Welfare policy is not just about handing out cash without responsibility. There is nothing wrong with suggesting to couples that they should not have more children if they cannot look after them and that they should not expect others to pick up the tab. Ending the cap may ease hardship for some families—provided the cash is spent on children—but it is a divisive, blunt instrument, seeming to be set more to please party activists than the general tax-paying public, who tend to be not in favour.
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)
My Lords, I first acknowledge the maiden contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, who I welcome to the House, as well as the rare privilege of speaking in the same debate as my noble kinswoman Lady Pitkeathley.
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)
I could have said, “My mum”, you are right.
The headroom has pleased the markets. The currency is doing better and the Chancellor, despite noises around her, will feel that we now have a stable platform to build on. However, as I listen to today’s debate, in and outside the Chamber, I sense a direction of travel that leads me to a simple challenge. If one’s preferred response to our current position is essentially, “Well, I wouldn’t start from here”, then one may be missing the salient point: here is the only place to start from—this moment, these constraints and this inheritance, not the one we wish we had. If we get the macro picture wrong, we all know what follows, and within the limits the Chancellor has to work with the real question becomes: what else does one actually, workably, do?
Far too often, criticism without responsibility is treated as contribution. But if we are genuinely interested in solutions, then our starting point must be the real fiscal and political constraints in front of us, not a fantasy world where money is infinite, trade-offs do not exist, and the economics politely step aside while ideology enjoys itself. We all know the refrain: “Everyone needs to do their bit”, and the reply, “Yes, but why does one of them have to be me?” We all agree that we need new infrastructure and new public commons, and in the next line: “Yes, but does it absolutely have to be near me?” When we discuss tax reform, welfare reform or planning reform, we hear: “Yes, but must it really apply to people like me?” There is always a constituency for change in general and an equal constituency against change in particular.
Against this backdrop, building a strong economy is vital, so the projected increase in growth from 1% to 1.5% is welcome. Having wages rising is welcome and productivity, the eternal British riddle, seems finally to be turning, although I acknowledge that the OBR largely seems to have given up on forecasting significant gains. With likely losses in professional jobs as AI adoption accelerates, that caution is understandable.
Lower inflation and the hope of lower interest rates is a relief. The focus on helping high-potential firms to scale and stay is essential; for too long, we have been the R&D lab for the rest of the world. The entrepreneurship policy paper published alongside the Budget, which includes increasing limits for venture capital trusts and the enterprise investment scheme, more British Business Bank capital going to key industries and departments using procurement to promote innovation, is more welcome news.
Tax cuts for high-street businesses are also welcome and should, once the complexities around reliefs per hereditament—and, yes, I do know what a hereditament is—are understood, reduce bills for many, although concerns remain about how larger payers will react and the coinciding business rates revaluation inevitably makes life harder for some. And London, once again, is being asked to shoulder an ever-increasing share of the burden as if this had no consequence for the wider economy.
Two difficult truths also deserve stating. First, Brexit and austerity have been economically unhelpful. Secondly, taxing wealth a little more like we tax work is not radical; it is overdue and fair. Where today’s debate has been useful is where it has been rooted in where we actually stand. The question is not “What is the perfect solution?” but “What is the best responsible path from here?”, because here, with all its imperfections, is where the British economy lives, and it is the only place from which we can build the future we say we want. That, it seems to me, is the future the Chancellor clearly has in her sights.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I also welcome the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and congratulate him on his maiden speech, and I thank the Minister, the whole Front-Bench team and the team at the Treasury. It is hard work delivering a Budget, and it is hard work for many out there.
This morning, while I was at my son’s nativity play, I asked a fellow parent how the Budget landed for him—an investor, an entrepreneur, a wealth creator and an employer. He said: “The damage was done last year. This year, it is just on top. But at least they did not bring in the exit tax, so the option is still open to me”. So, there is some silver lining for some people.
I will focus on the sector that I have been focused on in industry and am focused on now, which is AI—something that is driving UK businesses. I have said it before, and I will say it again: UK AI businesses are booming. I refer to my registered interest as a co-founder of the Business AI Alliance community of over 170 businesses and independent experts, and as an adviser to AI businesses. From this perspective, on the surface, this Budget offers promise, but in truth, for UK AI SMEs, it falls short.
I recognise the comments from my noble friends Lady Penn and Lord Massey on the welcome changes to the expansion of the enterprise management incentives scheme, the boosted limits in the enterprise investment scheme and the improvements to the venture capital trust framework, which will help scaling businesses attract investment. The much-needed refocusing and pledges for support through UK Research and Innovation should broadly provide more support for innovation, including in sectors such as AI. Yet these measures, while helpful, in no way amount to the comprehensive, sustained support required, as the Prime Minister has said, to make the UK one of the great AI superpowers.
How does the Budget fail UK AI start-ups and SMEs in practice? First, the scale of funding is too small, scattered too thinly. The declared support for AI, for example through new growth zones, remains modest compared to the size of the task. The AI growth zones, while laudable in ambition, do not provide sector-wide grants, infrastructure investment or access to high-end compute for thousands of AI SMEs hoping to scale. Many promising AI firms will remain outside these zones, left to scrape by without meaningful support.
Secondly, there is a lack of targeted support for AI infrastructure and data-intensive needs. AI businesses, especially those working in machine learning with large language models and data analytics, need robust infrastructure, cloud compute, hardware, data access and high-performance chips. The Budget’s nod towards an advanced market commitment for AI chips is welcome on paper, but a one-off scheme, even up to £100 million, is insufficient. It does not guarantee access to the infrastructure every AI start-up needs to train models, run inference at scale or compete globally. I appreciate the difference in scale of the US, but the US CHIPS and Science Act offers over $52 billion of subsidies. Without long-term, large-scale investment in compute infrastructure, the UK risks forcing AI firms to rely on overseas providers, undermining sovereignty and cost-efficiency and costing local job creation.
Our tax incentives are too generic. While expanding EMI, EIS and VCT rules broadly helps, it does not address the unique challenges of AI SMEs. In short, the Budget offers shallow support scattered over a few nice-to-haves, but we need more serious commitment to build a thriving global AI industry in the UK. To be the player on the world stage we need to be, to attract global capital and to create high-paid, skilled jobs, we need more than promises and incremental support. We need a vision and we must be bold. A long-term fiscal strategy, at scale and to scale, is required.
Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Con)
My Lords, like many previous and much more illustrious speakers, I have had the privilege of being involved in numerous Budgets. As I am sure the Minister will want me to point out, some were more successful than others. I have never regained my taste for Cornish pasties.
Those experiences mean that I appreciate how difficult it is to pull together a Budget. I pay tribute to the incredibly talented and dedicated officials in the Treasury and the OBR who work so hard on these events. I also pay tribute to Treasury Ministers. Whatever you think of the choices made in any given Budget, the process forces Ministers to spell out their trade-offs in a way that very few others in government are required to do. It is an essential discipline. With that spirit of ministerial transparency in mind, and given the wide-ranging and insightful contributions already made on tax and growth, I will concentrate my remarks on the Government’s spending plans.
