Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)
Happy Christmas to one and all here, and to all our constituents and loved ones.
I am very proud that this Labour Government are putting the biggest ever investment into research and development, including a record £38.6 billion for UK Research and Innovation. Alongside continuing to support curiosity-led research, the funding will for the first time focus on key Government priorities, including the eight sectors of our modern industrial strategy. We back our brilliant scientists, researchers, innovators and manufacturers to boost jobs and growth in every part of the country.
Andy McDonald
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. Can I take this opportunity to welcome the passage of the Employment Rights Bill through the Lords? It will deliver the greatest uplift in workers’ rights in a generation.
Less than two weeks ago, I took part in a steel signing ceremony at the new NETA engineering training centre in Thornaby in my constituency, following the opening of Middlesbrough college’s new TTE centre, and all dovetailing with Teesside University’s Net Zero Industry Innovation Centre. With all those new facilities, does the Secretary of State agree that Middlesbrough and Thornaby East is helping to lead the delivery of the UK’s modern industrial strategy, and will she take the opportunity to visit some of our fantastic new industrial and digital facilities on Teesside?
Liz Kendall
I absolutely agree that Middlesbrough and Thornaby East is leading the way in delivering our modern industrial strategy, creating more good jobs that pay a decent wage and building the future economy that our country needs. I would be delighted to see more of that excellent work, and I believe that my office has already been in contact with my hon. Friend’s office to arrange it. This Government are backing manufacturers, including by putting in £800 million for advanced technical education to equip young people with engineering and manufacturing skills in clean energy, artificial intelligence and advanced manufacturing.
Adam Thompson
I thank the Secretary of State for her answers. I used to be one of those research scientists. I worked in metrology for advanced manufacturing, so I am glad that the Government have identified advanced manufacturing as one of the eight sectors with the greatest growth potential.
From the Victorian gentlemen scientists who redefined the way we see our universe to the women driving the fourth industrial revolution, the British have always been able to make the best things. How is the Secretary of State supporting novel technologies through the technology readiness scale to maximise growth for small and medium-sized enterprises in Erewash, such as Atlas Composite Technologies, Status Metrology and R. A. Labone?
Liz Kendall
I am very proud that my hon. Friend sits on the Government Benches, with all his experience in this critical area. As part of our backing for research and development, we are doubling R&D investment in critical technologies such as engineering biology, AI and quantum, with R&D investment in AI alone growing from £600 million to £1.6 billion. Today—in a mere 20 minutes, I believe—UKRI will publish the level of direct support to be given to each of the industrial strategy sectors, and that includes the support we are providing to our vital small businesses. Backing the UK’s leading strength in these areas and backing our world-leading scientists and researchers is the only route to better growth and more opportunities in Erewash and right across the country.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Speaker—what a lovely birthday present.
Last week I met my constituent Kevin, the programme lead for TESTBED Dorset. He told me that although life sciences is one of the key sectors in the modern industrial strategy, none of the seven projects is in the south-west, and there is not a single reference to Dorset. The living science park will create a vast area for academic research based in our landscapes, supported by landowners, universities from Bournemouth, Bristol and Southampton, the National Trust and Natural England, focused on a “one health” approach. Will the Secretary of State meet me and those lead organisations to hear more about the programme and consider it for the future?
Liz Kendall
I also wish the hon. Lady a happy birthday. I am happy for either me or Patrick Vallance—the life sciences Minister in the other place—to meet her and her colleagues. Later today, UKRI will set out future funding for the eight areas of our industrial strategy, which it—and I—will want to ensure is spread fairly across the country. I am more than happy to discuss that with her further.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Secretary of State will know that in my constituency we have an advanced manufacturing cluster and proudly boast over 5,000 high-skilled jobs in defence, maritime and aerospace. She will understand that last week Boeing concluded its deal to become the successor owner of Short Brothers. Will she confirm that the Government will continue to support advanced manufacturing in my constituency, whether it be with Boeing, Airbus, Thales or Harland & Wolff?
Liz Kendall
Yes, I absolutely reaffirm that commitment. The right hon. Member will know that we are increasing our defence spending, and alongside that is the work we are doing in our Department. The defence sector is critical for jobs and backing the research and development that will lead to further demand and further innovation. I really hope that next year I may be able to visit Northern Ireland, and I would very much like to see what is happening in his constituency.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
Online content depicting or promoting animal torture is horrific and—let me be clear—unacceptable. Under the Online Safety Act 2023, animal cruelty is a priority offence, which needs proactive steps from platforms to counter it. We will keep the pressure on to enforce that.
Johanna Baxter
Earlier this year, two teenagers were prosecuted for the torture and killing of kittens in a public park. A BBC investigation has since uncovered a disturbing international network sharing videos of extreme cruelty to cats and kittens, and users here in the UK and those prosecuted have been found to be in possession of that material. Online animal abuse is not a harmless niche; it is a recognised warning sign for escalating violence, including serious crimes against women and girls. I am pleased that the Prime Minister’s Christmas card promotes kindness towards animals. Will my hon. Friend outline what further work his Department is doing to ensure that we address harmful content?
Kanishka Narayan
May I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend—and indeed her cats Clement Cattlee and Mo Meowlam—for being right at the vanguard of campaigning on this serious issue. Animal cruelty is a priority offence in the law, as I mentioned, and Ofcom must enforce it and platforms must act on it. The Government will keep the pressure on, as we have done in our engagements with the platforms, to ensure that our cats—our animals—are safe from cruelty.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Can the Government do more to ensure proactive detection of this vile material, such as by using artificial intelligence tools and human moderators with specialist training in animal cruelty, so that such content is swiftly identified and removed, and put robust measures in place to prevent it from reappearing online?
Kanishka Narayan
I thank the hon. Member for an apt question on this theme. As I mentioned, animal cruelty is a priority offence under the law. Platforms must take proactive steps, including to assess risk before it pertains and to remove content where it clearly falls foul of the law. The Government will keep making sure that enforcement through the regulator and via platforms continues at pace.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
Online harassment has no place in our society. Under the Online Safety Act, platforms must take steps to remove illegal content. These duties apply to abuse, to harassment, to threats and hate crimes, and to disinformation and misinformation that amounts to illegal content. What is more, the Government have already written to Ofcom to accelerate the final phase of implementation of the Online Safety Act. We will continue to ensure that we are empowering users against harassment.
Sarah Smith
The family of my constituent Jay Slater, who tragically lost his life last summer, have been subject to the most horrendous harassment and misinformation online while grieving their son. Sadly, it does not appear to be an isolated case, and there is evidence of the same content creators targeting multiple victims through tragedy trolling. Will the Minister agree to meet victims to explore how we can tackle this horrific abuse and give families the space they should have to grieve in peace?
Kanishka Narayan
I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to Debbie, the mother of Jay Slater, who has had to deal not just with the tragedy of her son’s death, but with all the subsequent harassment that she, family and friends have experienced. After I met my hon. Friend and Debbie, I raised the issue with the platforms. I know that the Secretary of State will meet bereaved families in the new year as well. I am keen to continue our engagement to make sure that we support victims and work hard to ensure that no other bereaved families face what Debbie and Jay’s family have had to face.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
Online harm and harassment amplifies real-world violence. In West Dorset, 14-year-old Isabella was brutally attacked, but the lasting trauma came from the assault being deliberately filmed and circulated online and in group chats in schools across the local area. It was designed deliberately to humiliate her and led to her being further harassed online and in person. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that online safety measures properly address the sharing of real-world violent content that retraumatises victims and leads to further harassment?
Kanishka Narayan
I thank the hon. Member for raising a very important point. The Online Safety Act 2023 already focuses on areas of illegal content, in particular to keep young people safe under the child safety duties. If there are particular instances that the hon. Member wishes to write to me about, I will be happy to raise them. Notwithstanding the fact that Ofcom continues to be the regulator, we are keeping the pressure on both Ofcom and platforms to act robustly.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I join colleagues in wishing you and everyone a merry Christmas, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) a happy birthday.
Alongside online harassment, online fraud is also on the rise. Nobody wants a broken heart for Christmas, and online romance fraud is not only ruining lives but emptying bank accounts. Liberal Democrat analysis has shown that romance fraud has more than tripled in the last decade, but the Government’s fraud strategy has been delayed and Labour’s proposals in opposition, which looked at ensuring that there was joint financial responsibility to victims for social media giants, has now vanished. Does the Minister agree that those online social media giants must do more to tackle the scams and also agree with Liberal Democrat calls that they be financially responsible for the fraud that takes place on their platforms?
Kanishka Narayan
While love might be in the air at this festive moment, we want to make sure that it is financially responsible. In that spirit, therefore, I will continue to engage with both the regulator and platforms to ensure that the existing provisions of the Online Safety Act are robustly enforced when it comes to online fraud and scams, which so many of us experience both directly and indirectly through our constituents.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his fantastic event in Parliament last week on this subject. I am delighted that Queen’s University Belfast is benefiting from £5 million in funding from the programme, which is part of a £13 million wider package from this Government to support making UK supply chains more resilient. The Government are investing a record £86 billion over the spending review period, which is the largest ever investment in research and development, and Ministers regularly discuss a range of issues with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that those programmes align with wider Government priorities on economic resilience and innovation.
Robin Swann
The Minister mentioned our investment event held last week, where I and the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) hosted Antrim and Newtownabbey borough council for its first Westminster economic investment showcase. How do the Government expect that UK Research and Innovation-funded supply chain research will align with city deal investments, such as the Advanced Manufacturing Innovation Centre—AMIC—in my constituency?
Ian Murray
I think the hon. Gentleman acknowledges in his question the amount of funding that is going into the area that he represents and the wider Northern Ireland communities. UKRI plays a key role in strengthening supply chains, supporting regional innovation hubs and aligning research with local economic development goals. This Government’s funding rounds highlight partnership opportunities, including with the Advanced Manufacturing Innovation Centre that he has mentioned, where projects can complement those facilities, boosting regional innovation and productivity. That builds on initiatives such as the local innovation partnership funding, which empowers local leaders to target research and development investment and unleash the full potential of innovation in his and the wider Northern Ireland region.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
This afternoon, UKRI will publish its detailed funding allocations for programmes such as ReImagining Supply Chains. Does the Minister agree with the Office for Budget Responsibility that the bursting of the AI bubble presents a significant downside risk to the UK economy? What steps are his Department and UKRI taking to protect their investment in innovative companies that would undoubtedly be affected by an AI market correction?
Ian Murray
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her question. Of course, technological advancement in AI is going to change the way that the Government work, and the way that all of us work, but the key thing about the publication of UK Research and Innovation’s document this afternoon is that it is implementing a record £86 billion-worth of investment over the spending review period—the largest ever investment in research and development. We have to trust UKRI and this Government to put that money into the places that will benefit the country most, and that means more jobs in more communities all over the country.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)
This Government are determined to ensure that young people can seize the opportunities that AI brings. That is why we are giving 1 million secondary school pupils skills in tech and AI as part of our TechFirst skills programme. It is why we are replacing the currently over-narrow computer science GCSE and exploring a new qualification in data science and AI for 16 to 18-year-olds, so that we can tear down the barriers to success and give young people the chances and choices they deserve to get the jobs of the future.
Tony Vaughan
Research commissioned by DSIT estimates that by 2035 approximately 10 million UK workers will be in jobs where AI will be part of their responsibilities. PwC estimates that 18% of existing UK jobs face a high probability of automation by 2035, so what steps are the Government taking to ensure that young people in my constituency are well prepared for the integration of AI into their daily working lives, so that we can minimise the chances of unemployment in the future?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend has hit on one of the biggest challenges and opportunities we face as a country: how AI is going to transform how we live, earn and learn. We must prepare not only our young people but the entire workforce for the changes that AI inevitably brings. That is why, alongside the changes I have already outlined for young people, we will upskill 7.5 million workers in AI skills over the course of the next five years, so that people in every part of our country and all walks of life can shape their own future, not just be shaped by it.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Science and technology skills are vital if we are to fully realise the economic and social opportunities available to us, and I am sure the Secretary of State would agree that science centres are a vital part of that ecosystem in engaging and enthusing young people in science, technology, engineering and maths—STEM—learning. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government’s funding of science centres has to date, as described by the sector, been piecemeal? Will she take action in support of the Science Centres for Our Future campaign and get science centres into sustainable and predictable funding arrangements?
Liz Kendall
I do not agree that this Government’s approach to supporting STEM has been piecemeal. As I have said, we have announced the biggest investment into research and development by any Government ever. As part of that, alongside supporting curiosity-led research, we are for the first time directing taxpayers’ money towards key Government priorities and key British strengths, including in STEM courses. I want to make sure that everyone in this country has those opportunities, but I am more than happy to discuss with the hon. Gentleman what more he thinks we could be doing.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and Cabinet Office Ministers are working closely to deliver the new digital ID scheme. The scheme will be inclusive, secure and effective. It will give the public more control over their data than they have now, and it will make public services easier to access. A major inclusion programme, backed by £11.7 million, will support those at risk of digital exclusion, ensuring that the system is accessible and secure for all as we modernise our public services.
Alison Griffiths
A very happy Christmas to you, Mr Speaker. More than 5,300 of my constituents have signed a petition opposing digital ID, alongside nearly 3 million people nationally. In my own local survey, two thirds opposed it outright. Digital ID did not appear anywhere in Labour’s manifesto. The Government have no mandate for it and no consent from the public, so when will the Minister explain to the House on what democratic basis the Government believe they are entitled to enact their nationwide digital ID plan?
Ian Murray
Modernising government was at the heart of our manifesto, and the Government are proposing this national digital ID scheme to modernise our public services, improve security and streamline right-to-work checks. Since we introduced the digital veterans card, it has been downloaded 11,000 times, and 260,000 people have already downloaded the gov.uk app and 13.2 million people have started to use One Login as part of the gov.uk service. In the new year, a public consultation will be launched, alongside wider engagement, which has already begun, with expert organisations and wider stakeholders. A major digital inclusion programme will also be rolled out alongside that.
Harriet Cross
The parliamentary petition against digital ID has been signed by more than 3 million people, including many in my Gordon and Buchan constituency. It is the fourth most signed petition in history. Why does the Minister think digital ID is so unpopular?
Ian Murray
It is up to the Petitions Committee to schedule those debates, and I am sure the Committee will schedule that debate in Westminster Hall in due course. I can only reiterate that the Government are proposing this national ID scheme to modernise public services, improve security, streamline right-to-work checks and give the public control over their data. I am not quite so sure why the hon. Lady objects to the government modernising. We have analogue government with a digital population, and we live in a new world where the economy is modernising and digitising all the time, and government has to catch up.
Mr Speaker
I didn’t realise you had changed your name to Gareth Snell, Mr Jopp. I know you are due to be called, but I have to take two questions from each side to get the political balance.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
When the Minister rolls out digital ID, will he give serious thought to engaging organisations like conformity assessment bodies and the public libraries network so that those who need the ID can get help at the point of application?
Ian Murray
One of the aspects of digital ID that is under-debated in this House is the fact that those who are furthest away geographically and economically from digital inclusion will benefit the most from it. That is why we are investing millions of pounds into the digital inclusion programme, which has just announced 80 projects, including many in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We have to make sure that the entirety of the public, wherever they are in the country and whichever economic situation they are in, benefit from digital government and better public services.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Digital IDs have the potential to make life much easier for my constituents in Harlow. However, I have constituents who are concerned about data security. What reassurance can the Minister give them that their data will be safe with this new system?
Ian Murray
The data will be safe. It will be a fragmented system, and it will have the highest possible data security standards attached.
Lincoln Jopp
Last night in the Strangers Bar, I bumped into a very influential Labour Back Bencher who told me with great authority that digital ID simply is not going to happen. That is good news, of course, because it is going to 1.8 billion quid we have not got, and it is deeply unpopular in the country. Why does the Secretary of State not give us all an early Christmas present and simply announce that she is ditching the policy today?
Ian Murray
I can merely give the Christmas advice to the hon. Gentleman not to drink in Strangers Bar and listen to people who are in there.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)
This Government are committed to giving women and girls from all walks of life the chances they need to get the jobs and opportunities of the future. Last week, I met British women tech founders in San Francisco, and this week we held the first meeting of our new women in tech taskforce to give opportunities to women to grow our economy and build a better future for Britain.