In the Budget last week, we saw specific policy decisions increase welfare spending by £9 billion and the overall forecast for welfare spending in 2029-30 revised up by £16 billion. Then, on Monday, the Prime Minister reaffirmed his moral commitment to go further on welfare reform and the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said the Government would cut unsustainable welfare spending. I welcome those commitments. I fear that demographics and disability—what the Resolution Foundation described as an “ageing and ailing population”—will put continued pressure on the welfare state. Can the Minister clarify whether these future welfare reforms will be designed to reduce overall spending, to reduce the growth rate in spending or simply to maintain the current trajectory? To put it another way: is welfare spending a forecast that the Chancellor wants to beat?
I turn to departmental spending. Previously, the Government planned 1% real-terms growth between 2028-29 and 2029-30. Now they assume no real growth in spending between those years. I am all for spending restraint, but I question whether they will be able to deliver it. The spending plans published in June had already baked in productivity improvements, so it would be helpful to know what has changed in the last few months to give the Government confidence to go further. According to the Resolution Foundation, these spending plans imply that unprotected departments will have their budgets cut by £6.4 billion in real terms, before taking into account the additional pressures identified by the OBR, including but not limited to £6 billion-worth of spending on SEND. These are sizeable figures. I fear I know how the party opposite would have described them were the situation reversed, so can the Minister confirm that he plans to deliver these cuts at the end of the Parliament?
As your Lordships know, sadly, productivity does not materialise because Ministers mandate it to be so. It is not enough to write the numbers in the Red Book or to publish a White Paper. Meaningful productivity improvements require painstaking work: consultation, legislation, capacity building—it all takes time and often comes with upfront costs. It would be reassuring if the Minister could tell us how departments are preparing to go from real-terms spending increases to real-terms cuts. Is the investment of the next few years earmarked to fund productivity improvement for future years? Will the Treasury oversee this work?
This Budget presents an opportunity to deliver on the Prime Minister’s commitment to “rewire” the British state. However, I have learned through bitter experience, as I imagine the Government have through their efforts to reform PIP and now SEND, that making the commitment is the easy bit. If these spending plans are meant to be implemented, we now need two years of sustained technical and political work to make good the Prime Minister’s promise to build a more innovative and efficient state. I very much hope that is what we will see.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, I received a wonderful birthday present on 26 November: the Budget, with taxes going up by £26.6 billion on top of the £40 billion that we had last year, leading to 38% of GDP, the highest level that we have known. The UK economy growth rate has averaged 1.5% since 2024. Inflation, which was 1.7% in September 2024, is now 3.8%.
I was president of the CBI, and our chief executive, Rain Newton-Smith, said the Chancellor’s
“scattergun approach to tax risks leaving the economy stuck in neutral”.
The good news is the Government have listened to this House on the Employment Rights Bill, and they have said that they will have a six-month period as opposed to day one, which is not as good as two years, but at least the Government have listened.
There is greater complexity. Deloitte noted 88 new tax measures and the IoD did a survey of business leaders which found that 80% feel negatively about the Autumn Budget, up from 67% after the 2024 Budget. I am a trustee of Policy Exchange, which described it as a “transition Budget”. Then there was a surprisingly positive article from Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Telegraph:
“In defence of Reeves, the future is not that scary”.
He said:
“Public investment has averaged 1.6pc of GDP since the late 1970s against 3pc or so for our peers and 4pc or more for stellar outperformers … Labour is raising it even more to 2.6pc of GDP”.
We need that investment desperately. He also said:
“Productivity is about to soar in advanced companies open to Al diffusion. The UK has the world’s third largest AI industry by a wide margin and is the data centre capital of Europe”.
We are a very innovative country; the WIPO Global Innovation Index places us sixth in the world. The IMF says that AI could boost productivity by 1.5% a year if fully adopted, and the French Artificial Intelligence Commission says that AI is not just an incremental efficiency gain in how we do things; it vaults to another level. Does the Minister agree?
I am chair of the International Chamber of Commerce UK, the ICC being the largest business organisation in the world, with 45 million businesses. There was no mention whatever of trade in this Budget, and that is surprising, because trade amounts to 60% of the UK economy. We can invest in digital public infrastructure, and we should invest in digital trade, because companies doing that cut costs by 80% and improve productivity by 60%. I have just returned from speaking at the B20 in Johannesburg, before the G20. I was a co-chair of the digital task force, and we have managed to persuade the G20 Governments to invest in public digital infrastructure.
UKHospitality made the following point:
“Many parliamentarians understood from the Chancellor’s statement that the Budget would ease pressure on high street businesses”.
However, will the Minister acknowledge the reality that when the relief falls away, there is a huge increase in the rates? The BBPA—I am the founder of Cobra beer—says that
“both small and medium-sized pubs will see substantial increases in their rates bills, driven by higher RVs being applied to only slightly lower multipliers”.
Does the Minister agree that many pubs are facing increased bills?
In conclusion, Brent Hoberman, my friend from Founders Forum, has said:
“The Chancellor promised to listen to UK entrepreneurs. And yesterday’s budget was a first step towards delivering on this promise”.
Whether it is the EMI scheme reform, scale-up finance, tax relief for companies listing in the UK, it is really good news that the Government are listening. There is no exit tax, as was mentioned. The British Business Bank will deploy £5 billion in growth-stage funds and there are listings reforms with stamp duty relief. This is fantastic, and there is going to be a review for what more can be done for entrepreneurs. I am so glad the Government want to talk and listen to us, because we are ready to help. These are steps in the right direction. As Brent Hoberman put it,
“we need to think bigger, bolder, and longer-term, backing our most ambitious entrepreneurs to drive economic growth”.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. Let me start by saying that I have some sympathy for the Chancellor. Her approval ratings are now so low that she is giving even Kwasi Kwarteng a run for his money. Just 12% give her a favourable rating, and from listening to the Benches opposite, the entire 12% seem to be here today, so I congratulate the Government Chief Whip on herding them all together.
I actually agree with some of what those on the opposite Benches have been saying. The Conservatives left office with taxes, spending and debt far too high, and growth anaemic. Worse than that, we and the party opposite all colluded in a conspiracy of silence about what that meant for the nation’s finances. We did not dare level with people before the last election that spending was too high and that either taxes would need to rise, or the state would have to do less. That is the background to the tragedy unfolding before us.
With their enormous majority, I, like many others, had high hopes that this Government, a Labour Government, might be bold in the spirit of other Labour Governments and reform the state. Where are those hopes now? They are dashed. This Government are a ship adrift in a storm, its captain struggling to stop it from crashing on to the rocks and trying to control his mutinous crew, his Ministers clinging to their lines to take as if they were lifejackets.
Like others on this side, I have been in similar situations at that Dispatch Box, so I have some sympathy with the Minister. As I know how demanding these moments are, I do not want to unnecessarily make life more miserable for him. However, I expect him to clarify how this Budget delivers on the ambitions that he and his entire Government have made.
Let me pull together a number of points made by my noble friends. First, on the mission to kick-start growth, is it correct that the Budget contains no measure that materially improves the OBR’s growth forecast, that the rate of productivity growth has been downgraded, and that growth in real household disposable income will fall sharply this year and next?
Secondly, on Labour’s promise not to raise taxes on working people, is it correct that the Budget’s £26 billion tax rise will push 1.7 million more people into higher tax bands, pushing the tax take to a record level?
Thirdly, the Chancellor pledged her Budget would ease the cost of living. Is it correct that, despite the measures the Minister mentioned were contained in the Budget, the OBR now expects inflation to stay higher for longer?
Fourthly, the Chancellor pledged her Budget would “reduce the national debt”. Is it correct that by the end of the Parliament, debt will be almost two percentage points of GDP higher than in 2024-25, with debt interest higher than today?
Finally, the Prime Minister has stated, as others have noted, that the welfare bill is “unsustainable … indefensible and … unfair”. Is it correct that annual welfare spending will be £56 billion higher at the end of the Parliament than today, that by 2028-29, spending on health and disability benefits alone will be double defence spending, and that without further reform, changes will reward dependency and not work? I look forward to the Minister’s answers.
I will end with this. The Government were given an enormous majority to change this country for the better. Millions of people put their hopes in the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, trusting them to keep their word and meet the economic, social and security challenges Britain faces with credible plans. Instead, with this Budget, the Government have not merely broken their word but have dragged us all deeper into the economic mire. That is a tragedy for us all.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, as the first of the winding speakers, let me repeat the welcome to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and say how much we enjoyed his excellent maiden speech, which I will refer to later.
To the Government, let me say that I am not quite in the “Apocalypse Now” camp that I hear from the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and some of his colleagues, but I really thought this was going to be—and needed to be—a Budget for growth. When we were in that period of endless announcements, U-turns, leaks, chaos, et cetera, I thought there would be a real surprise on Budget Day, that we would get that project, programme and vision that would drive forward growth. I was wrong.
As others have said, the OBR makes it clear that trend productivity growth is down, and we have no proper road map for dealing with it—the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, was eloquent on that point. The OECD has predicted that the UK will face headwinds from the Budget and will have the highest inflation rates in the G7. The noble Lord, Lord Rosenfield, spoke extensively on this issue. The Budget contained no compelling argument for investing in UK business. I wish the Government had listened to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who was calling for a real step change at this point, which is exactly what we need.
I agree that there were marginal but important measures in here that support upscaling—they were described by the noble Baronesses, Lady Moyo and Lady Penn, and, to some degree, by the noble Lord, Lord Ranger—focusing on AI.
These are not easy times for growth. Global headwinds are reducing global trade forecasts, which is not good news for the UK economy. That is exactly why my party is urging the Government to go immediately beyond their lackadaisical reset with the EU and push for a bespoke customs union. Those who do not think that Brexit is a blow that is battering our economy should go and talk extensively to business. It is not just the economists; it is the people on the ground daily who are dealing with the consequences. Of all times, this is not a time when we can indulge in the glow of insularity and exceptionalism.
My party, using work from Frontier Economics and the Commons Library, calculated that joining a customs union with the EU would deliver £25 billion in additional money to the Treasury. Frankly, that dwarfs every tax-raising measure in the Budget and off-sets far more than any spending cut that the Conservatives propose.
We heard concern about Brexit from the noble Lords, Lord Hollick, Lord Tyrie and Lord Brook of Alverthorpe. My noble friend Lord Razzall referred the Government to the Private Member’s Bill being brought forward by the honourable Member for Surrey Heath, which will give an opportunity to capture these issues.
I and my party strongly take the view—as my noble friends Lord Razzall and Lord Mohammed of Tinsley said—that the Government are absolutely right to lift the two-child benefit cap. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lords, Lord Bailey and Lord Massey, if a safety net is not for children, who is it for? We take the strong position that poverty undermines children, it does not raise them.
Similar views were expressed by the right reverend Prelates, the Bishop of Portsmouth and the Bishop of Manchester. I pick up the question introduced by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth on where the funding will come from to guarantee SEND provision when it shifts from local authorities to central government. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, raised that issue, and my noble friend Lord Mohammed of Tinsley stressed its importance. That means that we must have an important and strong answer on this from the Minister.
The decision to remove £150 from energy bills is welcome, but, as my noble friend Lord Razzall says, it is less adequate than the Lib Dem proposal. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin of Princethorpe, that we would not have been partly funding that by cutting programmes to tackle climate change, as the Government have chosen to do. We would have fully replaced that from central government resources.
When I first heard the Budget, like others—and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, has just said this—I thought that huge relief would be given to the hospitality industry through the business rates system. We in our party have proposed a VAT cut, and some people implied that this was going to be the equivalent. But UKHospitality estimates that an average pub will pay £12,900 more in business rates over three years.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, stressed similar pressures on grass-roots venues. This is a serious problem and I want to hear a proper answer from the Minister. In our case, we would have paid for the cuts in energy bills and VAT by pursuing the proposals of the IPPR for attacks on the windfall that major banks are making, not from their efforts but from the technicalities of QE and the reserves that they are keeping at the central bank. Why the Government have not seized that opportunity is beyond me. However, I give them credit for seizing the proposals pushed over and over by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for a remote gambling tax, which has not just fundraising but moral outcomes.
Why have the Government not raised the digital tax from 2% to 10%? It applies to the mega seven digital companies. Frankly, I just do not understand. These are serial tax avoiders par excellence. Our own UK digital companies are disadvantaged by their gaming of the tax system. That absolutely matters if we push on digital and AI.
Let me address the main proposals in the Budget, which raised most of the additional £26 billion in taxation and take tax levels in this country to unprecedented highs. Taxes will have gone up by £67 billion since the first freezing of tax thresholds. Labour is responsible for £13 billion of those taxes and, oh my, the Conservatives are responsible for £54 billion of those taxes. When I hear them talking as though they are a low-tax party, I wish that they would go back and look at what they did. Freezing thresholds is one of the worst ways to increase taxes on ordinary people. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, raised the question of the impact on women, and I hope that the Government will answer that.
It is true that many people do not realise what is happening until it is too late, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. However, we now face the extraordinary prospect that a quarter of employees will be in the high-rate tax bracket by 2030-31, not because they have become more prosperous but simply because their wages are rising just to cover inflation. The OBR forecast relies on inflation staying higher for longer, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said. The Government hope, because their additional spending is front-loaded and the tax increases are back-loaded, that people will have not caught on that, by 2030-31, they will be paying some £1,400 more in tax. We will have had nine years of threshold freezing.