Zöe Franklin
The Molly Rose Foundation’s latest report makes it clear that bereaved families are deeply concerned that Ofcom has relied on voluntary measures, such as geo-blocking, to deal with pro-suicide forums. Can the Secretary of State explain what steps her Government are taking to ensure Ofcom moves beyond voluntary compliance and uses its full Online Safety Act 2023 powers to require the removal or blocking of suicide-promoting content?
Liz Kendall
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. This is a serious issue, and we need to make swifter and stronger progress on it. I regularly meet Ofcom and its chief executive; indeed, I did so yesterday. I want to make sure that we do not have the delays and that we have stronger action, and this is a point I will be bringing up in future.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Minister for Digital Government and Data (Ian Murray)
Space is fundamental to many civil and defence requirements. It is vital that we collaborate closely across Government and with our allies. Just last month, the European Space Agency Council of Ministers committed £1.7 billion of funding focused on just that: growth and national security.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Ministers are making very big claims about the pharmaceuticals deal with America, to make up for the billions lost in life sciences investment under Labour. Life sciences firms are telling me that unless the Government reveal what is actually in the deal, those claims are completely hollow. Can the Secretary of State reveal—she could not tell us this two weeks ago—how much the deal is costing the NHS and when she will publish the full legal text, so that we know the details of what the most favoured nation mitigations actually are?
Liz Kendall
I may have to offer the hon. Lady a mince pie because she is talking baubles. This pharmaceutical deal will deliver faster access to new medicines for NHS patients and the security and stability that our world-leading pharmaceutical sector needs, including 0% tariffs on its exports to America for three years. We are also updating the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines for the first time in 20 years. This is a significant deal, which the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry has welcomed. It is a pity that the hon. Lady continues to act like Scrooge.
Julia Lopez
If we are making Christmas jokes, I think this deal is all tinsel and no tree. The problem is that Labour trumpets about these deals and is then completely sketchy about what has actually been agreed—just like the US-UK tech deal: we now find out from President Trump that he has put that deal on ice. Can the Secretary of State confirm that, despite all the golden carriage action in September and the Prime Minister honking on about his negotiating skills, the Prime Minister has actually nailed down none of the key details on pharma, no zero-tariff pact on steel and no deal on tech?
Liz Kendall
We have signed a ground-breaking US-UK tech partnership deal that has delivered over £30 billion of investment to the UK, alongside our biggest ever investment into research and development, with four AI growth zones, delivering 13,000 jobs in north Wales, south Wales, the south-east and the north-east. There is our plan to upskill 7.5 million workers in AI skills and our backing of great British scientists. That is a record that I am proud of; it is a pity that the hon. Lady remains the ghost of Christmas past.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
The antisemitic terror attack on Bondi Beach was sickening. It has had a profound impact around the world, including on Jewish communities here in the United Kingdom. These incidents are not isolated; we think of the appalling attack at Heaton Park earlier this year. These incidents are chillingly focused on some of the holiest days in the Jewish calendar. Over the last few days, I have been in touch with the Community Security Trust, the Home Office and the Chief Rabbi about security for Hanukkah events here in the United Kingdom. Last night, we held a Hanukkah reception in Downing Street, where I reaffirmed our fight against the poison of antisemitism. We will use all our powers to make sure that Jewish communities are safe and secure, as they should be.
Mr Speaker, may I take this opportunity to wish you, all the staff in Parliament, and every Member across the House and their families a very happy Christmas? I have a little festive advice to those in Reform: if mysterious men from the east appear bearing gifts, this time report it to the police.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Melanie Ward
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s condemnation of the horrific attacks in Australia. We must be clear that antisemitic terrorism is always an outrage.
At Christmas time, many across our country will be thinking of Bethlehem, where the situation remains extremely difficult. The Government’s important scheme for students from Gaza with scholarships to study in the UK expires on 31 December, but a number of scholarship holders and their children have not yet been permitted to leave Gaza. If the scheme closes, these brilliant Palestinians will lose their university places and we will lose their talent. Will the Prime Minister extend the UK’s existing scheme into next year to prevent that from happening?
The Prime Minister
I know that Gazan students face huge challenges in taking up their places, and we are considering solutions for those yet to arrive. Let me be clear: I want them to be able to take up their places and continue their education in the United Kingdom. I am proud that we have also created a medical evacuation scheme for children from Gaza, and last week I met some of those who have been brought to the United Kingdom for specialist treatment in the NHS. We continue to focus on aid into Gaza, and I will make sure that my hon. Friend is kept updated on the next steps for students.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for his words on antisemitism. What happened at Bondi Beach was an atrocity, but words of solidarity are not enough. We know the evil we face. Islamic extremism is a threat to western civilisation. It abuses our democracies and subverts our institutions. It is incompatible with British values. It is not enough just to protect Jewish communities—we must drive Islamic extremism out of this country.
I would also like to send my best wishes to our armed forces, the emergency services and everyone who will be working over Christmas. I would like to take this opportunity to wish you, Mr Speaker, the House staff and all Members of this House, including the Prime Minister, a very merry Christmas.
It is the Prime Minister’s second Christmas in Downing Street, and by his own admission he is not in control. He says that nothing happens when he pulls the levers. Does he blame himself or the levers?
The Prime Minister
I will just set out what we have achieved this week. We are setting out our violence against women and girls strategy tomorrow, which will offer specialist support for abuse victims and 999 call experts—
Mr Speaker
Order. Sorry, Prime Minister. Mr Obese-Jecty, I expect better from you, an ex-serving officer. We expect the standards of a good officer.
The Prime Minister
The next lever was 500 jobs protected at Grangemouth, partnering with Ineos to safeguard the plant’s future. The next lever was rejoining the Erasmus scheme from 2027, which will be announced later today. The next lever is the Employment Rights Bill becoming law, with the biggest uplift in workers’ rights in a generation. There is a whole lot more on the list; I could go on for a very long time.
Mrs Badenoch
I am not sure exactly what that had to do with the question. The fact is that the Prime Minister promised economic growth, but the only thing that has grown is his list of broken promises. He promised to reduce unemployment, but yesterday unemployment hit its highest level since the pandemic—it has gone up every single month since he came into office. Why is that?
The Prime Minister
These are the facts: there are 350,000 more people in work this year and we have the lowest inactivity rate for five years. We are taking a number of measures to address unemployment, particularly with the young unemployed. I remind the Conservatives that, under their watch, unemployment averaged 5.4%—higher than it is today.
Mrs Badenoch
I do not know what planet the Prime Minister is living on, but unemployment has gone up every single month under him, youth unemployment is at record levels, and graduate recruitment is at its lowest ever. He promised that he would not increase taxes on working people, but he has. Last year he increased national insurance and last month he froze income tax thresholds, so will the Prime Minister finally be honest and admit that he broke his promise on tax?
The Prime Minister
I am very proud that at the Budget, we had record investment into our public services, we stabilised the economy and we bore down on the cost of living. The Conservatives voted against all those measures, but it is the season of good will, so let me congratulate the Leader of the Opposition, because she has broken her own record since last week. Last week, 21 former Tory MPs had walked away to Reform; this week the number has gone to 22, as the former vice-chair has now gone. The question is, who’s next? It is hard to name anyone because, according to the shadow Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), the shadow Cabinet is full of “non-entities”—that’s you lot. He should know.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister is talking about non-entities. Has he looked at his Cabinet? They are a bunch of turkeys; they could fit right in at a Bernard Matthews factory. He is one to talk. Last week, his MPs were calling him a “caretaker Prime Minister”; after what he has done to the economy, they should be calling him the undertaker Prime Minister.
Let us look at what else the Prime Minister has promised. He gave his word that he would help pubs, yet they face a 15% rise in business rates because of his Budget. Will he be honest and admit that his taxes are forcing pubs to close?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady knows very well that the temporary relief put in place during covid has come to an end. That was the scheme that the Conservatives put in place; we supported it, but it was always a temporary scheme coming to an end. We have now put in place a £4 billion transitional relief. We have also taken other measures, creating hospitality zones and greater licensing freedoms, and tackling late payments. We are also bearing down on the cost of living so that more people can enjoy a drink or a meal out. Freezing rail fares, freezing prescription charges, £150 off energy bills, driving wages up: what did the Conservatives do in relation to each of those? They voted against each and every one of those measures.
Mrs Badenoch
What pubs has the Prime Minister been speaking to? Labour Members have been barred from all of them! [Interruption.] I do not know why Labour Members are shaking their heads; it is not my fault that they have nowhere to drown their sorrows.
Let us look at another broken promise. The Prime Minister promised to end the doctors’ strike. He gave the doctors a 28.9% pay rise. What did he get in return? This morning, they have gone back on strike for the third time, in the middle of winter—in the middle of the worst flu crisis in years. This should not be allowed. We already ban strikes by the police and the Army, so why does he not put patients first, show some backbone and ban doctors’ strikes?
The Prime Minister
Let me be clear about the strikes: they are dangerous and utterly irresponsible. My message to resident doctors is: don’t abandon patients—work with us to improve conditions and rebuild the NHS. The Conservatives left the NHS absolutely on its knees, with waiting lists through the roof and confidence absolutely at rock bottom. I will take no lectures from them on industrial harmony; more days were lost to strike action on their watch than in any year since the 1980s.
Mrs Badenoch
Of course the Prime Minister is not going to ban doctors’ strikes; he does not have the baubles! [Interruption.] Labour Members can shake their heads all they like, but we all know who is running their party, and it is not him. The trade unions did not just buy him for Christmas; they bought him for life. This matters for all those people out there facing a difficult new year.
The Prime Minister has lost control. It is not the levers that do not work; it is him. He is breaking every promise he has made. He promised to bring down unemployment—it is up. He promised that he would not increase taxes—they are up. He promised to end the doctors’ strike—they are on strike, again. He said that his main mission was economic growth, but the economy is shrinking. With a year like that, is it any surprise that all his MPs want for Christmas is a new leader?
The Prime Minister
Mr Speaker, we have “The Muppet Christmas Carol” here. The defections are happening so fast that at Christmas, the Leader of the Opposition is going to be left “Home Alone”. And the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) is clearly dreaming of a “White Christmas”.
We know what the Leader of the Opposition wants for Christmas. Her list to Santa is this: “Dear Santa, please freeze the minimum wage. Please push hundreds of thousands of kids back into poverty and scrap maternity leave.” Merry Christmas from the Tories! What we are bringing is cheaper mortgages, new rights for workers, and lifting half a million people out of poverty. We have achieved more in 14 months than the Tories achieved in 14 miserable years.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I heartily agree with my hon. Friend—British families have shown incredible kindness and hospitality. To support Ukrainians in their hour of need, we have been working with our allies on the issue of frozen Russian assets. Today, I can announce that we are issuing a licence to transfer £2.5 billion—funds that have been frozen since 2022—from the sale of Chelsea football club. My message to Abramovich is this. The clock is ticking. Honour the commitment that you made and pay up now. If you do not, we are prepared to go to court so that every penny reaches those whose lives have been torn apart by Putin’s illegal war.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish you, everyone in the House and the whole country, a merry and peaceful Christmas.
I join the Prime Minister in expressing our horror at the appalling antisemitic terror attacks on Bondi Beach on the first day of Hanukkah. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of all those who have been killed and injured in this senseless act of violence, and our thoughts are with the whole Jewish community. I am sure we have all heard British Jews explain how they no longer feel safe in this country. Many of us have friends who volunteer to put on stab vests and stand guard outside their synagogue, and at Heaton Park in October, we saw why. Antisemitism is real, it is poisonous, and we must all work together to stamp it out. The Board of Deputies of British Jews has called for a comprehensive Government strategy to tackle antisemitism. Will the Prime Minister commit to that today and set out what concrete steps he is taking to make sure Jewish people are safe in Britain?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this really important issue. It is important that we take actions that match the words we have expressed in response to these horrific attacks. The actions we have taken so far include increasing the funding for Jewish security up to £28 million. I am pleased to do that, but I am sad to do it—having to pay more money to provide security for people to be at their place of worship and to go to school is a sad thing for this country to have to do. I have ordered a review of protest and hate crime laws to stop protests breeding hatred; we are looking at new police powers to deal with repeated, targeted protests; and we have launched a review and training to tackle antisemitism in the NHS. There are other steps that we are talking to the community about taking, but all those actions have already started.
Ed Davey
I thank the Prime Minister for that answer, and I hope he will look at the proposal from the Board of Deputies. I think we can work across this House to end the scourge of antisemitism.
Turning to the NHS, even before today’s irresponsible strike by the resident doctors, patients were facing a terrible winter crisis. Thousands have been left on trolleys in hospital corridors for hours, with no privacy and no dignity; some have even soiled themselves because there was no response. There have even been tragic cases of people dying on those trolleys and left undiscovered for hours. The expectation is that this could get worse. Will the Prime Minister make ending this crisis his No. 1 priority, through a mass vaccination programme to stop so many people ending up in hospital with this virus and through funding the social care places that people need to leave hospital when they are ready?
The Prime Minister
May I say how unacceptable the conditions that some are enduring in our hospitals are? There is no excuse, and it is our No. 1 priority. On vaccinations, we have had over 17 million patients vaccinated this year. That is an increase on last year, but I want to drive that up again next year, because vaccinations make such a difference both to patients and to staff within the hospitals, and of course we will take action on social care.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Carers are incredibly skilled workers. My sister is one of them, and I am very proud of them and her for their invaluable work. I am pleased that we have increased the carer’s allowance earnings limit by the largest amount since it was introduced, and we are providing £500 million to fund the first ever fair pay agreement through the Employment Rights Bill that was passed yesterday, to ensure that care workers are properly recognised and rewarded.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
It is indeed the season of good will, so with that in mind, I do not intend to ask the Prime Minister about his broken promises on energy bills, the 1,000 jobs being lost in the North sea, or the fact that Peter Mandelson is still a Member of the House of Lords. I will not even ask the Prime Minister about the chaos that is engulfing the Labour party, his Budget or his own leadership. I simply want to wish him a happy Christmas. How does he intend to spend his final one in Downing Street?