The other major tax-raiser comes from changes to the salary sacrifice scheme of some £4.7 billion. I am concerned, and I heard the same concern from the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, that, combined with the changes to pensions in the last Budget, we are going to see a move away from pension saving and long-term investment by the wage-earning middle. The consequences of that are not good for growth. I ask the Government to get a grip on this issue. They are trying to get more auto-enrolled pensions—which is a very small part of the market covered by the Mansion House compact—into UK investing, but the big part of the market is now essentially being discouraged.
I refer to the comments made by my noble friend Lady Bowles on government procurement of innovation. That is a serious issue and I hope the Government take it on board. It is much wider than the narrow issue that it is sometimes treated as.
The so-called mansion tax will raise only £400 million and likely much less, but in London the revaluation of bands F, G and H will hit social housing. The mansion tax does not but the revaluation does. Can the Minister confirm that? The answer is that the whole of council tax needs a complete rethink—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, on that.
The timing of the taxing per mile of EVs seems perverse, when we need to accelerate the switch from petrol to diesel. I assume, along with the noble Lord, Lord Young, that this is the beginning of an evolution into road pricing. Why on earth were we not given a tax road map on this issue? Without that map, we will begin to see people become inhibited about buying EVs, perhaps unnecessarily. A road map should have accompanied a significant change on this scale.
I have one small comment—perhaps it is not so small—on the loan charge. I thought that the Government’s seeming acceptance of the McCann review, even if it did not deal with pre-2010 and already settled cases, would largely provide a resolution to this appalling mire. Then I realised that the discount that the Government are now going to use is capped at £70,000, leaving some 20% of those with open cases still absolutely in the mire. These are people who might once have been high earners but now typically are retired on modest incomes. So little more was needed for this nightmare to be resolved. I do not understand why the Government did not take that next step.
Lastly, the Government, as necessary, increased the fiscal headroom to £21.7 billion. We called loudly for such a change. I am slightly taken aback that one-third of the increase in the headroom relies on public sector efficiency savings on, frankly, a heroic scale. The noble Lords, Lord Willetts, Lord Wood and Lord Eatwell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, talked about how questionable future public sector savings are, particularly on the scale included in the forecast. The markets have calmed for now, but they will not stay calm if we do not see that efficiency come through and if we do not see growth.
Meanwhile, as I wind and finish, the public sector and local government are still on their knees. Ordinary people are still struggling every day with the cost of living. Businesses’ appetite to invest is still muted. There really is only one way to make a step change out of this mess, and I am going to go back to where I started: will the Government please now accelerate the process of resurrecting a bespoke EU customs union relationship so that we can look forward to a future with resource and choice, and without facing the kinds of constraints that are evident in this Budget?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow my noble friend—she is my noble friend from coalition days and long before. I am always entertained by her nostalgia for the weekly reports from Katya Adler in Brussels, but if we can get beyond that, she is a coherent critic of the Government—all Governments—on economic policy, and I agree with a lot that she said in her remarks.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, for the measured way in which he opened the debate and his exquisite courtesy in sitting here all the time during it. He has the advantage of being a bit younger than I am, and I apologise for my short departure.
This has been a compelling debate—compelling in one sense in the admirable loyalty of so many noble Lords opposite in circling their wagons around this failing economic policy and accepting the repudiation of a core manifesto promise not to raise taxes on working people. It has also been compelling in the clinical dissection and challenging of that policy by so many noble Lords, although not all have come at it from the vintage Corbynista direction of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, or, indeed, agreed with the catalogue of nationalisations and tax increases being demanded by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I wondered whether she was trying to catch the eye of her new leader. The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, certainly seemed to me to be being attracted to the Green Party as he listened to the noble Baroness.
The contribution by my noble friend Lord Bridges of Headley was challenging and pithy. He was pithy in his honesty, and one of the things he was honest about was that the previous Conservative Government spent, borrowed and taxed too much. We did, but some of those who criticised that might for a moment also remember that we had to confront the savage cost of the Covid pandemic. My noble friend was also brutal in exposing how this Budget and the previous one, taken together, pile more spending on top of overspending, more borrowing on top of overborrowing, and more taxation—£66,000 million in two Budgets—on already overtaxed families and businesses. As my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea said in a brilliant speech that shot a few Brexit foxes—he ought to circulate it around the House—this policy is simply not sustainable. There is also a glaring absence of serious supply-side reform in this Budget. Will the Minister tell us when we will see real deregulation?
This House likes it very much when it has a Minister who has real influence inside government. There is one sitting opposite me now. The noble Lord is very much respected. Sometimes he could lighten up a bit; we love him when he smiles. His hands are all over the Budget. He was there beside the Chancellor when she held up her red box last week. I read the words of a loquacious aide who told Tim Shipman, that indefatigable journalist, that the noble Lord and Torsten Bell dined with the Chancellor twice a week in July to plan this Budget. We are told that they waved away Treasury officials who came with spreadsheets and scorecards, saying that they were not interested in numbers—they had decided their strategy. Part of that, as we now find, was £406 billion on welfare by the end of the survey period. I submit again that that is simply not sustainable. I hope when he winds up that the noble Lord will answer the specific challenges on the welfare figures and what has been said about them, as levelled by my noble friend Lady Shawcross-Wolfson.
The other thing I have to refer to that the Chancellor and the noble Lord planned was that long autumn of “project fear”. The noble Lord complained in his opening remarks about leaks and speculation, but where did all that come from? Who was talking to whom? I think my noble friend Lord Kempsell probably knows a thing or two about that. Never have we had such a maelstrom of spin; never have more kites been flown; never have more proposals been leaked. It culminated in the carefully planned spectacle of the Chancellor herself, weeks before the Budget, organising a press conference with all the panoply of the state—the union jacks—to tell the world that she was going to put up income tax.
History will judge the truth of what the Treasury team knew from the OBR and when. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, that we should not waste time on that; we will come to know. But my noble friend Lord Kempsell was right to refer to the real-life effects of the spin—the uncertainty. We now know that hundreds of millions of pounds were moved in those weeks. That, as the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, said, is the Treasury’s responsibility. I agree with him and the noble Lord, Lord Burns, with their immense and peculiar experience, that this should never happen again.
We now know that, to justify massive tax increases, the Chancellor and the noble Lord dug their own bogus black hole. You can see the soil there under the noble Lord’s fingernails. We now know that they did not need to tax and borrow so much. Higher tax was a choice—a deliberate choice to take money from the successful, the hard-working and the wealth creators and spend it on welfare. To be fair, they are proud of it; they planned it. Many on the other side have declared that today. My noble friend Lord Lamont of Lerwick was the first of many to point out that this was a political Budget—a Labour Budget. It is what socialist Governments do. As my noble friend Lord Dobbs reminded us, Labour tax, borrowing and spend policies fail every time.