The Prime Minister
I am going to get an update from the Chancellor on Grangemouth in just a minute. The right hon. Gentleman is clearly not interested in Grangemouth. I would have thought, on a day like this, that he would want to welcome the £120 million investment into Grangemouth. It is a landmark investment protecting 500 jobs there and hundreds more across Scotland’s supply chain, and he cannot even bring himself to mention it. That is on top of the Typhoon defence jobs in Edinburgh and the shipbuilding jobs on the Clyde. After decades of SNP rule, its Members are totally out of ideas and they cannot even welcome the Grangemouth news. Scotland deserves change next year with Anas Sarwar.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
May I send the condolences of the whole House, I am sure, to Andrew’s family? It is an awful case and every life that is lost to dangerous driving is a tragedy. The range of measures that we are taking to protect young drivers include penalties for driving uninsured and unlicensed, and measures to reduce the risks posed by unroadworthy vehicles. On her constituents being able to have an influence, I would be very happy to set up an appropriate meeting for them.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right to remind us of what was a terrible scandal, and I will ask the Water Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), to meet him and his constituents to discuss it. He and the public are right to be furious that companies are still polluting our seas, lakes and rivers. We have taken action by banning bonuses for bosses in six polluting companies, changing the law so that those who hide sewage spills can be locked up, and issuing almost £30 million in fines to clean up waterways. We are clearing up the mess that the party over there left, like everything else.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Apparently the leader of Reform is in the “lounge”. I know that he likes an early getaway at Christmas to get to his place in France. He lobbied for economic sanctions against his own country when he was in the United States, with no thought for British workers and zero patriotism. The difference is that our US deal secured the best deal for the car industry, providing certainty for the workforce at JLR—and there is more good news for the car industry this week, because Nissan is now building its new electric Leaf in Sunderland. That is the difference that a Labour Government make.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Prime Minister
It is an important sector. At the heart of this challenge is the end of the temporary relief that was introduced during covid. That is why we put in place the transitional measures and invested half a million in a hospitality support scheme to help rural pubs to diversify. On issues such as the cost of living, we have taken a number of measures to make it easier for people to go out and enjoy themselves in pubs, and we will always look at what measures we can put in place to support pubs.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hub means more regular services for up to 15 stations across the region. That is vital, given that the Lichfield-to-Birmingham service was slashed under the previous Government. The construction will create about 13,000 jobs, and we are delivering them as quickly as possible, with Network Rail awarding design contracts this week. We are also freezing rail fares. It is the first time that that has happened in 30 years, and it will save my hon. Friend’s constituents about £90 a year on the commute to Birmingham.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Happy Christmas! I saw that the hon. Member was asking the public to suggest questions for today. I actually put in a bid—I filled it in—but I assume that he missed my question. I said he should ask about the 6,000 well-paid, high-skilled jobs that we have secured in his constituency to build Typhoons, thanks to an £8 billion deal with Turkey. I am disappointed that he did not want to talk about good, well-paid jobs in his constituency that have been secured by this Labour Government.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
It is deeply concerning to hear about the closure of eight Derbyshire care homes by the Reform-led Derbyshire county council. It will be hugely concerning to residents and their families, while we are making £3.7 billion of extra funding available to councils to fund social care. Let me say to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is relaxing in the lounge, that Christmas is a time for forgiveness. It is never too late to apologise to former classmates.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Prime Minister
We had a mandate for change, because we inherited major challenges across the country. If only the hon. Gentleman had done something to solve these problems when he was working in Downing Street. He left a complete mess.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We are replacing a failed settlement system with one that is fair and that recognises contribution. It is right to apply more stringent controls, and we are currently consulting on the right approach. I recognise the huge contribution of those working in our NHS, and we will not change the rules for those who already have settled status.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Jimmy Lai is 78 and is a British citizen. He has already been in prison in Hong Kong for five years, simply for being a journalist. If he receives a further sentence on 12 January, he is likely to die in prison. Will the Prime Minister make it clear that his visit to Beijing can go ahead only if Jimmy Lai is released?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this really important case. As he knows, we continually raise it with our counterparts, and we will continue to do so. I condemn the conviction. Obviously we await the sentence, but it is absolutely clear that Jimmy Lai has been targeted by the authorities. It is wrongful, and I call it out. It is important that we continue to engage, so that we can raise this issue with those counterparts.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this really important issue. The scale of violence and abuse suffered by women and girls is a national emergency, and the violence against women and girls strategy will be published tomorrow, setting out concrete steps to deal with this. We have already taken action to protect victims, including placing domestic abuse specialists in the first five 999 control rooms, and we are launching a new national policing centre to co-ordinate the police response and target these crimes. I will make sure that Ministers look specifically at the issues that he has raised.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), declined a meeting with the representatives of a number of hunger strikers in prison at the present time. These are all remand prisoners; they have not been convicted of anything. Since then, a further prisoner, Qesser, has been taken to hospital, as others have been. Many people are very concerned about the regular breaches of prison conditions and prison rules in respect of these hunger strikers. Will the Prime Minister make arrangements for the Ministry of Justice to meet representatives of the hunger strikers to discuss these breaches of the conditions that they are experiencing?
The Prime Minister
As the right hon. Member will appreciate, there are rules and procedures in place in relation to hunger strikes, and we are following those rules and procedures.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Yes is the simple answer to that question, and our decisions are already holding polluters to account—new severe fines, banning bonuses, and a record 83 criminal investigations have been launched. We have also secured over £100 billion of investment to upgrade infrastructure to deliver better services to constituents.
Several hon. Members rose—
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
On Sunday at Arlington cemetery, I will have the honour of joining the families and friends of many of the victims of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988—the worst terrorist atrocity in the United Kingdom. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that, especially after all these years, those families and friends deserve both truth and justice, and will the United Kingdom Government continue to do all they can to bring about that outcome?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for raising this matter. Nobody could forget the shocking scenes at Lockerbie, and I know the huge impact it has had on the community that he grew up in, where people have responded with such compassion and strength. He has rightly stood by their search for justice and truth through all the intervening years, and I pay tribute to that. All our thoughts remain with the families and friends of all the victims, who deserve truth, and I urge the Scottish authorities to consider the points that he raises.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
You did not ask a question, so I do not know how you can have a point of order.
Mr Speaker
No, you did not ask a question. Maybe if it came from somebody who had asked a question, that would be better.
Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
We now come to the urgent question on the draft Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025. I remind the House that on 19 November 2024, I granted a waiver from the House’s sub judice resolution in respect of the related case of Dillon and others v. the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. As such, reference may be made to the case during proceedings. I call the shadow Secretary of State to ask his urgent question.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement on the draft Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. This remedial order is a clear signal of the Government’s commitment to legislation that can command support across Northern Ireland. Its purpose is clear: to formally remove some of the provisions in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 that were found by the courts in Dillon to be incompatible with our human rights obligations. Specifically, this means removing the provisions on immunity from prosecution and the bar on troubles-related civil cases. Although the immunity provisions never commenced, it is essential that we formally remove them from the statute book.
It is the Government’s belief that there are compelling reasons for proceeding with this order, and this is a view shared by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which in its report on 9 December agreed that the Government have such reasons and recommended that Parliament approve the order. The Committee stated that
“in these exceptional and unusual circumstances…the Government has sufficiently compelling reasons to proceed by way of remedial order.”
I want to set out what the Government believe those reasons to be. First, we must provide clarity on immunity and remove the bar on civil claims as quickly as possible. This is essential for all involved—victims, survivors and veterans—and is a prerequisite for building trust. Secondly, providing this clarity is vital to enable the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery to continue its work. It is my view that while immunity, a key plank of the 2023 legacy Act, remains on the statute book, it will be difficult for the ICRIR to obtain the confidence of all victims and survivors.
As the JCHR rightly noted, the legacy of the past continues to have a profound and lasting impact, and we know that families and political parties were vehemently opposed to the immunity provisions. While the repeal of immunity is only one aspect of reforming the arrangements put in place by the 2023 Act, I am confident that its repeal will result in a greater confidence for referrals to be made. Given that many individuals are elderly, they cannot keep on waiting. It is the Government’s view that these changes should therefore be made through the remedial order as soon as possible.
The Government have a clear mandate, compelling reasons and a procedural basis which the JCHR has endorsed, and the House will have an opportunity to debate the order in the new year.
Alex Burghart
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, which I have asked because I think there is a very real danger that the Government may be about to break the law. It is very important that the House is aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights was not in possession of all the facts when it wrote its report. [Interruption.]
Last year, the High Court in Belfast found parts of the legacy Act to be incompatible with the European convention on human rights. At the time of the election, the Conservative Government were appealing that highly disputable decision. The incoming Labour Government, for reasons they have never disclosed, chose to drop that appeal, and have subsequently laid a draft remedial order to amend the legislation.
The problem is that earlier this year the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene in the case before the Supreme Court. On 15 October, Lord Wolfson KC, acting for the movement, did just that and made written and oral submissions that the Court is now considering. Consequently, it is entirely possible that the declarations of incompatibility relied on by the Secretary of State to lay the remedial order will be quashed. The case is very much live. That is very important, because under section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 a Government have the authority to use a remedial order only unless and until all appeals in relation to declarations of incompatibility have been “determined or abandoned”. That test is not met.
If the Government decide to push ahead with their remedial order, not only will they be acting ultra vires, but they will be setting a terrible precedent that will mean that future Governments may use remedial orders in ways they were never intended to be used. To avoid that, all the Government need to do is commit to not pushing their remedial order to a vote until the Supreme Court has finally ruled. Will the Secretary of State make that commitment?
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the point he has raised, but the argument he puts is not correct. The appeal was abandoned by the Government in July 2024—he says for reasons that have never been disclosed, but the Government have been absolutely clear from the beginning that we disagree with immunity, and that we are committed to repeal and replace the legacy Act. Section 10 of the Human Rights Act gives a Secretary of State the ability to make a remedial order when a declaration of incompatibility has been made and any appeal
“has been determined or abandoned”.
It has been abandoned by the Government.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the ongoing Supreme Court appeal in Dillon means that the conditions have not been met, and therefore that we might lack the vires to lay the order. I do not agree with his assessment and have made the position clear to him in the correspondence we have had—I think an exchange of two emails and two letters. I can confirm to the House that in July 2024 the Government formally abandoned their appeal concerning the declaration of incompatibility relating to immunity from prosecution. That declaration was not part of the appeal that is now before the Supreme Court, and the fact that the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene does not alter that legal reality.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
Last month, the House debated the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, and we heard many moving contributions about the devastating loss experienced by families, including military families, many of whom are still seeking answers. Does the Secretary of State agree that the voices of those the Government’s legislation is for should be at the forefront of our minds when we debate it and every time we debate it?
Hilary Benn
I do agree with my hon. Friend. It seems that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) and the Conservative party remain wedded to immunity. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) says, as he does in all these debates, “Conditional immunity.” I think the last time we debated it, I reminded him that the previous Government’s legislation said that the commission must give immunity—must give immunity—if the conditions for giving immunity are met, which are, quite clearly—[Interruption.] Opposition Members have not reminded themselves of what their legislation said. All that was required was for somebody to come forward and say what they had done, and if what they had done was an offence, the commission must grant them immunity.
I say to those on the Opposition Front Bench that at some point they need to recognise that that provision for immunity for terrorists—because the last Government said, “We wish to give immunity to terrorists”—had no support in Northern Ireland. I am sorry that they do not recognise that. As I have said on many occasions, we cannot make progress in dealing with the problem of legacy when the provision in the current legislation, which we are committed to repealing and replacing, has no support in the place that suffered more than anywhere else during the troubles.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I remind colleagues that if they wish to ask a question, they should be bobbing, and that we should try to reduce chuntering from the Front Benches. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The introduction of a remedial order is welcome and necessary, even if its timing is potentially vexed. The order promises to finally end the policy of conditional immunity that was integral to the 2023 legacy Act—a policy that may have had benign intentions, but that put us at odds with our international legal obligations and regrettably drew a moral equivalence between UK service personnel and terrorist paramilitaries. I note that the second report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, published last week, recommended the order’s approval. However, I note also the Committee’s concern regarding the unusual sequencing and timing of the remedial order, in relation to the forthcoming primary legislation.
Given the overtly political processes that led to the 2023 Act, I suggest there is an additional responsibility on the Government to ensure that this process is handled properly and that the process, as much as the policy, is seen to be fair-handed. There is broad recognition of the need to repeal and replace the 2023 legacy Act, but we also need to acknowledge that the removal of conditional immunity has created real anxiety, particularly among veterans groups, who fear the risk of prosecution.
I particularly welcome the Secretary of State’s letter, circulated yesterday, at annexe A. If I may, I will ask the Secretary of State three things. First of all, to clarify—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. You had exactly one minute and you have gone over. My apologies—I call the Secretary of State.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he says and for his support for what we are seeking to do in the remedial order. I acknowledge the responsibility that the Government have. These are quite unusual circumstances. The reason why we are debating this matter is because the Joint Committee on Human Rights has acknowledged the unusual circumstances and, despite having made other comments in its report, which we will all have read, has come to the conclusion that it gives its approval to the order and recommends that the House support it. I welcome what the Joint Committee on Human Rights has said.
I will point out one other thing. I acknowledge that the Government did take a bit of time between the report on 28 February and producing the revised draft remedial order on 14 October. That was because we listened to the representations that had been made, particularly by the Opposition, on the subject of interim custody orders in respect of sections 46 and 47, and in relation to the Supreme Court judgment in 2020. After reflecting on that, we found what we think is an alternative way of achieving the same objective, which is to be found in clauses 89 and 90 of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which is currently before the House.
I simply point out that the previous Government tried for two and a half years to find a way of dealing with the Supreme Court judgment in the Adams case and were not able to do so, and eventually accepted the amendments moved in the other place, which became sections 46 and 47. It was acknowledging the arguments that had been made that led the Government to amend the remedial order, which we then put before the House on 14 October.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, published our second report on the Northern Ireland remedial order on 9 December. The Standing Orders of both Houses require the JCHR to scrutinise all remedial orders. The Committee concluded that the vires of the order were satisfied and that all statutory requirements were fulfilled. However, the Committee also felt that, under the circumstances, it was appropriate only because the Government gave compelling reasons as to why it would have to come forward in this way, with a Bill progressing through the House and a Supreme Court case ongoing. Does the Secretary of State agree that although the circumstances and the timing are not ideal, this is the best way forward?
Hilary Benn
I do agree. Although the circumstances are unusual, the Government believe we have a compelling case, and the JCHR has agreed with the Government’s assessment.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
A lot of very complex legal arguments have been alluded to today, but I think what concerns the public—and what concerns me—is the state of mind of our veterans, some of them quite elderly, who sought only to serve their country decades ago. The Secretary of State is a very moderate, clever and reasonable person. Given that there is, in reality, no chance of a successful prosecution, and that people would be horrified if there was one, what comfort can the Secretary of State give to our veterans?
Hilary Benn
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we have only to look at the figures to see that the prospect of any prosecution in any case is increasingly remote, because of the passage of time and the difficulty of obtaining evidence. The Government, having listened very carefully to the representations made by veterans, have set out in legislation the protections—this will return to the House when we consider the Bill in Committee—including protection from repeated investigation, the right to stay at home and to seek anonymity, protection in old age, protection from cold calling, and the right to be heard. I hope that when veterans get a chance to see the protections in the legislation and precisely how they will work, they will be reassured that the Government are looking out for their interests.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
It is always important for Northern Ireland to be discussed on the Floor of the House—we are, after all, one United Kingdom—so I thank the shadow Secretary of State for securing the urgent question. We must never forget the people of Northern Ireland. Can my right hon. Friend say what recent engagement he has had with victims, survivors and the organisations representing them as part of his work to address the legacy of the past?
Hilary Benn
I have had many such meetings. I have met the Victims and Survivors Forum, for example, twice in the recent past to explain the legislation that the Government have published. There is a great lack of trust on the part of victims and survivors in Northern Ireland, who feel they have been let down many times before, and trust undermined is very hard to rebuild. They are taking account of the legislation the Government have passed. It will not surprise the House if I say that I believe it provides a foundation for moving forward, but it is really important, as my hon. Friend says, that the voices of people in Northern Ireland are heard, and heard loudly.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
On 12 November, I raised with the Prime Minister the alarming statement from nine former generals who attacked the Government’s approach on lawfare against our armed forces, which they said would erode trust in the justice system and is a threat to national security. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether the Prime Minister has met with those nine former generals and whether that has changed his approach to attacking veterans?
Hilary Benn
I do not accept the characterisation that the hon. Member puts before the House. The Government are not engaging in lawfare against veterans.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
That’s what the generals said.
Hilary Benn
Well, I have read that letter and many others, and I refute the suggestion that the Government are engaging in lawfare. We have met a very large number of veterans organisations—I myself have met the SAS Regimental Association and others, and Ministers in the Ministry of Defence have met others—and we are listening. When the troubles Bill reaches Committee stage, the House will see the results of our considerations. The Government are absolutely determined to ensure the proper protections, in recognition of the hugely important and dangerous role that those who served in Operation Banner performed in trying to keep the people of Northern Ireland, and indeed the United Kingdom, safe.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
As a member of the JCHR, I am concerned that the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary may have inadvertently misled the House when he suggested that our Committee did not discharge our roles seriously and consider all the evidence in this case when we produced our report.
Peter Swallow
Our report recommended that this remedial order be made in no small part because of the incredible sensitivity around anything to do with the Northern Ireland troubles and the need to make sure that we are building bridges across communities, and in no small part, too, because of the seriousness with which the Committee feels the Secretary of State takes this issue. It is therefore quite right, I believe, that the Secretary of State make this remedial order. Does he agree that it is not right, and not serious politics, to play party politics with such a delicate issue?
Hilary Benn
I say to my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, that I am grateful for the support that the Committee has given for the remedial order and the Government’s assessment of the compelling reasons. Personally, I am not accusing anybody of anything. I want to try to get this legislation right, as I have said to the House many times before, and I will work with all hon. Members who will join me in that task.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Secretary of State is perfectly entitled to pursue a policy desire of removing immunity. Indeed, he knows that my colleagues and I support that position and we found it quite difficult that yet another Government were prepared to offer a different variation of immunity for the perpetrators of terror in Northern Ireland. We found that repugnant, so we support the notion that immunity should not stand.
But that is not the question before the Secretary of State today. The question is whether the Secretary of State should misappropriate a remedial order process, which is about dealing with the incompatibility of human rights law—not incompatibility with his policy objectives. For as long as the question still remains before the Supreme Court—which it does, though it is not his appeal but that of the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement—given that he has acknowledged that there is an issue of trust on this issue, does he not think it would be better if he at least just waited?
Hilary Benn
I would say two things to the right hon. Gentleman. First, I reject the suggestion that I or the Government have misappropriated a remedial order or misapplied section 10 of the Human Rights Act, and I would cite in aid of that argument that the JCHR, whose job it is—[Interruption.] He is shaking his head, but it is the Committee’s job to scrutinise. If it had come the House and said, “We don’t think the case is made”, the Government would of course have respected that. That is not what the JCHR said.
The second point is that time is not waiting for the victims. There are those I have spoken to who say, “As long as it is still on the statute book, even though it has been declared incompatible, we doubt whether we can trust the process.” Having decided to keep the commission but to reform it, I think it is right that we remove that uncertainty as swiftly as possible. That is what the remedial order seeks to do.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I think the whole House can agree that this is a very serious and sensitive topic. I ask hon. Members to be mindful of their language and to ensure that they are not heckling while seated. I call David Smith, a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has already confirmed that under the legacy Act the immunity provisions were never commenced, so it is important to say that nobody was ever granted immunity under those provisions. Sticking with the subject of immunity, the three Veterans Commissioners for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales have all said that they are calling not for immunity under the law but for fairness under the law. Does the Secretary of State agree?
Hilary Benn
I agree with that statement completely, which is why I must confess my disappointment that the Opposition are still clinging to the notion of immunity, including immunity for terrorists. The Veterans Commissioners are quite right; they want fairness, and that is what the Government are determined to deliver.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I simply say to the Secretary of State that it does seem like ridiculous haste when the Bill is going through the House right now. Surely to do this when he knows for a fact that there is already an appeal going on does, as has already been said, become abusive of the real purpose of a remedial order. I suggest to him that all the stuff about people being let off and the whole point about immunity is not the issue. The issue today is whether the Government are misusing their powers to rush something through that they could have dealt with through the passage of the Bill.
Hilary Benn
I will make two points to the right hon. Gentleman, who served with such distinction in Northern Ireland. First, as we have just heard, immunity was never commenced. It was declared incompatible, and it was struck down under article 2. Secondly, I reject again the suggestion that the Government are somehow abusing the process. If that was an argument, one might have expected the Joint Committee on Human Rights to have agreed with it, but it did not. The Committee heard all the points that have been put and concluded that in these particular circumstances it was right to proceed, and that is why it recommends that the House should support the remedial order.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
This week’s exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall is a memorial quilt produced my members of the South East Fermanagh Foundation. It is a very moving way to remember the innocent victims of terrorism. The dates on the quilt panels remind us of how long the families have been fighting for justice. Can I ask the Secretary of State what message he wants to send out to every person who has produced one of the quilt panels for SEFF and to all the other families?
Hilary Benn
On Monday night I met the families who had come over for the unveiling of the quilts. I would urge all Members who have not yet had a chance to go up to the Upper Waiting Hall and have a look to do so, because the story that the quilts tell is profoundly moving and a reminder of the continuing search for justice that so many people in Northern Ireland are going through. I would say that those quilts are an argument for what we are trying to do to secure legislation that can help find those answers for all the people who are remembered on the quilts.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Regarding the accusation that the Secretary of State is rushing this through, he will be conscious of an Irish Government who are not rushing anything through with regard to support. Yesterday the Justice Minister in the Republic of Ireland received permission from the Government to draft priority legislation to enable state bodies to give oral evidence to the Omagh inquiry. That was only because the Omagh families are taking legal action. What engagement has the Secretary of State had with the Irish Government about bringing forward legislation that matches what he is bringing forward in this place? Can I also ask him who he is dealing with at the minute? It used to be the Tánaiste, Simon Harris, who has now been promoted. Is it the Justice Minister, who is bringing this forward, or is it the new Foreign Affairs Minister?
Hilary Benn
I have many meetings with Irish Ministers and discussions with the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach. My most recent meeting was with Helen McEntee, who has just taken over from Simon Harris at the Foreign Affairs Ministry. I very much welcome the fact that the Irish Government have announced that they are preparing to draft the legislation, as Simon Harris had committed to do while standing next to me, in time for the next hearings of the Omagh bombing inquiry. That is evidence that the Irish Government intend to fulfil the commitments they made in the joint framework.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I commend the Secretary of State for the care that he is taking to work as fast possible for the victims, survivors and veterans families, who need to hear answers, while making sure that this is legally correct. I echo the comments about the South East Fermanagh Foundation quilts, which remind us of the need to get those answers for families. Can he confirm that he is as concerned as I am that the Opposition are just interested in making political points rather than really building peace, which is what we need to do together as Members of the House? Will he confirm that the remedial order removes what would have been immunity for terrorists?
Hilary Benn
I think that all Members of the House have a shared commitment to trying to ensure that the peace that Northern Ireland has enjoyed since the signing of the Good Friday agreement is maintained—I think all of us do. We have a difference of view in some respects about the right way of seeking to do that, and I am always willing to be challenged on the arguments that I put on behalf of the Government and to challenge the arguments that I hear from the Opposition Front Benches. In the end, we know that we have to deal with this, because the last bit of legislation, whatever its intentions, failed to achieve its purpose. It did not command support in Northern Ireland, and that is why we have to make progress.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I ask the Secretary of State to clarify whether his earlier remarks mean what I think they do, which is that even if it had not been for the guidance of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Government would have wanted anyway to have repealed the legislation of the legacy Act? It is a political decision. Given that he said that he did not believe that there would be convictions at the end of the process, does that not mean that there will be several, if not many, trials? If no one is convicted at the end of the process, how does that help anyone? How does that avoid just torturing the people put through a trial?
Hilary Benn
If I may, I will correct what I think is the interpretation that the right hon. Member has put on what I had said. I made it clear a moment ago that had the Joint Committee on Human Rights reached a different conclusion about the appropriateness of the remedial order, the Government would of course have respected that. I also made it clear in my earlier comments that the Government came into office committed to get rid of immunity—we have been quite clear about that from the start—and the remedial order will seek to give effect to that.
We have discussed prosecutions of veterans. If one looks at the figures, one sees that there has been one successful prosecution of a veteran since the signing of the Good Friday agreement. The point I was making, if one looks at the figures—[Interruption.] Well, there are currently nine live cases before the courts relating to the troubles; seven of them relate to paramilitaries, and six of those relate to the Provisional IRA. I have heard the argument from Opposition Members that, “Oh, none of the paramilitaries are getting prosecuted.” That is not the case. It is really important that we have these debates on the basis of facts.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Secretary of State does not need me to tell him that he and the Government are struggling to command veteran support for his Bill. In order to address that deficit of support, should he not consider an amendment to clause 3 to have the Veterans Commissioner for Northern Ireland serve on the legacy commission? Would that not be a token of making good on his affirmation that this is about capturing the confidence of veterans and not pursuing lawfare against them?
Hilary Benn
As I have indicated, I reject the suggestion that the Government are in any way engaging in lawfare against veterans, in the same way that I reject any suggestion that there are such things as politically motivated or vexatious prosecutions. [Interruption.] I hear “Oh, come on” from the Opposition Front Bench; I have heard that from Opposition Members in previous debates on these questions. There will no doubt be a number of amendments and suggestions made when we come to detailed consideration of the Bill, and we will consider them at that time.
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and Tavistock) (Con)
I wonder whether the Secretary of State can assist me with this problem. The Supreme Court is at the moment seized of the issue as to the lawfulness of the declaration of incompatibility. The fact that the Government have withdrawn their appeal does not prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on it. Let us suppose that the Supreme Court rules that the declaration of incompatibility is void. The legal position is that the declaration of incompatibility would then be void, and therefore the basis on which the Secretary of State is proceeding with the order would be removed. Surely it would be prudent to wait to see if the Supreme Court rules on it. Otherwise, we will be proceeding with an unlawful order. I ask in the spirit of genuine curiosity and inquiry, not political partisanship. It would bring the entire process into disrepute if he is in fact acting on an unlawful basis.
Hilary Benn
Once again, I do not accept that the Government are acting on an unlawful basis. Given the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s distinguished legal credentials and experience, I say to him that I note he encourages me to speculate on a potential outcome—[Interruption.] Well, he does. The Government have to deal with the position as we find it. I have already set out to the House why the Government are absolutely clear in our view that, because the appeal was withdrawn, we are able to make use of section 10 of the Human Rights Act in order to remove conditional immunity.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Yesterday, Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton highlighted the need to recruit people to our armed forces to protect this nation. How does the Secretary of State expect to do that when those who served gallantly in Northern Ireland face prosecution? Why would young men and women join our armed forces with the risk of that happening to them? What message does that send to those young people?
Hilary Benn
I meet many young people in my constituency and on other duties who are keen to come to serve the nation in the armed forces. I am not aware of any figures that suggest there has been a decline in recruitment. If the hon. Member has seen them, perhaps she could draw them to my attention. Trying to deal with the past correctly, particularly given the threats we face in the modern world, should not affect the willingness of young people and others to come forward and serve the nation, as people have done over the centuries.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State has spoken of additional protections in his legislation. Why does he think that Operation Banner veterans, some of whom I represent, remain unconvinced and troubled? Why does he think that the Irish Prime Minister believes there are no additional protections? While he is about it, can he do something to reassure veterans who are feeling very unhappy about this situation, perhaps along the lines of saying categorically that no former terrorists or members of proscribed organisations will serve on the legacy commission?
Hilary Benn
I have already made it clear to the House that as long as I am in this post I have no intention of appointing those who have engaged in paramilitary activity to any of the posts contained in the Bill. On the protections, we all have a responsibility to explain and point out that they are in the draft legislation in clauses 30, 31, 36, 91, 84, 54, 56, 69 and 8. They are real, tangible protections, and they respond directly to the concerns that veterans have raised with the Government. We have introduced them because of our determination to ensure that veterans are treated properly.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Secretary of State, the official Opposition are saying to hold off the remedial order until the Supreme Court judgment. Have you sought any legal advice on that? Can you share it with the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Use of the word “you” is not appropriate. Would the hon. Member like to rephrase and quickly get to his point?
Alex Easton
I apologise. Has the Secretary of State sought any legal advice on the issue, and can he share it with the House? Will he also update us on making sure that the Irish Government produce all legal papers on their role, on the IRA and on the involvement of the Garda Síochána?
Hilary Benn
As the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, there is a long-standing tradition that the Government do not reveal the legal advice they receive. All Governments receive legal advice, but we do not share it, because that is part of the business of government. I have already made reference to the Irish Government’s announcement in respect of legislation to enable witnesses to give evidence to the Omagh bombing inquiry, which I welcome.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Will the Secretary confirm whether the remedial order will have to be voted on in the other place?
Hilary Benn
Yes, it will be voted on in both Houses in the new year.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Despite what the Secretary of State continues to say in the House, the prosecution of elderly veterans has been vexatious. In the Soldier F trial, the judge agreed with the submissions of the defence that the threshold to prosecute was far from being reached; political interference brought that matter to court. If the Secretary of State cannot even accept that there have been vexatious prosecutions, how will he ensure that the remedial order will give a clear distinction between the bomber who presents him or herself as a victim and the ordinary man, woman or child who was murdered or maimed by the actions of terrorists?
Hilary Benn
There is the clearest distinction between the two groups of people that the hon. Member refers to, and I have made that clear from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions. There is absolutely no equivalence between those who sought to protect the public and those who committed the most appalling terrorist atrocities. I have respectfully to disagree with the hon. Member, because if she is arguing that prosecutions have been vexatious, she is saying that our independent prosecutors are working on a basis that is outwith their task, which is, in all cases, to look at the evidence and to ask whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. If we undermine the independence of independent prosecutors—the separation between the Government and the court system—we are sunk as a nation. That is why I am so firm in saying that there is no such thing as a vexatious prosecution.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Notwithstanding the fact that the Secretary of State has said that the chances of a successful prosecution are very limited indeed, the punishment is in the process of investigation and trial in the first place. Will the Secretary of State look sympathetically at appropriate amendments to the Bill to make sure that the bar is raised very high, so that it is almost impossible for one of our brave veterans to be prosecuted in our courts?
Hilary Benn
As I have said to the House before, I will, of course, look carefully at all the amendments tabled when we come to debate the Bill in Committee and on Report. The test for prosecutions, as I indicated in answer to the previous question, is the same now, and will be the same in future, as it has been for the last 30, 50 or 70 years—those who have greater legal experience can tell the House how long that has been the case. It will not change, because it depends on the evidence. We are setting out in the Bill that to reinvestigate things the commission has to be of the view that it is essential to do so. That word “essential” is a very high bar.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
For the final question, I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Kenova report was clear in proving that there was no evidence of state collusion or machinations. Yet the republican drum still bangs to cover the sound of the voices of the innocents calling for justice and to be heard. How will the Secretary of State respond to the lack of protection for the service personnel and the perpetual and deliberate focus on them, and will he look at the 2,057 murders carried out by republicans and the 1,027 loyalist murders that have not received any justice at all? Will there be yet another whitewash over the blood of the innocents that has been shed and the impact that that still has on all those families throughout the Province?
Hilary Benn
I have the greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman. I think that he, I and, I hope, the whole House share the desire to enable answers for all those families who are living with the pain of not knowing what happened to their loved ones. The Kenova report has made an important contribution to seeking to uncover the truth. In drafting the legislation, we have drawn on a number of the lessons of Kenova, including that of the victims and survivors advisory panel, because many people said that that was one of the great things about the way Kenova went about its job. It is in the draft Bill that the House will consider again shortly.
Point of Order
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point I was trying to raise in my question to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was that on any issue to do with the Northern Irish troubles, we must tread with appropriate solemnity and seriousness. It was therefore disappointing to be accused of being an idiot by a Member on the Opposition Front Bench while making that very point. What advice would you give on ensuring that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) apologises appropriately, not to me but to the whole House, for lowering the tone of that serious debate?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
If I had heard any inappropriate language, I would have dealt with it very swiftly and dealt with that Member involved. No inappropriate language should be used in the Chamber. On such a highly charged, emotional and very serious topic, we need to double down and make sure that we are using the most appropriate language. Mr Francois, before you respond, please remember that you are also responding to me in the Chair. No doubt, you will not want to displease me either with any of your response.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am too experienced to try to displease you in any way. For clarity, I was responding to the fact that the hon. Gentleman had accused—[Interruption.] Pardon me. He had accused my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) of saying something that, as Hansard will prove conclusively in the morning, he clearly did not say. If the hon. Gentleman and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, feel that that word was inappropriate, I withdraw it. However, I still believe that the hon. Gentleman was wrong.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I do not wish to prolong the debate, and no doubt that will be seen, by most, as an apology.
Puberty Suppressants Trial
(1 day, 17 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
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on the pathways puberty blockers trial.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Let me just start by acknowledging the sensitivities around this issue and the strong beliefs held around this House. For all the division and divided opinion, I believe that there is a determination shared by everyone in this House to do the right thing by a vulnerable group of children and young people. It is for those reasons that I am taking the course of action that I am. Put simply, that is to follow expert clinical advice and take an evidence-led approach.
The Cass review found shocking levels of unprofessionalism, a lack of clinical oversight and puberty blockers prescribed to children without sufficient evidence that doing so was safe or beneficial to those children and young people. What Dr Hilary Cass uncovered was a scandal. That is why, on coming to office, I made the temporary ban brought in by my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), a permanent one. Dr Cass also recommended a thorough study to establish how best to support children and young people who suffer gender incongruence. That is the pathways study.
The study has four main parts, one of which is the clinical trial to study the effects of puberty-suppressing hormones on young people’s physical, social and emotional wellbeing. The other aspects of the pathways study will track the physical, social and emotional wellbeing of all young people attending UK NHS gender services. It will look at young people’s thinking and brain development, following both those who are and are not taking puberty-suppressing hormones, and it will gather evidence directly from young people, parents and staff about their experiences of living with gender incongruence.
The bar for the trial to be approved was extremely high and oversight will be rigorous. Children cannot consent to being on the trial, so places will require parental consent, as well as the assent of young people. It is because protecting and promoting the health and wellbeing of affected young people is our primary concern that there are also strict eligibility criteria in place to join the pathways clinical trial. As such, the number of young people who would expect to qualify for the trial will also be low. Participants must undergo thorough mental and physical assessments and will be followed over a number of years with regular wellbeing checks. Puberty blockers have also been used to delay puberty in children and young people who start puberty much too early. Use in those cases has been extensively tested and has met strict safety requirements for that use.