I have been struck by how many noble Lords in this debate have drawn attention to continuing black holes in this Budget. Take SEND funding, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, who I greatly welcome, was right to ask a fundamental question in his notable maiden speech about how the costs will be met. This was followed up in more detail by my noble friend Lady Barran. Can we please have the answers? The OBR could not have been clearer that
“no savings have been identified to offset the estimated £6 billion pressure”.
Where will the money be found? Can the noble Lord tell us when he winds up?
Let us take the £5 billion negative impact of the Employment Rights Bill, where my noble friend Lord Willetts observed—rightly, probably—that your Lordships’ House has done more to benefit youth employment by blocking day-one rights than anything in the Budget. Can the Minister tell us whether that Bill’s effect been scored by the OBR? Can he also tell us, when he replies, the latest estimate of the cost to the NHS of the recent UK-US pharmaceutical deal? The Government must have that cost. They have signed a deal. Even if you are signing a deal with President Trump, you must have some sense of what it is going to cost the NHS and the country. This is Parliament: can he tell us what the cost will be and whether it has been scored?
Again, what of defence? The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, among others, referred to this. To reach the 3.5% commitment, the OBR calculates that the Government face a £32 billion shortfall today. Again, we have no hint in these documents of how that will be funded. When will we be told? The survey period reaches into the next decade.
While these uncertainties remain, what we are certainly told is that we face a splurge of spending and a boom in borrowing. The borrowing and spending are coming now, but the tax—or much of it—is, as the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, said, only coming later. The Minister spoke of a fiscal consolidation that reduces public sector net borrowing by £12 billion in 2029-30. However, this figure of course relies on £26 billion of tax increases. Can he confirm that borrowing will be higher than the March forecast in four of the next five years? Does he agree that total borrowing over the period to 2029-30 will be £57 billion higher than was forecast just eight months ago? The noble Lord, Lord Burns, in a notable speech based on, as I say, unique experience, gave a sober warning to the House at the outset of the debate about the continued burden of debt: £110 billion at the end of the survey period. This theme was picked up by many others.
The Government are also failing on their central claim to be a Government for growth. This has in fact been the major area of concern from all sides of the House. We respect the Government’s desire to secure growth: the trouble is that their policies are designed to stunt it. There are positives, including incentives for start-ups, and I hope the Minister will listen carefully to the constructive points that I think he will agree were made by my noble friends Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lord Massey of Hampstead and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted. There are other considerations that we must have on growth. My noble friend Lord Hintze was right to counsel us about the importance of considering growth per capita. We must do that; we do not talk about it enough.
The Minister declares that the OBR has mildly uprated forecasts for growth this year—and then the tape stops. He skates over the fact that forecasts are revised down for all the succeeding years. The OBR estimates that this Budget’s policies will have “no significant impact” on growth by 2030. As a keen allotmenteer, I like growing my own vegetables, and Britain will need a lot more people like me if Ed Miliband goes on covering up good farmland with solar farms. By the way, how right the noble Baroness, Lady Moyo, was to point out the disastrous structural impact of high energy prices on the UK economy. Collectively, across all parties, we must have the courage to address that. However, I have to tell the Minister that, from my experience, if you plant vegetables and you want them to grow, they do not do so if you keep battering them with a big stick day after day. This Government are mercilessly battering businesses, particularly small businesses, with the big sticks of taxation and regulation, and it cannot succeed.
Last year’s devastating NIC increases have brutally impacted business confidence and jobs, particularly in SMEs, which many of your Lordships—led, in a distinguished speech, by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell—so rightly said we need. Unemployment is grimly rising every month, small business by small business, place by place, as it ever does, although it is the big closures that catch the news. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and others said, the hospitality industry and the high streets, which were told that they should be rejoicing at what was in the large print of the Budget, are now reeling at the prospects of the business rates stealth tax that was hidden in the small print. Today, their trade body has warned of a further 100,000 jobs at risk in the hospitality sector as a result of the cumulative impact of this Government’s policies on SMEs and hospitality in particular.
Taken together, the last two Budgets and the Employment Rights Bill have devastated business confidence and the prospect of jobs for young people. The Federation of Small Businesses, the IoD and the CBI are all saying it. Frankly, one thing is stark staring obvious, including to the many noble Lords opposite who stayed away from our votes on the Employment Rights Bill: if you penalise employers, you penalise employment. In its Economic and Fiscal Outlook, the OBR is clear that unemployment is set to go on rising—all without taking into account the effects of the Employment Rights Bill.
My noble friend Lord Dobbs was devastating, in his particular and idiosyncratic way, on unemployment. We must not go down that road again. Then there is the central issue of welfare, on which we have heard differences across the House. As my noble friend Lord Bridges said, and I agree with him, this Government have a huge majority in the other place and a clearly stated will to reform the welfare state, which the Prime Minister seemed to reiterate this week. They must use that majority and, as my leader has said, we will support them in difficult decisions to cut welfare spending.
Welfare is increasingly shifting from being a source of temporary support to a form of long-term income for an ever-increasing number of people, and that stifles hope. Around 5,000 people a day are being signed off work and on to long-term sickness benefits. It could have been a historic task for the Labour Party to carry out this reform. As the noble Lords, Lord Wood of Anfield, Lord Eatwell, and others referred to, it has opportunities to do remarkable things on this and on tax simplification. In a brilliant and balanced speech, the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, pointed out many significant realities, good and bad, which we all collectively have to address. This country is underperforming: not because of this Government but because of systemic problems—but they are being accentuated by mistaken choices now being made.
Instead of dealing with the welfare challenge, faced with dissent in their ranks, the Cabinet ran away—enfeebled prisoners of their own Back-Benchers, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, and my noble friend Baroness Noakes said, panicking at the frailty of a majority in the high hundreds. Now, with this Budget, they are leading the stampede further in the opposite direction. It cannot and need not go on, as my noble friend Lord Saatchi and the noble Lord, Lord Bird, in their different ways, challenged us.
We on this side have set out carefully costed plans for some initial savings. But we must surely all agree that the purpose of the welfare system is to support as many people as possible into work. We must not create a system, as we seem to be doing, where for far too many, being on welfare is an alternative to getting a job. Too often, you can be better off. That is the very reverse of what was intended when universal credit was introduced. My noble friend Lady Coffey made a searching speech with piercing questions on this, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, made a powerful contribution on family. As my noble friends Lady Stedman-Scott and Lord Bailey of Paddington, in a striking speech, reminded us, the best way to tackle poverty is a J-O-B: a job. The Government can help by supporting businesses to open, hire and grow. I think that is what they truly want, but the OBR has made it clear that the Government simply have not done this in their Budget. Not a single measure is said by the OBR to promote growth—and working people will pay the price.
The Government have given us the first death tax on family farmers, the first death tax on family businesses, the first tax on family homes, the first tax on children’s learning—a shameful worldwide first, that one—and the first tax on green electric vehicles. They have even given us the first tax on milkshakes—I wonder who, in No. 11, thought that one up. Hit after hit at the struggling green shoots of growth and at success. When the Chancellor said she wanted a more “innovative” economy, we did not know that she meant inventing new taxes.
This was a fundamentally dishonest Budget, founded on a bogus black hole of the Chancellor’s own digging. The Government did not need to raise the income-tax take; it was a choice. They said that they would not tax working people, but they have. They said they wanted to help workers, but they have given us a Budget for non-workers. They said that they wanted to create growth, but they have pummelled the very businesses, and SMEs in particular, that create it. They said that they wanted the UK open for business, and the Minister repeated it, but they have reinvented the brain drain, as my noble friends Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell and Lady Morrissey said. They even talk of an exit tax to stem an outflow that they could see themselves. The only high streets that are booming are in Dubai.
The British people have been given higher taxes, higher borrowing and a Budget as unserious in its strategy as it was cynical in its spin. Huge costs have been imposed on the private sector, with a rising toll on jobs, as my noble friend Lord Lamont observed. It cannot and must not go on.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to close this debate on the Budget this evening. I have enjoyed listening to all 73 contributions from noble Lords today. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth on his excellent maiden speech. I very much look forward to his further contributions to this House. I was struck particularly by one thing he said,
“to find what is good and to strengthen it”.
That must be right. Having sat through the debate this evening, though, I am aware that opinions may differ on how well we are achieving that in this Budget.
It is a privilege to speak in a debate with the noble Lord, Lord True—I do not often have that pleasure. My noble friends Lord Barber of Ainsdale and Lady Curran set out the record of the noble Lord’s Government that we inherited. The combined effect of austerity, Brexit and the Liz Truss mini-Budget was devastating to the economy. Had the economy grown by the average of other OECD countries over those 14 years, it would be more than £150 billion larger today. The previous Parliament was the worst ever for living standards. Inflation hit 11% and was above target for 33 months in a row. The UK had the lowest private investment levels in the whole of the G7. Productivity growth had entirely stalled, with output per worker growing more slowly than in nearly every other G7 country.
The need to deal with that inheritance is why we have made growth our number one priority. This Budget made pro-growth choices to get borrowing down, with increased headroom to cut the cost of living and get inflation down to support Britain’s fast-growing companies and, most of all, to protect the investment needed to support growth by avoiding a return to austerity. This is real substance, and these are real policies to get real growth and enable the British people to lead better lives in the years ahead.
As I said in opening the debate, this was a Budget dominated, even more so than usual, by process—before, during and after it was delivered. This was a point raised by the noble Lords, Lord True, Lord Rosenfield, Lord Kempsell, Lord Leigh of Hurley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady Noakes and Lady Penn.
Let me address those directly. Let me be clear that the Chancellor was completely honest and consistent with the public in everything she said. Professor David Miles, the acting head of the OBR, in his evidence to the Treasury Select Committee on Tuesday, confirmed that what the Chancellor said before the Budget had not been misleading. The Chancellor said before the Budget that her priorities were cutting the cost of living, NHS waiting lists, debt and borrowing. The Budget delivered on all those priorities.
The Chancellor was clear that a productivity review would mean lower tax receipts. The OBR confirmed they were £16 million lower. The Chancellor said she intended to build more headroom; she built more headroom to £21.7 billion. The Chancellor was clear in the summer 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 be needed on tax and spending, and she froze thresholds for a further three years.
Let me be clear too that the 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 commitment to economic stability. As noble Lords know, and as the noble Lord, Lord Rosenfield, for example, commented, the economic and fiscal outlook was accessed prematurely ahead of the Budget. That was a very serious leak of highly sensitive information. The OBR took full responsibility for this and conducted a review into what happened.
That report was published on Monday. Following that publication, as the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, said, Richard Hughes, the chair of the OBR, resigned. The Chancellor has written to Mr Hughes to thank him for his many years of public service. I have previously put my own thanks on record in your Lordships’ House. That decision was a matter for Mr Hughes. The suggestion otherwise from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, is categorically untrue. The noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, spoke rightly about future appointments being subject to approval by the Treasury Select Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, criticised the impact of pre-Budget speculation, as did the noble Lords, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court and Lord True, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Penn. Let me say clearly that we take the Budget process very seriously, and we put the utmost weight on Budget secrecy. As referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kempsell, a leak inquiry is now under way into the FT reporting on the 13 November, with the full support of the Chancellor and the whole Treasury team.
The noble Baroness, Lady Penn, spoke about learning lessons. The Permanent Secretary to the Treasury will now conduct a review of the Treasury security processes to inform future fiscal events. We will also work closely with the OBR to ensure that robust security arrangements are in place before the spring forecast and for all future forecasts. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, asked about the arrangements for the Spring Statement. As the Chancellor said in the Budget, to support just one fiscal event a year the OBR will not assess the margin against the fiscal rules in the spring and the Government will not make a fiscal response.
The noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, asked whether the Treasury still accepts his recommendations from 2013. The answer is yes, and I can tell him that the current Permanent Secretary to the Treasury referred to that review in an email he sent to all Treasury staff.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, spoke about the productivity puzzle. Much of the context of this Budget was the OBR supply-side review, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Willetts and Lord Bridges of Headley, and my noble friend Lord Hollick. The OBR looked back at the productivity performance of the previous decade and concluded that the chronically low levels of investment, together with the effects of Brexit and the pandemic, have weakened the economy by far more even than previously thought. This reappraisal of the productivity performance of the past has directly impacted its view of GDP going forward, driving lower growth forecasts for the remainder of the forecast period. The noble Lord, Lord True, together with the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Moyo, noted its impact on future growth forecasts. But they all ignored the fact that it was the verdict on the previous 14 years, not the previous 14 months.
This review has had both a fiscal and a growth impact. In terms of fiscal policy, because of this Budget, borrowing will fall as a share of GDP in every year of the forecast, from 4.5% in 2025-26 to 1.9% in 2030-31. Borrowing will fall more quickly than in any other G7 economy. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, said, net financial debt will be lower at the end of this forecast than it is today. The headroom against our stability rule will more than double to £21.7 billion—this was supported, I think, by the noble Lords, Lord Lamont, Lord Willetts and Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court, and my noble friends Lord Wood of Anfield and Lord Hollick.
The Budget also took more direct action to cut inflation. We have taken £150 off energy bills, frozen rail fares for the first time in 30 years and extended the freeze on fuel duty. All these things together take 0.4% off inflation. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, to put that in context, it is the biggest near-term reduction in inflation due to government policy ever forecast by the OBR at a single fiscal event.