The study is led by King’s College London and the South London and Maudsley NHS foundation trust. It has been carefully checked by independent scientists who advise the National Institute for Health and Care Research and by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and received approval from a research ethics committee. I am treading cautiously in this area because the safety of children must come first.
Dr Johnson
I must first declare my interest as a consultant paediatrician who has looked after children with gender dysphoria in the past and is likely to do so in the future. We must remember that we are talking about vulnerable children.
The first and most obvious question is: why? Why have this Government chosen to fund experiments with puberty blockers on physically healthy children? Despite saying he was comfortable with this trial in a briefing to MPs, the Secretary of State told the media on Friday and the Select Committee this morning that he is in fact uncomfortable with it. Why is it even being considered before the data linkage study is complete?
Some 9,000 children went through the Tavistock clinic, and many of them came out regretting being encouraged to irreversibly damage their bodies. We should look carefully at those outcomes before we make the same mistakes. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to secure the data from the Tavistock and have it analysed? What steps is he taking to hold to account those obstructing access to data linkage information? What assessment has he made of the motivations of those obstructing that data, when this is a study to safeguard children?
And what of the trial itself? We know that 226 children will go through this trial. Is that a limit or a target? Those children will be randomised to get puberty blockers now or in a year’s time, and all will be analysed at two years. They will still be children. They might be only 11 years old. How can the results demonstrate a meaningful outcome? The control group is not properly randomised, but chosen from the Horizon intensive trial group. Is the Secretary of State concerned that this will introduce bias?
The criteria for getting puberty blockers in this trial require just one parent to consent and the clinician to think that it will benefit the child, but on what basis will the clinician decide? The Cass review said that the vast majority of children with gender dysphoria would recover, with only a few persisting with trans identities into adulthood. It is not possible to predict which those children will be, so does the Secretary of State accept that the vast majority of children in this, his Streeting trial, who will be given drugs will be physically healthy children whose distress would get better without any puberty blockers, and that the vast majority of the children in this trial are therefore being unnecessarily experimented on with risky medications under his leadership?
Wes Streeting
The shadow Minister asks, “Why?” There is a simple answer. It is because this was recommended by Dr Cass in the Cass review, which was commissioned by my predecessor, Sir Sajid Javid. I think that was the right thing to do, and it is why, when my predecessor brought forward the Cass review, I supported it in opposition. I certainly did not try to play politics with an extremely vulnerable group of children and young people.
I will tell the hon. Lady why. It is because, under the previous Government, those puberty-suppressing hormones were prescribed without proper oversight, supervision or safety, yet we did not hear a peep about that fact for years until Dr Cass, commissioned by Sir Sajid Javid—who deserves enormous credit—did the study, which was published and widely supported and which contained this recommendation. The Conservatives may have changed their tune in opposition, but I remember what they said in government when they published the Cass review and supported its recommendations, so I think their response now is a real shame.
The shadow Minister accuses me of inconsistency, so let me be clear. Am I comfortable that this clinical trial has undergone the proper process and ethical approval to ensure the highest standards and supervision? Yes, I am comfortable about that. Am I uncomfortable about puberty-suppressing hormones for this group of young people for this particular condition? Yes, I am—because of risks. It is why I was also uncomfortable when I upheld the temporary ban by my predecessor and then put in place a permanent ban. The reason I was uncomfortable with that, too, is because I had to look children and young people, and their parents, in the eye when they told me in no uncertain terms that that decision was harmful to them, as have many other clinicians who have opposed that decision.
Whatever my discomfort in this extremely sensitive area, the reason that I have made this decision is that I am following clinical advice and, as Health Secretary, it is my responsibility to follow expert advice. Had the Tavistock clinic faced such challenge and scrutiny a decade ago, we would not be in this mess. The Conservatives were right to commission the Cass review and they were right to accept its recommendations. I accept that there is now a difference on this particular recommendation, but I would urge Members not to walk away from the cross-party consensus we built behind that approach but to build on the work that Dr Cass has done.
Let me turn to the important questions raised by shadow Minister. There will be two groups within the trial, as well as a further control group of children and young people with gender incongruence who do not receive puberty-suppressing hormones. At least 226 participants are required in order to detect a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups. However, this is not a target and no young person will find themselves on this trial because there is a drive to make sure that a certain number of young people are participating. In order for anyone to participate in this trial, it has to have the most robust clinical oversight from clinicians within the service, as well as national oversight and the consent of parents. It is only where young people will be deemed to benefit that they will be on this programme.
The shadow Minister asks about the data linkage study. That is important. The data linkage study will be undertaken, but when it is completed it will not provide us with the same evidence as this clinical trial. That is why Dr Cass made a distinction between this trial and the data linkage study.
The hon. Lady also asks about the motivations of those who withheld data. That is an extremely important question. It is utterly appalling that anyone in a position of responsibility in the NHS withheld data on a very vulnerable group of children and young people. I accept that there were many well-meaning people involved in these services at the Tavistock clinic, but the fact that Dr Cass found such a lack of rigour, such a lack of standards and such a lack of proper oversight is disgraceful. It is the clinicians who are well meaning and ideologically driven who have given me the most cause for concern in this whole debacle and who have done more harm to children, young people and the trans community than most other people who have taken part in this debate.
I appreciate the work that Dr Cass has done, and I am glad that she is in the other place, bringing welcome scrutiny. Were she not supportive of this approach, I might think again, but she has made her recommendation and given her support. I am following clinical advice. It is not comfortable, but I do believe it is the right thing to do, on balance.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Health and Social Care Committee member Danny Beales.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) asks, “Why?” Well, it is because trans people exist and their health needs exist. As the Secretary of State has clearly outlined, an independent review made a series of recommendations. There were clearly failures of healthcare, and a further recommendation was that a clinical trial should address this issue. I believe that the Conservatives supported the Cass review, but when it comes to implementing this part of it, they suddenly have collective amnesia about what Dr Cass recommended. Does the Secretary State agree that, in the absence of a trial, there will still be access to these drugs? We know that young people are seeking out private provision. They are seeking unregulated providers of these drugs, so is not a clinical trial both appropriate and the best and safest way of managing any potential risks?
Wes Streeting
The risk that my hon. Friend sets out was one of the considerations that I had to when weigh up—first when upholding the temporary ban, and then when making the ban permanent. I do worry that, outside of a trial, we may continue to see unsafe or unethical practice. I think we will be doing a service to medicine in this country as well as internationally if we have a high-quality trial with the highest standards of ethics, approvals, oversight and research from some of our country’s leading universities and healthcare providers to ensure that, for this particular vulnerable group of children and young people, we are taking an evidence-based approach to health and care.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson; you have one minute.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I hope that everyone in this House can agree that medical treatment should always follow the evidence on safety and effectiveness. It is right that expert clinicians are building this evidence base and therefore right that the Government are seeking to run this trial, because it should be led by evidence and not by ideology.
Given that the numbers on the trial will be very small and the waiting list for talking therapies, which are so important for children and their parents, is very long, with hundreds of thousands waiting, can the Secretary of State explain how he will increase access to NHS talking therapies so people can get the help they need and deserve? In a field with so little research, will he confirm if the pathways trial will look at international best practice in order to take learnings from abroad?
Wes Streeting
I can absolutely assure the hon. Member that we are doing that wider research and that of course we will take into account high-quality international evidence, as well as the research we are undertaking domestically. It is so important that we recognise that, for many young people with gender incongruence, even if approved, puberty blockers will never be the right medication. One of the things I have been most saddened by in the discourse among adults in this debate, many of whom should know better, is the elevation of puberty blockers to the status they have received in public discourse and debate; many young people out there think not only is this the gold standard of care, but that it is the only care available, and, of course, that is not true.
NHS England has opened three new children and young people’s gender services in the north-west, London and Bristol, with a fourth planned for the east of England in 2026. We aim to have a service in every region of England in the coming years. These services use a different model with multidisciplinary teams, including mental health support and paediatrics, within specialist children’s hospitals to provide good clinical care. The new services will increase capacity and reduce waiting times so that patients can be seen sooner and closer to home. We have also commissioned additional support for young people waiting to be seen through local children and young people’s mental health services.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his leadership. As a former children’s services manager, I am concerned that credible safeguarding warnings from clinicians and academics about puberty suppression in children are not being heard. Will the Secretary of State meet those experts and review the younger age limit for participation in this trial, given that children as young as 10 are currently set to be involved?
Wes Streeting
Let me reassure my hon. Friend and the House that I am absolutely open to receiving representations and evidence from clinicians involved in the care of children and young people, with insight, expertise and data, including those who might be critical of the approach that the trial team is setting out or, indeed, critical that the Cass review included this recommendation. That is important because the many things that have gone horribly wrong in this area have included the silencing of whistleblowers and the silencing of rigorous debate and discussion.
We have to have this debate with due care and sensitivity for young people in this vulnerable group in particular and for the wider trans community, who feel extremely vulnerable in this country at the moment, including as a result of decisions I have taken as the Health and Social Care Secretary. We have to consider all of that in the round, but we must make sure that at all times we are following the evidence, that we are open to scrutiny and challenge, and that where we are making these finely balanced judgments, we are doing so with rigorous debate, testing the arguments, the evidence and the data. That is why I welcome the urgent question and this discussion.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call Health and Social Care Committee member Joe Robertson.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Secretary of State said earlier that there is an extremely high bar for him stepping in and stopping these tests using puberty blockers. What bar could be higher than a Government protecting children from being tested on with drugs specifically to stop or alter their sexual development? There is not a unified clinical view on this. It is his choice; he is the Secretary of State. These tests are on him.
Wes Streeting
I certainly do not need to be told what my responsibilities are on this. I always take responsibility for the decisions I take. I acknowledge the extent to which the hon. Gentleman and members of his party seek to weaponise this issue, and to personalise it. [Interruption.] We can simply refer back to his question and to the shadow Minister’s reference to the “Streeting trial”—if that is not personalising, I do not know what is.
I’ll tell you what: I will take an evidence-based approach. I have done that on this issue from day one. Had the Conservatives done so, we would never have seen the Tavistock scandal. We would never have seen puberty blockers dished out willy-nilly to children and young people in this vulnerable patient group. I have sought at all times, including when I sat on the Opposition Benches, to treat this debate with the care, sensitivity and humility it deserves, and not to be tribal in my interactions. I only wish this Conservative Opposition would take the same approach.
Madam Deputy Speaker
We are only at the start of this urgent question, so I ask Members to reduce the temperature in the Chamber.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the care and sensitivity he has taken to this subject all along. It has been an undeniably difficult year for transgender people in Britain. I have spoken to young trans people who have been pushed to the brink of suicide by what they hear—that they do not have a right to exist, that they do not deserve rights, that they are legitimate targets for ridicule. We all in this House have a responsibility to lower the temperature and focus on their welfare, health and dignity.
King’s College operates the highest standards of safety. Does the Secretary of State agree that its expertise and rigour will support the wellbeing of participants and ensure that we get the robust evidence we need and that vulnerable children are no longer treated as political punchbags?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we must engage with due care and sensitivity on this issue. I can share with the House that these exchanges, Government policy, what is said by me and others, are followed extremely closely by this group of children and young people, who are extremely online, and by the wider LGBT+ community. My hon. Friend is right that trans people are often at the wrong end of the statistics as victims of hate crime, discrimination and mental ill health. We must always tread carefully when talking about suicide in this context, and bear in mind the warnings of the Government’s adviser on suicide prevention, Professor Louis Appleby, and the way in which that issue has been deployed irresponsibly by critics of the ban on puberty blockers that was put in place—we bear all those things in mind. I do think we have a high-quality trial set up. I do have confidence in the clinicians. We have had a cross-party briefing from the clinical team. I am happy to repeat that exercise, to keep coming back to the House and to arrange briefings for MPs and peers on a cross-party basis so that we can follow this closely, as we should.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
I welcome the care with which the right hon. Member has approached much of this, and I appreciate that he has before him some very difficult decisions, especially because of the way the report was written. But I must come back to the simple truth that these are very young children, and decisions will be made for them—I appreciate by parents, taking that element of consent—that are genuinely irreversible. Whatever happens, we will see eight, nine, 10-year-olds grow up to be 18, 20, 25-year-olds—at least we hope we will—who have effectively been experimented on. Some of those children will resent greatly not just the system and their parents, but those who allowed this to happen, and here I identify the Department for Health and Social Care, not necessarily the Secretary of State himself. What provision is he putting in place to ensure that should those children wish to bring legal action against the Department, against those who took these decisions at a time when they were not able to give any form of informed consent, they will be able to have redress and their day in court?
Wes Streeting
I first thank the right hon. Member for the way in which he puts his concerns. I know he is concerned about this trial and that he has stated publicly his opposition to it, and I enormously respect the way in which he has done that. These are finely balanced judgments, and I acknowledge that.
The Cass review found that puberty blockers have been prescribed routinely without good evidence for their safety or effectiveness, and that is why a clinical trial was proposed. They are licensed and used safely in much younger children for precocious puberty or in older adults for certain cancers. For adolescents, the interaction with all the different processes of puberty may be very significant, which is why more evidence and a better understanding of their impact is needed in this patient group. Anyone on the trial can choose to stop taking puberty-suppressing hormones and leave the trial at any time; they do not need to give a reason. If a young person decides to stop taking puberty-suppressing hormones, their care in the NHS, including the gender service, will not change in any other way, and their doctors will explain to them and their parents or guardians what treatment options are available.
I know that there are concerns about the longer-term impacts on fertility. Prospective participants will be given comprehensive information on the advantages and potential risks of the hormones, including details about preserving fertility. Doctors will explain the possible long-term consequences and available options. Young people will also be offered consultation with a fertility specialist. The young person and their parent or guardian must clearly demonstrate a full understanding of all these issues—only then, after that, would a clinician sign off on admission to the trial.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I ask colleagues to keep their questions short and the Secretary of State to keep his responses on point. I call Health and Social Care Committee member, Josh Fenton-Glynn.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I hope we can all agree that the young people involved should not be used by anyone as a political football. Can my right hon. Friend please assure me that the process and trial will be clinically led, not defined by rhetoric—in this place or anywhere else?
Wes Streeting
I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I also welcome the tone and sensitivity that the right hon. Gentleman has taken on this issue—not just today, but throughout. We all recognise that we should be led by evidence, which is absolutely vital. The trans community is a reality. They feel very vulnerable and very attacked. People who have been on the medications for some time are now concerned that they may no longer be available. What can the right hon. Gentleman tell us to reassure those people that they will be safe?
Wes Streeting
As I reported when we put in place the permanent ban, there have been arrangements for people who were previously being prescribed puberty blockers. People who wanted to access them, but could not once the ban came in, have not been able to do so through authorised means.
I recognised when I took the decision, and as a result of representations I have received, both directly and in writing, that it caused considerable pain and distress to a very vulnerable group of children and young people and to the people who care very much about them. I have not been indifferent to that; I have taken it very much into consideration. However, with respect to all the people I have met, no amount of political pressure should move a Health Secretary away from the clinical advice and expert opinion that should underpin these sorts of decisions.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I welcome the trial. I commend the Secretary of State for following clinical advice and the Government for trying to build a consensus for one of the most minoritised communities in our country.
May I ask the Secretary of State—a man who I know to have empathy and thoughtfulness—to speak directly to trans people who will be watching this debate? At this Christmas time, they may be struggling with estrangement from family and with other difficulties. Can he speak to the dignity and worth to which they are entitled, and send a message that this House has their back?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I recognise that the decision I took, within days of coming into this office, was received by trans people in particular, and the wider LGBT+ community, as a negative decision that detrimentally impacted their rights and identity. That is why it was an uncomfortable decision for me to take; I knew how it would be received and had to balance up the risk. I believed—and still believe, by the way—that it was the right thing to do, for the right reasons: a clinically led decision.
When it comes to the care and health of children and young people in particular, I make no apology for exercising extreme caution. I do want trans people in our country to know that this Government respect them and their identity, and want them to live with dignity, safety and inclusion. That is the approach that the Government are taking. I realise that decisions that I have personally taken have not been received in that way. That has not been comfortable for me, but I do believe it has been the right thing to do.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
If we were resting this judgment on purely clinical evidence, we would tell every child that whatever sex they were was immutable and could not be changed, and that if they took these puberty blockers they might well find that they had irreversibly changed the course of their lives. How is a child of 10 or 11 going to be capable of making that judgment?