Some noble Lords said consolidation was back-loaded, including the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, and the noble Lords, Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court and Lord True. I do not accept that. In the Budget, we doubled the headroom to the stability rule to £21.7 billion. We have also set out a credible and front-loaded consolidation plan that is working. Borrowing this year is set to be the lowest for six years and falls in every year of the forecast, from 4.5% of GDP this year to 3% of GDP in 2027-28, and to 1.9% in 2030-31. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, we will deliver a further £2.8 billion in efficiencies and savings in 2028-29, rising to £5 billion in 2030, on top of almost £14 billion announced at the spending review.
My noble friend Lord Sikka spoke about the distributional impact of this Budget. The Government’s distributional analysis shows tax, welfare and public service spending decisions taken from the autumn Budget 2024 onwards are progressive and benefit households in the lowest income deciles the most. The increases in tax are concentrated on the highest-income households. On average, all but the richest 10% of households will benefit from policy decisions in 2028-29.
The right reverend Prelate spoke passionately about children with special educational needs, joined by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran, Lady Noakes and Lady Kramer, and the noble Lords, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley and Lord True. We know and have long said that the system is in need of reform to, first and foremost, support children and families effectively. The OBR has based its estimate on unreformed pressures. It has not accounted for planned reforms to deliver a sustainable SEND system that works better for children and families. The detail of this will be set out in our reform plan early in the new year. The OBR has only used mainstream schools as an indicative example, whereas the Government have confirmed that residual SEND pressures will be absorbed within the overall Government DEL budget from 2028-29 onwards. The Government will not make final decisions until reform plans are confirmed and Budgets from 2028-29 onwards remain subject to the spending review in 2027.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke about defence spending. The UK will spend 2.6% of GDP on defence spending by April 2027. The Government have set an ambition to spend 3% of GDP on defence in the next Parliament, when economic and fiscal conditions allow. Changes to the defence spending envelope will be considered at the next spending review in 2027.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, spoke about the creative industries, and I agree with him on their importance to the economy. We have made creative industries central to our industrial strategy and he is right that the new discretionary power to introduce a visitor levy would allow local leaders to drive growth in their regions.
Turning now to growth, I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, about the importance that we place on growth. It is without question our number one priority. My noble friends Lord Barber of Ainsdale and Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town said that, in this Budget, the OBR upgraded Britain’s growth forecast for this year from 1% to 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. Just this week, the OECD upgraded its prediction for Britain’s growth next year. Just last week, following the Budget, JPMorgan announced a $10 billion investment in Britain to build its new landmark tower in Canary Wharf. CEO and chair Jamie Dimon said:
“The UK government’s priority of economic growth has been a critical factor in helping us make this decision”.
Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Horam, called for, my noble friend Lord Hollick spoke about the importance of protecting the additional capital spending that we have allocated to the economy. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said that the previous Government had to deal with the aftermath of the financial crisis. Of course he is right, but I would contend that they did so in exactly the wrong way, by taking demand out of the economy at exactly the worst moment. The very worst thing that we could do now for growth would be to follow the Conservative Party recommendation and return to austerity, cutting investment just as previous Chancellors with previous fiscal rules have done. We will not repeat those mistakes of the past: the exact mistakes that led to the productivity downgrade that we must now fix.
This Government are committed to delivering growth in every nation and region of the UK. My noble friend Lady Griffin of Princethorpe specifically spoke about growth between northern city regions, and I absolutely agree with her. It is precisely why we have committed to the northern growth corridor, including Northern Powerhouse Rail, to boost connectivity and access to markets across the north. More widely, this Budget transfers significant new fiscal powers into the hands of local leaders.
The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, spoke about the importance to growth of moving closer to the European Union. As they know, I agree. The noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, also supported this point, as did my noble friend Lord Brooke. The Prime Minister said the same in his speech on Monday this week.
The noble Baroness, Lady Moyo, and the noble Lord, Lord Harrington of Watford, are right to say that there is much more to do elsewhere, and they rightly identified the importance of reducing energy costs for businesses, which must of course be a priority.
My noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe spoke about housing and asked specifically about social rent convergence. The Government remain committed to implementing social rent convergence, but we must take the time to get the details right and take into account the benefits to the supply and quality of social affordable housing, the impact on rent payers and affordability. We will respond to the consultation on this issue in full and announce a decision about how social rent convergence will be implemented in January. My noble friend also asked about supported housing; as she mentioned, the Government will shortly publish a new cross-government homelessness strategy. I cannot speculate on the contents of that right now, but we will be working closely with mayors and local councils to get us back on track to ending homelessness.
My noble friend Lady Thornton raised co-operatives. The Government are progressing a number of measures to support the growth of the mutual sector, including modernising the Building Societies Act. We have endorsed the industry-led Mutual and Co-operative Sector Business Council, and the Department for Business and Trade has announced a call for evidence, which will explore business support for co-operatives.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, and the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Razzall, spoke about the importance of small businesses. I agree with all of them on the importance of small businesses to the economy. As my noble friend Lady Carberry of Muswell Hill said, for small and medium-sized businesses the Budget supports high streets, with permanently lower tax rates for 750,000 retail and hospitality properties. It backs entrepreneurs by doubling eligibility for tax breaks that make it easier for fast-growing start-ups to scale and stay in the UK, makes the training for under-25 apprenticeships completely free for SMEs, and maintains the lowest rate of corporation tax in the G7.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, and the noble Lords, Lord Bilimoria and Lord Razzall, spoke specifically about pubs. Most pubs are protected by a £4.3 billion business rate support package, capping bills and saving a typical independent pub £4,800 next year, compared to what it would pay without intervention. The Government have also cut the business rates tax rate paid by small retail, hospitality and leisure properties to the lowest level since 1990-91.
My noble friends Lord Hollick and Lady Curran mentioned the importance of apprenticeships, particularly given the infrastructure commitments that we have made—a point also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harrington, and I pay tribute to his work at Make UK. The Government are making more than £1.5 billion available over the spending review period for investment in employment and skills support. This includes £725 million for the growth and skills levy, to help support apprenticeships for young people and fully fund SME apprenticeships for under-25s. We will also introduce new reforms to simplify the apprenticeship system and make it more efficient when short courses are introduced from April 2026.
My noble friend Lady Curran spoke about the importance of growth in Scotland, and I will of course look carefully at the report she mentions. The Budget invests in Scotland’s economic potential, supporting Scotland’s energy industry, driving up economic growth across Scotland and investing in the important projects that she mentioned.
My noble friend Lord Jones of Penybont, who is far more expert in this matter than I am, spoke about the importance of growth in Wales. As he said, we are supporting the Wales energy industry by announcing that Wylfa will pioneer the UK’s first small modular reactor, supporting up to 3,000 jobs. We are also investing to deliver growth in Wales by establishing AI growth zones in north and south Wales, each backed with £5 million investment in local AI adoption and skills.
I turn to tax, which of course so many noble Lords mentioned in the debate. We faced a choice at the Budget. We could have made the reckless choice to abandon our fiscal rules and let borrowing and debt increase, but instead we made the pro-growth choice to get borrowing, debt and inflation down, more than doubling our headroom. We could have made the irresponsible choice and returned to austerity, cutting public services and undermining capital investment. Instead, we made the pro-growth choice to protect the investment in Britain’s infrastructure to build a stronger and more secure economy. But, as I said at the outset, these choices do need to be paid for.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, raised the impact of that on working people, as did several other noble Lords during the course of this debate. The Chancellor made very clear in her Budget how much maintaining the tax thresholds at their current level would impact working people. We have sought to minimise this by establishing certain other necessary tax reforms.
Several noble Lords touched on the subject of tax reform, including initially the noble Lord, Lord Burns, who was supported by my noble friends Lord Wood of Anfield, Lord Eatwell and Lord Hollick. I recognise that perhaps this Budget has not gone as far as they would have liked, but we have made a start on reforming some important tax reliefs within the system.
My noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton asked about the impact of tax thresholds on pensioners paying tax on their state pension. We gave a clear commitment to this in the Budget. We are now exploring the best way to achieve it and will set out more detail early next year.
My noble friend Lady Thornton raised the impact of the Budget on women. Increases in the national minimum wage, for example, will benefit women more. To answer her specific point, alongside the Finance Bill, impact assessments will be published in relation to each individual measure and their impacts on women.
My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours spoke about the high value council tax surcharge, a point which was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. The Valuation Office will identify homes which will need to pay the surcharge through a targeted revaluation. The new charge will ensure that those with the most valuable properties pay their fair share.
Several noble Lords mentioned the impact of salary sacrifice measures, including my noble friend Lord Hollick and the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, who expressed some concern about it. I agree with my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton that the measures are proportionate. The Government rightly provide generous tax relief for people paying into a pension, relieving income tax on all contributions. This Budget makes no changes to those reliefs or to the tax-free lump sum. Salary sacrifice for pensions, which was intended to be a small part of our pensions system, is now forecast to nearly treble in cost from under £3 billion to £8 billion in 2030, with the most benefit going to higher earners.
The noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell, spoke about non-dom reforms. I have justified this policy in the past, so I will not do so again now.
I was pleased to see the issue about low-value imports that the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, has campaigned on for so long make progress. I know he expressed concern about how long this is taking. We will do what we can to speed up the implementation of the reforms, for which the noble Lord has called.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, spoke expertly about electric VED. I believe I was correct in saying that we are not introducing road pricing, since electric VED does not mean that motorists will be charged based on when or where they drive, nor will there be any new national charges to drive on specific roads. Electric VED only requires a vehicle’s mileage to be estimated.
I am grateful to several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lord Massey of Hampstead, and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, for their support for the further scale-up measures that we introduced as well as for expanding the enterprise management incentives, the enterprise investment scheme and the venture capital trust investment limits. I will happily take away the suggestions from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, as to how we might go further in that regard.
I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Stansgate for what he said in support of the measures to help ensure that the fastest-growing businesses in our country start, scale and stay, particularly by backing breakthrough technologies and regional clusters with £7 billion of UKRI funding and a new £130 million growth catalyst fund to help frontier firms scale.
I agree with a lot of what the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, spoke so passionately about on the need for procurement reforms.
The noble Lords, Lord Lamont of Lerwick and Lord Bridges of Headley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, spoke about the impact on living standards. As they will know, real household disposable income fell by 1.8% in the last Parliament, making it the only Parliament since records began in which living standards fell. This fall has already been reversed. RHDI per capita was £800 higher in the first year of this Parliament compared with the final year of the previous Parliament. The OBR forecasts growth to continue, with RHDI per capita projected to grow by 2.9% over this Parliament. It also forecasts that, as a result of the action taken by this Government, RHDI per capita will grow by a further 0.2 percentage points in 2026-27.
Many noble Lords spoke about the importance of tackling welfare reform, including the noble Lords, Lord Burns, Lord Willetts, Lord de Clifford, Lord Saatchi and Lord Hamilton of Epsom, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey, Lady Stedman-Scott and Lady Shawcross-Wolfson. Last year, we delivered the largest fraud and error package in recent history, saving £4.3 billion in 2029-30. This Budget goes further to ensure that our welfare system is sustainable for the long term. It increases face-to-face assessments for health benefits and offers 18 to 21 year-olds who have been on universal credit and looking for work for 18 months paying work, instead of benefits. It ensures that people living abroad can no longer buy a state pension on the cheap and reforms the Motability scheme’s tax reliefs, saving the taxpayer over £1 billion across five years.
Our new youth guarantee will also offer 18 to 20 year-olds paid work rather than benefits and we will examine extending it, as my noble friend Lord Rook asked. We recognise the need to do more, which is why the Government will continue to look at other reforms, including through the Timms review, the Milburn review and the Pensions Commission.
As my noble friend Lord Rook said, we have raised taxes on gambling companies and launched a crackdown on tax evasion to pay for the scrapping of the two-child limit. I am still amazed that the party opposite opposed these measures, when three-quarters of households impacted by this change have at least one parent or carer in work. Reducing child poverty is not only a moral imperative but an investment in the country’s future. Under the Conservatives, child poverty rose by 900,000, yet they still oppose the action we are taking to tackle child poverty.
The cost to the economy of child poverty is some £40 billion a year. It damages the life chances of the children affected and it hits growth, because children who grow up in poverty earn 25% less aged 30 than those who do not. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth described how 50% of children in one of his wards live in poverty. Removing the two-child limit will lift 450,000 children out of poverty in the final year of this Parliament, yet the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, on behalf of the Official Opposition, opposed it. When combined with other measures announced this year, it will lift around 550,000 children out of poverty. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asked about this measurement: it is relative child poverty after housing costs.
The noble Lord, Lord Bird, spoke rightly about the intergenerational nature of poverty and said that we should prevent poverty in the first place. Child poverty makes it harder for children to get on in life and it hurts our economy in the long term. Reducing child poverty will help to increase educational outcomes and attainment, and therefore improve economic outcomes.
Finally, my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley also spoke passionately about carers. As my noble friend said, 26,000 carers will now have their overpayment debt written off or reimbursed.
We will continue to rebuild the economy after 14 years of failure from the party opposite. Where they delivered the slowest projected growth in the G7, our growth in the first half of this year was the fastest in the G7. Where they presided over the worst Parliament ever for living standards, living standards have already increased by 2.1% since the election. Where they oversaw the worst pay growth in a century, real wages grew more in the first 10 months of this Government than in the first 10 years of the previous Government, and where they continually cut capital spending and deterred investment, we are investing for the long term, with £120 billion extra over the next five years.
Now, in this Budget, we are going further: not just cutting child poverty but cutting energy bills by £150; cutting NHS waiting lists; cutting borrowing faster than any other G7 country; cutting inflation and supporting further cuts in interest rates. This is a Budget that rejects austerity, a Budget for a stronger, more secure economy, and a Budget for a Britain built for all.