Whatever the Cass review says, in the end this is the Secretary of State’s judgment. I remember the covid inquiry repeatedly saying that it was wrong for Ministers to hide behind “the science”. Equally, there is no single clinical advice on this question: clinicians are as divided as the rest of society. We rely on the Secretary of State’s judgment. I am afraid that I think he has got it wrong.
Wes Streeting
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and for how he puts his criticism, too. As I said earlier, and for the avoidance of doubt, I know what my responsibilities are. I understand the decisions that I take in this office and that I am accountable for those decisions. I do not resile from that. I am following clinical advice; I think that is the right thing to do in this area.
On the question of sex, the right hon. Gentleman is right: sex is immutable. Even if there has been treatment with hormones or surgery, underlying biology none the less means that trans women, for example, would still need to be screened and treated bearing in mind their biological sex, and the opposite is true for trans men. We have to draw that distinction between biological sex and gender identity.
Whatever my discomfort and personal views about this particular trial or about the notion of young people using puberty blockers in this way, I cannot ignore, and should convey faithfully to the House, conversations that I have had with trans young people and adults. They have described in powerful and unforgettable terms not just the life changing, but the life enhancing experience that they have had. I am thinking particularly of the university student I met; if she walked into this Chamber now, we would assume that she was born female. She is living her best life and described in very powerful and unforgettable terms the impact that treatment has had for her and her quality of life. At the same time, I think of high-profile cases such as Keira Bell’s. That is why we have to tread extremely carefully in this area, to follow evidence and to build an evidence base. It is also why these are such finely balanced judgements and why I can be simultaneously uncomfortable with the permanent ban that I put in place and uncomfortable with the clinical trial. I hope that I have reassured people that I think very deeply about these issues before taking decisions.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
As the Health Secretary has said, this is a deeply troubling time for the trans community; I have heard that loudly from my trans constituents who have come to surgeries and from my postbag, too. When suicide rates among trans people are much higher than among the general population, we know where denying that they exist or denying them life-saving healthcare lead. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give my trans constituents and the families who support them? They are extremely worried that they will not be able to access the healthcare that they need.
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. The reassurance that we can provide trans people in our country is that we are committed to making sure that they have access to the highest quality, evidence-based healthcare. That does not just apply in the case of children and young people; I also hope to report to the House before the Christmas recess the work undertaken in the learning disability mortality review into adult services. We are committed to making sure that we provide high-quality care to a particular vulnerable group of children and young people.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Although I disagreed with the permanent ban, it is to the Secretary of State’s credit that he has been very clear about all the competing issues that he is balancing to make his decisions, and I appreciate that. There are young people who are hoping to be part of the clinical trial and to receive puberty blockers, whether that will genuinely make a difference to their lives or they believe that it will make a difference to their lives. How will he ensure that appropriate support is given to those young people who do not get to be part of the trial, when they have been hoping that it will change their lives?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the hon. Member for the way that she asks her question, as a critic of some of the decisions that I have taken in this space. The reassurance that I can offer is that the study will look at the holistic care that this group of children and young people receives, and ensure that wider evidence-led therapeutic support, including mental health support, is available, so that regardless of whether a young person receives puberty blockers, they will certainly receive that wider range of support.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I appreciate the science-based approach taken by the Secretary of State. We use puberty blockers for many different conditions, so will the trial look at the data that has been amassed from the use of puberty blockers for other conditions? I wish to state on the record that puberty blockers are reversible. The evidence shows that when people stop taking them, they stop working—that is the science behind them. Finally, young people in my constituency are more likely to age out of gender services than to get their first appointment, so what are we doing to shorten the waiting time, not just for puberty blockers but for the whole range of services provided to trans children by the NHS?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. If hon. Members do not keep their questions short, I will not get everybody in. The answers need to be just as short.
Wes Streeting
I will try to do that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We will ensure that young people get good access to wider evidence-led support. I have had to wrestle with the fact that some trans people enter adulthood without ever receiving any sort of healthcare, and I have been heavily criticised by those people in particular for some of the decisions that I have taken. We are working to reduce waiting times, as I have described.
My hon. Friend says that puberty blockers are reversible. We hear contrary views about that from Members across the House, some of whom say that puberty blockers are irreversible. The truth is that the evidence in this area is mixed, which is why we need to build a stronger evidence base.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Secretary of State deserves our sympathy for having to negotiate such an ethical minefield. Will he tell us whether the data exists from all the people who had puberty blockers under the old regime? He mentioned having met one person for whom they had worked well and one person for whom they were a disaster. Surely it should be possible to do a systematic survey of the dozens, if not hundreds, of people who went through that. Might that be a more constructive and less dangerous way forward?
Wes Streeting
The right hon. Member is right that we need that data linkage study. That will happen, but it will not produce the same evidence base as a clinical trial, and that is the distinction between the two. It is frankly a disgrace that people have sought to withhold that kind of data and it is really important that we get this right.
I appreciate the right hon. Member’s sympathy. I have wrestled with this issue probably more than any other ethical decision that I have had to make in this office. I do not seek any pity or sympathy for doing so—it is the job that I signed up to and a job that I love doing. I have taken great care and sensitivity in this area because of the particular vulnerability of this group of children and young people.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
It is fair to say that the recommendations of the Cass review were not welcomed by everyone—not least by all members of the LGBT+ community—but the Conservative party commissioned the review and accepted its findings, and the Labour party supported the review and supported its findings. Does the Secretary of State share my concern that there are those who would now seek to cherry pick which of the findings they agree with and which they do not? Is it not the case that an independent review with such serious and important findings should be accepted in its entirety?
Wes Streeting
When it was published—I was in the Chamber at the time—there was an overwhelming consensus in the House. There were some people who criticised and challenged the Cass review at the time, including some outside the House in the LGBT community. I have always supported the Cass review, which was led by one of our country’s best paediatricians. Because of that, I am proceeding in the way that I am, which is the way that Dr Cass—now Baroness Cass—recommended. I will continue to follow the evidence and implement the Cass review comprehensively.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
A survey published today by Transgender Trend shows overwhelming public support for non-intrusive medical approaches for under-16s with gender dysmorphia. The public want this state-sponsored child abuse stopped, so will the Secretary of State represent the will of the people, stop the trial and instead introduce statutory legislation to access the evidence data from the 2,000 children and young people already given puberty blockers through the Tavistock scandal?
Wes Streeting
I will take the hon. Member’s question in three parts. First, the opinion polling that she mentions shows that people in this country are overwhelmingly kind, and they want to ensure that trans people, and LGBT people more broadly, are treated with kindness, compassion and inclusion. Secondly, I do not dismiss the opinion polling that shows that a majority are against this kind of trial. Thirdly, the reason I am doing this is that I have to think about this extremely small group of people. I do not know what it is like to walk in their shoes and I have to think very carefully about what is in their best interests. The best way to do that is to build the evidence base that we need to provide high-quality healthcare. I strongly, strongly do not agree with her characterisation of this study, which is in itself irresponsible.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
Some of the political debate around this subject has saddened me, not least the way that trans people’s reality and experience has been denied. We even have evidence of British trans people from the 4th century—they have existed forever. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the trial is a real attempt to get a proper evidence base for treatment for young people that is really needed?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is correct that the study is about building the right evidence so that we get high-quality, safe healthcare for this vulnerable group of children and young people.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
Children struggling with gender dysphoria and their families are trying to find their way through very difficult and often distressing times. We should be helping them, not experimenting on them. Should we not be following the example of other European countries, such as Denmark and Finland, which have shifted their policies towards counselling rather than medical interventions?
Wes Streeting
I assure the hon. Member that as part of this study, and as part of the roll-out of services across the country, we are focusing on the therapeutic support that she describes. We are implementing the Cass review, which recommended this particular trial for this particular purpose, and we will follow the evidence. Of course we look at what other countries are doing, why they are doing it and what research emerges.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I have immense respect for my right hon. Friend, in particular for his commitment to equal access to healthcare. Will he say a little more about the mental health support available for children and young people involved in the trial, those who will not be able to be in the trial, those who are currently receiving puberty blockers, and those for whom the ban is causing immense stress or worse?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Regardless of whether people are receiving this medication or not, we need to ensure that they receive the right therapeutic support to enable them to have healthy, happy childhoods and to understand themselves, the world they live in and how they relate to it in a way that does not cause them distress or harm. That is my objective in this process.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
For young people questioning their gender, the pathways trial is currently the only route by which they are allowed to access puberty blockers, which are a treatment that can provide vital respite from the anguish of going through puberty in a body that does not match your gender, before long-term decisions may or may not be made as an adult. I therefore welcome the announcement of the trial, while recognising that significant barriers to entry remain. How will the Secretary of State ensure that as many young people as need to can access the trial, including those who need to access puberty blockers as part of support to improve their mental health?
Wes Streeting
I do not doubt the hon. Member’s sincerity and integrity on this issue, but I say to her respectfully that when she talks about barriers to entry, those “barriers” are safety and clinical oversight, as well as parental consent and the assent of the young person. I do not believe that those are barriers; I believe that those are necessary bars for participation in this trial.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the comments of other Members who have said that we are talking about humans who deserve to be treated with dignity? As a former Crown prosecutor, I firmly believe that evidence is hugely important, and the Cass review said that there is not enough evidence at present that puberty blockers are safe. Does the Secretary of State agree that the responsible thing for the Government to do is not simply to ignore the plight of such young people, but to conduct the clinical trial to obtain the robust evidence needed to direct policy going forward?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Given that I work for a former Crown prosecutor, I could not possibly disagree with her on evidence.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I thank the Secretary of State for his response to the urgent question. One thing we should all agree on is that the human rights of all, including trans people, must be protected and delivered by the Government and supported by us all. The reason we are here today is to discuss the risks and potential adverse consequences of the proposed pathways trial. The trial compares the timing of treatment initiation, rather than using a placebo. There is no arm that provides psychotherapy as a treatment option without puberty blockers, and there is no arm to assess children who do not receive any of those options. Will the Secretary of State consider ensuring that all the various arms and channels are tested as part of this trial to get a complete picture, rather than a partial picture, which may be misleading?
Wes Streeting
May I thank the hon. Member for the way in which he put his question? It is so important to emphasise that right across this House, there are many people who oppose this trial, but who do want to see trans people well supported and protected and to respect their identities. That is important for everyone to bear in mind.
The hon. Member talks about placebo. For obvious reasons in this case, a placebo would not be appropriate, because it would be very obvious whether a young person was receiving the real medication or the placebo, but the trial design has included a control group. The way in which the trial is established will help us to distinguish between the benefits of receiving or not receiving this particular medication, and there will be really close oversight of the impact on development, but he is right that we need to judge these things on the question of risk. That is what led Dr Cass to make her recommendation, and that is why I support it.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s answers today and his ongoing support for the Cass review. From his previous answers, it is clear that he has seen public opinion. Is he prepared to call an independent clinical review, given the high degree of public concern about the trial?
Wes Streeting
I am very happy to receive further clinical representations on this issue and to hear from experts on it. I hope the public will understand why, on this particular issue, I am not simply led by opinion polling. I have to follow the clinical advice and evidence, particularly given the enormous risks that surround these children and young people, including the risks that weighed on my shoulders and conscience when I denied access to puberty blockers by upholding the temporary ban and then making it permanent.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
It is nigh-on child abuse to give children puberty blockers. This trial will take confused little minds and vulnerable children and place them on a medical pathway with profound, life-altering consequences. Childhood is a time of uncertainty, yet the state is intervening with drugs that many former patients now say they were never even capable of consenting to. How can this Government justify experimenting on children, rather than prioritising safeguarding, evidence and psychological support?
Wes Streeting
The hon. Lady has offered a political opinion, not a clinical judgment. By that logic, we would not have any medicine for children and young people; we would never have undertaken clinical trials or studies, because we would have judged that children and young people could not take part in them. That is objectively not a sensible position.
I understand the sensitivity surrounding this issue, and the hon. Lady is right to say that people in our country have received life-changing clinical interventions that they later regretted. As part of that regret, they have shared that they did not feel, at the time, that they were making or could have made an informed decision. That is why this trial is set up in such a way that it has such strong clinical oversight locally as well as nationally. It cannot happen without not just the assent of a young person but the consent of their parent or guardian. Those are important protections and safeguards. I do not share the hon. Lady’s characterisation of the trial.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I support the pathways clinical trial, but it is clear that many, many young people presenting with gender incongruence will not be able to access it, for whatever reason. I am concerned about the mental health of those who will not be able to access the clinical trial. What additional support can the Secretary of State provide for those people, particularly around their mental health?
Wes Streeting
The study includes a lot of research around wider therapeutic support and interventions, including mental health support. We are rolling out more clinics and services across the country to bring that care closer to home.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We need a short question. I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I thank the Secretary of State for all that he does? He deserves credit. A mother from my constituency phoned me this morning and said:
“Why is money being spent on this pathway when my child has been waiting for clinical support for 3 years and the waiting list is so long she may be moved to adult treatment? Why is Government prioritising the tiny few over the many? With our children’s mental health services at breaking point and parents at their wits end trying to get their child diagnosed”,
how do the Government look in the eyes of the parents with rare diseases whose drugs are not funded by the NHS when they are funding this trial?
Wes Streeting
I say respectfully to the hon. Gentleman, whom I like very much, and to his constituent, that it is because I have also had to look into the eyes of people in this community who have not received the right care and seen the deleterious impact it has had on their mental health and wellbeing. I have had to deal with parents who have suffered loss and bereavement. We have to make sure that we are doing the right thing by everyone. This should not be an either/or choice.
Several hon. Members rose—
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
Trans people do not wake up at 18 suddenly trans; it starts before then. When we talk about protecting children, it means protecting trans children so that they can transition into adulthood knowing that they had parents and doctors who advocated for their needs. But this trial is not a prison sentence, so will the Secretary of State talk about whether people are entitled to withdraw from it if they change their mind?
Wes Streeting
They certainly can, and if they withdraw, they will still get the wider therapeutic support they deserve.
Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)
We are talking here about physically healthy primary school-age children being injected with drugs to stop them growing up. There is nothing medically wrong with these children; what they need is love, support and compassion to help them to accept their healthy bodies. They are perfect just the way they are.
The Health Secretary says that he is “uncomfortable” with this experiment, and his instincts are correct. In the haunting words of Keira Bell, a courageous young woman and a victim of the Tavistock scandal:
“I was an unhappy girl who needed help. Instead, I was treated like an experiment.”
When these children who are now going to be experimented on become adults, they will want to know who did this to them. This time, the truth will be that this was state-sanctioned, out in the open and—I am afraid to say—at the Health Secretary’s say-so. I am begging the Health Secretary to use his power as the politician in charge to do what he must know is right and stop this.
Wes Streeting
I wish I had certainty on this issue, and in some ways I envy my hon. Friend for his certainty. Having occasionally found myself to be a lonely voice in my party when sat on the Opposition Benches, I respect the fact that it is not easy to be a minority, dissenting voice, especially when one feels so strongly about an issue. I respect my hon. Friend’s position, even though I disagree with it—I do think this trial is the right thing to do. He is right that we need love, compassion and empathy for these young people; we also need to understand what health and care support will produce the best outcomes for them, which is what the trial is about.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his leadership on this issue. Nobody envies him the decisions he has to make, but he has made the right decision on this.
During my election campaign, I met a fantastic mother—no mother could have loved their daughter more. She told me about how, when her daughter entered puberty, she had to come to terms with her biological sex, and about the impact on her mental health. To delay puberty, she stopped eating. She ended up arriving at hospital in an ambulance, so weak that she had to be treated in that ambulance. I welcome the fact that the trial will look at some of the side effects of puberty blockers, but will it also consider the impact of not taking puberty blockers in some cases? Will the Secretary of State also tell us how the House will be kept up to date on the trial as it progresses?
Wes Streeting
I can certainly promise my hon. Friend that we will keep the House regularly updated. The risks he has described have weighed heavily on my conscience when putting in place a permanent ban on puberty blockers; I have understood the risk involved, and the vulnerability of this particular group of children and young people. I also meant to say, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder), that the parents of trans young people love their children very much. That has been at the heart of so many of the representations I have received, from parents as well as from young people.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The Conservative party welcomed the Cass review on its publication, including its clear recommendation that this trial take place. Eight years ago, the then leader of the Conservative party supported self-ID and declared that trans women are women; now, we have dog-whistle statements such as, “If we leave these children alone, many will get over it,” which the shadow Minister said just yesterday in Westminster Hall. Does the Secretary of State agree that a rigorous clinical trial is the only way we will get the impartial evidence he needs to make informed decisions on gender-affirming care for trans young people?
Wes Streeting
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that we need a strong evidence base, that we need to conduct these conversations with great care, consideration and compassion, and that we need to recognise the vulnerability of this particular group of children and young people, and the fear that so many trans people in our country feel about whether this is a country that accepts and respects them. The political climate has changed since we made all the progress we have made on LGBT equality over the last 20 or 30 years, but do I think the character of this country has changed? Do I think we are less inclusive, less respectful, less loving or less caring? Absolutely not—those are the hallmarks of this country and of the British people. We might be having a debate about the efficacy of this trial, but I think the overwhelming majority of people in this House are doing so in the spirit of wanting trans people to live healthy, happy lives in which they feel safe, included and respected in our country.
UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s strategic partnership with the EU.
The Government were elected with a manifesto commitment to reset relations with our European partners; to tear down unnecessary barriers to trade and cut costs and red tape for British producers and retailers; to increase national security through strong borders and greater co-operation with our closest allies; and to support jobs here in the UK and opportunities abroad.
In May this year, the Government agreed a new strategic partnership with the EU, which the Prime Minister announced at the historic UK-EU summit—the first of its kind. It is a landmark deal that is good for bills, good for our borders and good for jobs. We took that decision, exercising our sovereignty, to strike a deal in the national interest. We had to fix a bad deal passed on to us by the previous Government—the first trade deal in history that made it harder to trade. Just as we have done with the US and India, this Labour Government are striking deals to bring down bills for British people and open new opportunities for British businesses.
Since that summit, I have led negotiations with the European Commission to implement the commitments we made. I am therefore pleased to inform the House that, earlier today, the UK and the European Commission concluded negotiations for the UK’s association to Erasmus+ from 2027. This will open up world-class opportunities for students, teachers, youth workers, sports sector professionals and communities of all ages in our education, training, sport and youth sectors—both for the professionals who work in those sectors and, crucially, for our young people.
For students, this means more chances to study, train, work or volunteer abroad, gaining language skills and experience that will make them attractive to employers; for our teachers, youth workers and those who work in the sports sector, it means greater opportunities for professional development; and for our schools, colleges, universities and providers, it means access to networks and partnerships that will drive quality, encourage research links, and enhance the reputation of the UK’s world-leading education system. This morning, I met students at New City College in Hackney to see the range of benefits there are going to be, including playing basketball.
As part of Erasmus+, participants can travel to any European Union member state, as well as to several countries outside the European Union. It will go further than schemes that have come before, offering a broader scope of activity and a specific focus on unlocking opportunities for all. It is an investment in opportunity for young people from all backgrounds, for our workforce, and for our future. It will open doors for tens of thousands more young people across the UK, renewing our ties with Europe and beyond. This Labour Government have always been clear that we want young people to have access to the best opportunities in life, no matter what their background or where in this country they live. That is what we have consistently delivered, and it is what we are delivering through today’s announcement.
We are pleased that the EU has agreed financial terms that represent a fair balance between the UK’s contribution and the benefits the programme offers. The 30% discount in 2027, compared with the default terms in the trade and co-operation agreement, has paved the way for UK participation in the programme.
We also agreed that there will be a review of the UK’s participation in the programme 10 months after our association, so that we can look at the actual data concerning the demand for funding in the UK. Going forward, any continued participation in Erasmus+ under the next multi-annual financial framework will be informed by that data and our experience of association in 2027. We have always said that we will not sign deals unless they are in the national interest, and in this case I am happy to say that the agreement passed that test.
The Government will now work to maximise take-up across all sectors so that the benefits of Erasmus+ association can be fully realised. We will work closely with institutions and our young people to support this, particularly among disadvantaged groups. A UK national agency will be appointed to administer the programme in due course.
In addition, I am pleased to inform the House that the UK and the European Commission have concluded exploratory talks on the UK’s participation in the EU’s internal electricity market. The details of this will be set out in an exchange of letters between me and Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, to be published next week. Closer co-operation on electricity will bring real benefits to businesses and consumers across Europe. It will drive down energy costs and protect consumers against volatile fossil fuel markets. It will also drive up investment in the North sea and strengthen energy security. The UK and the EU will now proceed swiftly with negotiations on a UK-EU electricity agreement.
But that is not all. I welcome the clarification from the European Commission today that, in practice, there should be no carbon border adjustment mechanism costs levied on UK electricity exports—a welcome development that reflects our extensive use of renewables. Negotiations to link our carbon markets are also under way, which will cut costs, make it cheaper for UK companies to move to greener energy and, once agreed, save £7 billion-worth of UK goods exports from EU CBAM charges.
Negotiations on the food and drink agreement are also under way, which will enable food and agriculture businesses to trade more cheaply and easily by slashing the red tape and costly paperwork introduced by the last Government, which result in businesses facing £200 for export health certificates on every single shipment, or small businesses choosing not to trade with the EU altogether. Our new agreement will put this right, boosting our exports, cutting costs for importers, and bringing down prices on supermarket shelves.
The UK and the EU are committed to implementing the commitments of the May 2025 summit in a timely manner. We are working swiftly to conclude negotiations on the food and drink deal and on linking our carbon markets by the time of the next UK-EU summit in 2026. Across all these areas, the UK is clear that there will be no return to the single market, the customs union or freedom of movement. We will agree deals that are in our national interest. The Government are exercising our sovereignty to deliver for the British people.
We are committed to building this new strategic partnership with the European Union. Indeed, last week I spoke with my counterpart in the Commission, Maroš Šefčovič, and we underlined our shared commitment to implementing the common understanding that the Prime Minister and the Commission President agreed at the UK- EU summit in May. Whether it is through boosting opportunities for young people and educators across the country, cutting energy bills or agreeing a food and drink deal that slashes red tape and cuts costs, I will always negotiate in the interests of this country and our people.
I will continue to lead negotiations with the Commission. I look forward to the next annual UK-EU summit, where the Government will continue to build that new strategic partnership. That is what a grown-up, pragmatic relationship looks like. We work together under shared aims for mutually beneficial solutions to our shared problems. That is the approach the Government are taking and that is the approach that is delivering results. I commend this statement to the House.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
We on the Opposition side of the House recognise the importance of giving young people educational opportunities, but it is vital—[Interruption.] Government Members clearly do not recognise the need for schemes to offer genuine value for money. The UK already had the opportunity to remain a member of Erasmus, but it was precisely because the Conservative Government recognised that the scheme did not offer value for money to the taxpayer that we chose not to.
That is why the Conservative Government created the Turing scheme instead—a global programme for young people in the UK that did not require us, one-sidedly, to hand a blank cheque to Brussels. The Turing scheme delivered 43,000 placements around the world last year, 23,000 of which were to learners from disadvantaged backgrounds, at a cost of just over £100 million. Can the Minister confirm that his statement in no way undermines the future of the Turing scheme? Is that scheme guaranteed, or are those opportunities being sacrificed for a smaller number of opportunities available under Erasmus+?
The Minister has confirmed that the UK will pay £570 million to rejoin Erasmus+. We understand that will be paid from existing budgets, but can he tell us where the money is coming from? Is that £570 million being added to the £6 billion special educational needs and disabilities black hole that the Office for Budget Responsibility identified in the education budget? Does the Minister expect more students to take part in the new scheme than the 10,000 previous participants in Erasmus+, or are we paying £570 million for essentially 10,000 placements a year?
The Minister spoke about a fair contribution being a 30% discount. Of course, it is only a matter of weeks since the Government were briefing that a fair contribution would be a 50% discount. They clearly failed in those negotiations. Can the Minister assure us that while he says that he has a discount for the first year, a discount will be available in subsequent years? If those assurances have not yet been received and the EU does not offer a similar deal in future years, is he prepared to walk away?
The Opposition have set out clear tests to ensure that the Government do not roll back on Brexit, including no backsliding on free movement. Can the Minister outline what protections will be put in place to ensure that rejoining Erasmus does not simply mean a return to free movement by the back door for young people? That is particularly important given his complete failure, when asked multiple times, to set out what size of cap he thinks would be appropriate for youth mobility.
Rejoining Erasmus is the Government’s latest attempt to undo Brexit by stealth. That was clear from the outset of these negotiations, when the Government agreed to surrender UK fishing rights to the EU for 12 years, under the pretence that that would
“pave the way for the UK defence industry to participate in the EU’s proposed new…defence fund”.
Yet six months later that deal has collapsed after the EU’s extortionate demands for billions of pounds to join the fund, with no guarantee of any return on investment in the form of procurement. Can the Minister explain to our hard-working fishing industry why they will not be getting their fish back, even though that deal has fallen through?
The British people made a clear decision to take back control in 2016. Despite the Government’s protestations, their approach shows an increasing disregard for that democratic decision.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
If I have got this right, I chose not to sign up to participate in the SAFE—Security Action for Europe—fund because it did not represent value for money, and the Opposition are criticising me for that, but they are also criticising me for signing up to something that is value for money. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman about fish. A big advantage to our fishing sector, which exports 70% of its catch to the EU, is the food and drink agreement that I am going to secure by the time of the next UK-EU summit. That is what will benefit our fishers.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the Turing scheme, it is important that I say from the Dispatch Box that any person on the Turing scheme in this academic year will continue to be funded. I have to tell him, however, that his numbers are absolutely all over the place. First, the Erasmus+ scheme has changed significantly since the version that his Government walked away from. Furthermore, do we seriously think that that lot could have secured a 30% discount? Absolutely not.
The one figure that the hon. Gentleman did get right was 43,200, which is the number of people involved in the last year of the Turing scheme. Erasmus is a far bigger scheme. We will expect tens of thousands of young people—100,000-plus—and others to have opportunities from Erasmus. But let me tell the hon. Gentleman this as well: Erasmus is a great deal broader than the Turing scheme in terms of opportunities. The Turing scheme is about colleges, schools and universities. Erasmus+ presents wider opportunities, including youth work, sports and the ability of staff to have professional exchanges. Let me just say, before Conservative Members start talking about the fact that Turing is all around the world, that the grant-making bodies for Erasmus+ in the UK can still allocate 20% of the funding if they want to, if people want to go to other parts of the world as well. What this is doing is vastly increasing the opportunities not just for young people, but for adult learners. If the Conservative position is now to oppose a massive expansion in opportunities for young people, I will welcome that debate at the next election.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
Young people have lost so much. The pandemic kept them in their homes when they should have been in the classroom, years of austerity under the Tories saw cuts in the services on which they rely, and a bad Brexit deal stopped the invaluable chance to study abroad in Europe. Rejoining Erasmus opens up real opportunities for young people to study, train and gain experience abroad. Will the Minister say more about how this experience can help young people to grow in confidence and get them work-ready?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is quite right about the wonderful opportunities that this presents, and not just for self-confidence; the young people I spoke to only this morning at a further education college told me that going overseas had helped them to grow as people. However, the House should not just take my word for it: the Association of Colleges says that this is “brilliant news” for further education colleges. Universities UK says that it is
“fantastic news for the UK”.
The Russell Group of universities is “delighted” about this reassociation. But who is opposed to it? The Conservative party.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
We welcome the Minister’s announcement. As a recovering academic—a distinction that I think I share with him—I have witnessed at first hand the impact of our exiting the Erasmus scheme on university student intake. Welcoming students from across the EU into our education institutions and giving our own students opportunities to study abroad have undeniably strengthened our education system, so after years of campaigning, the Liberal Democrats welcome the news that the UK is finally set to rejoin the Erasmus scheme in 2027. However—I am sure the Minister expected there to be a “however”—while this represents an important first step towards building a closer relationship with Europe, I urge him to go further and faster.
Beyond this fixed-term experience of Erasmus+, will the Government commit to a proper youth mobility scheme for the benefit of the next generation, and can he update the House on what progress has been made in such negotiations? How confident is he that our food, drink and sanitary and phytosanitary scheme will be agreed by 2026, and how long thereafter will it take to fully implement the scheme? Agrifood and horticultural businesses cannot afford any further delays.
Finally, on the subject of unnecessary barriers to trade—which is where the Minister began his statement—will his Department commit itself at the very least to conducting a transparent assessment of the potential economic growth benefits of a UK-EU customs deal of the kind that the House voted for last week?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
We are aiming to conclude negotiations on the youth experience scheme by the next summit—which I see in the context of the 13 youth mobility schemes that already exist, many of them signed by the previous Government, although the Conservatives seem to have a collective amnesia about it nowadays—together with the linking of our emissions trading systems and the food and drink agreement. The hon. Gentleman asked me a direct question about the implementation of that agreement. I want to see it implemented by the first half of 2027, which will mean bringing a piece of legislation to Parliament in 2026 and then getting it through Parliament. I hope that, whatever our views may be, we will have support in doing that as quickly as possible in 2027.
Let me, for a moment, speak more broadly about Erasmus+—and, indeed, this applies to the youth experience scheme as well. I want both schemes to be open to people from all backgrounds across the United Kingdom. People often refer to Erasmus+ as a university exchange programme, and of course that is a vital part of it, but it is not just a university exchange programme; it is accessible across the country. I have been looking at, for example, the Welsh Government’s Taith programme, which has done an extremely good job with regard to accessibility. Where there is there are lessons to be learned from that, we will absolutely learn them.
Where I disagree with the hon. Gentleman is, of course, on the issue of the customs union, because the Government has only in recent days signed an additional free trade agreement with South Korea, and we also have the economic deal with the United States and the free trade deal with India. All those would have to be torn up if we went down the path that he has suggested.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the announcement that the UK will rejoin Erasmus+. I had the opportunity to live and work in Europe as a young person aged 18, and it was an experience that has continued to benefit me throughout my life. I particularly welcome the extension of the scheme beyond study, and the Government’s desire to extend that opportunity to young people from all backgrounds. It is one of the very many detriments of Brexit that young people were denied the opportunity to live and work and study through the Erasmus scheme.
Having announced this welcome development, can the Minister confirm that he will now be turning his attention to some of the other detriments that continue to be experienced, particularly by small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency, as a consequence of the inability to trade in Europe because of barriers resulting from Brexit? Can he confirm that work is ongoing in that regard, and that all options that are in the national interest will remain on the table?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is quite right. Tens of thousands more people, many of them young people, will benefit from the accession to Erasmus+, although I seriously think, on the basis of what the shadow Minister said, that the Conservatives will go into the next election opposing those additional opportunities for people. As for my hon. Friend’s second point about reducing trade barriers, since Brexit 16,000 businesses have stopped trading with the EU altogether, and as for the food and drink agreement, she can be assured that work is ongoing to seek to complete those negotiations by the time of the next summit.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
In his white shirt and red tie, the Minister is doing a very good impression of Santa making an early visit. The announcements that he has made this afternoon are—I think—to be warmly welcomed, and he is to be personally congratulated on the good faith and patience that he has shown in his conversations with Maroš Šefčovič and others. That is clearly paying dividends.
Does the Minister agree that those of us on the Opposition Benches who last week voted against the idiotic proposal from the Liberal Democrats for a customs union have been proved right and then wrong, because the evolution of the relationship within the guardrails of the existing arrangement are the way to go, preserving those new free trade deals and seeing them extended while encouraging businesses to trade with Europe?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Absolutely. As always, the hon. Gentleman has made a sensible, well-informed contribution, and I am grateful for his kind words and his personal congratulation, which is deeply appreciated. He is entirely right: there is a set of guardrails that constitute this Government’s democratic mandate not to rejoin the single market or the customs union, or to go back to freedom of movement. We are exercising that independent trade policy, as has been seen in recent days in respect of the deal with South Korea. Within that framework, today’s announcement shows that the negotiations are progressing and delivering tangible results for the British people.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We have less than 45 minutes for this statement, so questions must be short.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his announcement on Erasmus+, which is hugely welcome news for students and for my youngest constituents in Stratford and Bow. Before I came to this place I worked with the Mayor of London in calling for an Erasmus scheme, and the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, of which I am a member, has called for it constantly, alongside our European partners. We want students to have the same chances of opportunity that we had, so that they do not suffer the consequences of a Brexit that they had no say in. Can the Minister outline the next steps in the UK’s participation?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she does in the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, and I am grateful for the work that is done by that group more broadly. Clearly, there now needs to be the appointment of a national agency. I am sure the House will appreciate that it is a commercially sensitive matter, but I certainly hope to be doing that very soon in order to make sure that we have all that we need in place to support those who would like to participate from 2027. There will be great opportunities available, and I look forward to doing all I can as a Minister to support people into them.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Minister’s statement did not seem to say what the contribution to the EU will be, but media reports suggest £570 million. By opening our borders, we will have youth workers and others coming to the UK at a time of rising unemployment. Could he confirm the amount that will be paid? Will it be more than what will be raised through the family farm tax, which the Budget said will only raise up to £500 million a year, even at the end of this Parliament?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
We would expect the price to be £810 million. With the discount, it is £570 million. However, the right hon. Gentleman completely misunderstands the situation, because a substantial amount of that money will come back in the form of grants to our own people who are applying to be on the scheme. On his point about value for money, I have made sure that the argument about having a fair balance is embedded. That is the basis on which we will continue, but after 10 months there will be a review that looks at the balance between contribution and participation. If he wants to do something useful to address that balance, he could encourage his own constituents to participate.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I am a proud Erasmus graduate and the first in my family to go to university. As I was a carer for my late mother, I did not study abroad. I stayed at home and commuted to university, so Erasmus was the first time I was able to experience that. Many years on, I still have connections and friendships that were formed through the scheme, and it is good to know that young people in my constituency will be able to benefit from it. It is so, so vital. Can the Minister outline the timeframe a bit more, so that we can make sure that this is rolled out not just to young people in university but to apprentices, young workers and those studying, to make sure that they get life skills and experiences that are so rich and that will stay with them for life?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend speaks powerfully about the transformative experience that she had. My aim today is to have, in years to come, others who can speak similarly of the transformative experience that they have had. With regard to moving forward, it will first be about the appointment of a national agency. It will then be about doing really important work next year to get the application process up and running, and about making sure that people have the necessary information and are supported to be able to take advantage of the wonderful opportunities that will be coming in 2027.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Hallelujah! It feels like some common sense is finally re-entering this debate, and I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement. So do my constituents in Oxford West and Abingdon who wrote to me at the time. Many were literally in tears because they were worried that they would not be able to participate—in fact, they could not do so. But I do hear what others are saying. They are trying to pooh-pooh how much this agreement is worth. It is not just about the money, but there is money to be recouped here and there will have been an impact assessment. How much is this worth to the UK economy now and going forward?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First, I cannot better the first word of the hon. Lady’s contribution. As we move forward, we will make the kinds of assessments that she talks about, and she is absolutely right to say that the agreement will make a significant contribution to our workforce and, indeed, to our economy. Despite the chuntering from Conservative Members, this is not only about money; it is also about the fact that young people’s lives, and indeed adult learners’ lives, are going to be enriched in so many ways. This is something we should celebrate across the House.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the Minister on doing what many of us have felt has been needed in the relationship between the European Union and the UK: what therapists call “active listening”. He is actually listening to our neighbours, finding out what they are interested in and where we can do a deal, and recognising that those in a relationship who keep making random demands—whether they are about a customs union, rejoining the EU or fish—fail to recognise the importance of communication to negotiation. I note that the original wreckers of this relationship have not turned up today to explain to Britain’s young people, who have borne the consequences of their bad behaviour, why they felt that it was necessary.
The Minister will know that many more people in our constituencies are now looking at the work he is doing to repair the UK-EU relationship, and seeking some Christmas cheer. For all the businesses still facing piles of paperwork and mountains of red tape, can he play Santa a little bit more and tell us what 2026 might bring in resetting the relationship and getting Britain back on track with its neighbours?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I pay a warm tribute to my hon. Friend for the campaigning work that she does on this issue. At the next UK-EU summit in 2026, we will seek to complete the negotiations on a food and drink agreement, which would mean less red tape and less cost for businesses; on the linkage of our emissions trading system, so that we do not have our businesses levied with carbon taxes; and on the youth experience scheme, so that we have even more opportunities for our young people. That will be a positive 2026.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I thank the Minister for the work he did in another capacity on behalf of the victims, and the relatives of the victims, of the infected blood scandal? He did a very good job, and he reached out to us in a much-appreciated, non-partisan way.
This statement is entitled “UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations”. Is it his understanding, as the Minister for EU relations, that the people with whom he is having dealings are still bent on the creation of a federal United States of Europe? [Interruption.] Do I detect some chuntering on the Government Benches to suggest that some people in this House might want to be a part of that?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I think the second part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question is best directed to the European Commission. In relation to the first part of his question, he knows that I have always worked cross-party on infected blood, and it is important that I continue to do so.
On working with our European friends and neighbours—whether it is the work that the Prime Minister is doing in leading the coalition of the willing, or the painstaking work that we have been doing in recent days on Russian assets—the close relationship and strategic partnership between the UK and the EU is crucial for our nation’s security.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
I really welcome the return of Erasmus and the opportunity for young people in Hastings and Rye to study and train in Europe again. As a coastal town, we also want to see the return of our closest link with our European neighbours through bringing back international trains to Ashford International, which this Labour Government support. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I hear many south-east colleagues echoing that call. Could the Minister, in his discussions with European colleagues, encourage discussions with Eurostar and urge Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Trains, which will soon be running trains on the line, to stop at Ashford International?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I think my hon. Friend has managed to create some cross-party consensus, which is pleasing to see. She makes a very powerful case. Whether it is the particular issue of Ashford International or many other transport-related issues, my door is always open for discussions. I would very much welcome her making formal representations to me as well.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I am afraid to say that it is almost 30 years since I made the transformative journey from Dundee to Antwerp for my Erasmus experience. I thank the Minister, because there is some progress in this area. May I ask him a couple of practical questions? First, obviously there is a different higher education system in Scotland, and Scottish universities are very involved in this. How will the financial mechanisms work? Has he worked that out with the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations? Secondly, I want to see all young people have the opportunities that he and I enjoyed. When will we see a return to freedom of movement for our young people entirely?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will disappoint the hon. Gentleman on his last point, because we will not be going back to freedom of movement. However, on his first question, I was talking to the Scottish Government only first thing this morning, and the same issue was raised. Obviously, this does not affect the home fees position, which, by the way, is distinct in England, Scotland and indeed Wales. In the university context that he is talking about, someone would have their home fees position, but, for example, they could take a gap year to take advantage of the Erasmus+ opportunity. I am pleased to hear that Erasmus+ was transformative for him in Antwerp, and I hope we will soon have many more people who can say the same.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I commend my right hon. Friend for his diligent and detailed work on this. It really is proper grown-up politics, as he said. The return of Erasmus will be widely welcomed in Cambridge, where it has helped many young people in the past and will help an even wider group in the future. Could I just press him on the SPS agreement? I think he confirmed that we will see the back of the wretched export health certificates in 2027. If so, it is a fantastic change. Is that correct?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Yes, indeed. There are fees on businesses today—£200 per consignment on export health certificates, £1,400 if a business is selected for sampling, £61 for identity checks—all of which can be swept away when the SPS agreement is implemented. As I said to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), the objective is to implement that in the first half of 2027.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The intentions behind the Erasmus scheme are unobjectionable, but £570 million is an awful lot of money, so I am very pleased that there will be a review after 10 months. Will that review include an assessment of the scheme against what happened in the past, which was essentially to provide a benefit for predominantly middle-class humanities university students, and will he ensure that the opportunity costs to further education, which is tasked with upskilling our young people from a different demographic, are adequately taken into account?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First, to give the right hon. Member some reassurance on further education—by the way, I agree with the point that this has to be open to people from all backgrounds, and I think the Erasmus+ scheme of today is very different from how it was even 10 years ago—the chief executive of the Association of Colleges, which represents our FE sector, has today called this “brilliant news” for staff and students of all ages in further education colleges. I hope that gives him the reassurance that this is not simply about universities, hugely important though our university sector is.
Secondly, on the right hon. Member’s point about the review, it will absolutely be data-led. We have had this debate before about participation versus contribution, and I have always said there has to be a fair balance—that is why I have negotiated the discount in the way I have—but the review will allow us to move forward on the basis of solid data about the numbers of participants. I am always in favour of data-led decision making.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
First, as Chair of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, I welcome the statement. I also commend my right hon. Friend for the stellar job he is doing in showing that this Labour Government are making very good progress on rebuilding our relationships with the EU. Rejoining Erasmus+ is a big win for young people in Battersea and across the country, creating opportunities to study, train, develop new skills, achieve success and, more importantly, thrive. Can he outline a bit more about how young people will be able to access the Erasmus+ scheme?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work she does co-chairing the PPA. In 2026, it is critical that we have both the national agency and the simplest possible process for people to access a very wide range of benefits. I hope that was short enough, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is great to see the Paymaster General at the Dispatch Box, as always, but it would be even better if we could see him at the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which is taking a close interest in the food and drink agreement. May I remind him that Boris Johnson got it badly wrong with the trade and co-operation agreement, because he allowed the political imperative of getting a deal to trump the detail of that deal, and that was because he did not listen to the fishermen, farmers and other food producers? Will he keep them close as he negotiates, and will he come to talk to the Select Committee? We really will not bite him, I promise.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will hold the right hon. Member to that promise. On working with those sectors, he is absolutely right. As we move forward, first, to complete the negotiations for a detailed legal text on the SPS agreement, but also as we move into the implementation phase, everyone understands that we are reducing barriers, cutting red tape and making trade easier. However, we absolutely have to work with our fishers, farmers and all those in the agrifood sector to make that as smooth as possible.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The UK’s return to involvement in Erasmus is hugely welcome not only for my constituents who are at university, but for those learning in schools and FE colleges and working in the sports and youth sectors. Could my right hon. Friend please outline what steps the Government will be taking particularly in relation to those based in sectors not previously involved, so that they can expect to and can plan for their involvement in Erasmus from 2027?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. For example, the first place I wanted to visit this morning was a further education college—the New City college in Hackney—because I am really keen that the FE sector gets the full benefit. She is absolutely right that proactively reaching out to the youth sector, adult learners or staff in professional training will be really important, because people can understand those opportunities if they want to take advantage of them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I have only 20 minutes remaining, so Members must keep their questions short and answers just as short.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Could the Minister just spell out for the House’s benefit how much taxpayers’ money he has signed up to spending next year and in every year of this Parliament? On where Members of Parliament can read about value for money, which line item of the Budget has this money come out of?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
For one year, the figure is £570 million, which is a 30% discount—better than the Conservative party ever achieved—and 10 months in, we will have a full review of both participation and contribution. I say gently to the hon. Lady that, if she is going to go into the next election saying that young people in her constituency who benefit from Erasmus+ should no longer do so, I would welcome that debate.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
As a Member of the UK-EU PPA, I absolutely welcome the statement, particularly that we will be rejoining the Erasmus+ scheme to the benefit of young people in Exeter. We should never have left, and this is the next step in rebuilding relations with our closest neighbours after such a catastrophic period under the previous Government. Does the Minister agree that it is only through co-operation with our closest European neighbours and partners, not isolation, that we will get the cultural, social and economic growth this country really needs?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are mutual benefits and mutual objectives—I am afraid to say that, in modern-day Europe, the UK and the EU also face mutual threats—and closer co-operation to deliver results is absolutely crucial.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
This deal will not give back the futures that were stolen from so many young people by Boris Johnson’s Government, but it does offer such futures to people going forward. It is good work. That said, small, medium-sized and large businesses in Tewkesbury and the economy at large need the Government to stop fumbling around the edges. It is time for the Minister to speak to the Government and get us a customs union with the European Union, is it not?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
It is time to deliver concrete results, and that is exactly what I am doing.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I saw a good joke earlier—a one-liner—that says, “Lib Dem campaigning works!” I do not think so: it is this Labour Government who have delivered the change today.
University of Nottingham staff in my constituency face considerable pressure due to ongoing restructuring. What would the Minister say to those staff, who are under intense pressure, about what this offers at an organisational level for our universities?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. I think this is clearly good news and a good deal for our university sector, which is why both Universities UK and the Russell Group have come out in its support in such glowing terms today.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not being full of Christmas cheer. Although people are welcoming this announcement, businesses in Northern Ireland are being disadvantaged—rising costs, significant trade barriers because of the Windsor framework, delivery not being available a regular problem for online shoppers in Northern Ireland, and the immediate cliff edge for veterinary medicines and import control system 2, as well as type approval for cars. When will this Government stand up for Northern Ireland’s place within the Union and sort out the trade barriers of this internal market?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I spoke to both the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland only this morning to discuss the arrangements around Erasmus+ and the other announcements I have made on electricity. I can assure the hon. Lady, as I am also responsible for the Windsor framework, that it is a top priority for me. It is a top priority as well for the Prime Minister, who has a personal interest in Northern Ireland having been the human rights adviser to the Policing Board. With regard to barriers to trade that the hon. Lady was referring to on the Irish sea, it is precisely pushing forward and getting the SPS deal implemented quickly that will allow us to lower those barriers, which is what I am determined to do.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I also welcome progress on Erasmus, but may I ask about progress on another commitment from the May summit: advance co-operation on foreign information, manipulation and interference, and working together to fight violent extremism including in its online dimension? The UK and the EU do indeed face threats, including threats to our digital sovereignty from the same powerful people, so we need urgently to work together.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, whether in terms of information or, indeed, hybrid warfare. In opposition, I visited Estonia, and other parts of eastern Europe, and I see what is happening on this every day. She is absolutely right about the importance of partnership between the UK and the EU; it is in our national interest.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The news about the reinstatement of the Erasmus scheme is brilliant for our young people. I have heard from language schools in Torbay, particularly International House Torquay, who have taken advantage of the group travel scheme for German students to be able to use just their ID cards to study languages in England. What opportunities does the right hon. Gentleman see of rolling out a similar scheme for Swiss, Italian and Spanish students?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I can update the hon. Gentleman and will write to him on the three specific countries he has mentioned, but I also say that the announcement I have made today on Erasmus+ clearly opens up even more opportunities for schools, which I am sure will be widely welcomed.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call “Christmas jumper” Phil Brickell.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
As a former Erasmus student, I congratulate the Paymaster General on the steely resolve, the pragmatism and the significant progress he has been able to achieve. Only a few weeks ago, two fellow Erasmus students from the UK who I studied with in Germany were in this place. I was with them for the first time in 13 years, and they have messaged me today to congratulate the Government. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is most important to deliver on the concrete commitments agreed with our EU partners at the May summit, as opposed to heeding Lib Dem Members’ siren calls about a supposedly bespoke customs union?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I thank him for his kind words and indeed his two friends and former Erasmus colleagues. I will also, if I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, congratulate him on the Christmas jumper.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I welcome the Erasmus+ agreement as closer ties with Europe are good news for the futures of thousands upon thousands of young people. Since 2022, the Taith programme in Wales has offered life-changing opportunities for people to study abroad after Brexit slammed so many doors shut. Given its implications for Taith, how will Wales’s priorities be reflected in the administration of Erasmus+?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
A Welsh MP negotiated the new agreement, so I hope that is a good start. The right hon. Lady is none the less absolutely right to praise the Welsh Labour Government’s work on the Taith programme; it is great to see her praising the work of the Welsh Labour Government. In November, I spoke to civic society groups and those involved in that Taith outreach and discovered their exemplary work involving students and young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, and I am looking at that work in terms of access to Erasmus+.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s focus on jobs, bills and borders as part of a pragmatic and balanced reset of our relationship with the European Union. I have already heard from constituents like Robert in Boscombe, who welcomes the fact that the UK will be rejoining Erasmus. When a Government invest in our children, our country starts to care about our future again. Will the Minister update the House on progress towards a youth mobility scheme, and on what role he sees English language schools playing in our future economy as we bring European students to Bournemouth?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
It is always good to hear from my hon. Friend, and indeed from Robert. As I indicated, we will look to have agreed the youth experience scheme by the time of the next UK-EU summit and my hon. Friend can be assured that it will be a priority for the Government.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Mandatory method of production labelling on animal-derived products could improve animal welfare and increase UK farm profits by over £46 million annually, but we must make sure that the UK-EU SPS agreement is aligned on standards and quality so that British farmers in Glastonbury and Somerton and across the country are not undercut by lower welfare imports. Can the Minister outline what progress has been made on negotiating a comprehensive SPS agreement?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
SPS negotiations are under way and we want to complete them by the time of the next summit. If the hon. Lady writes to me on the specific issue she raised, I will address it in detail.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I refer colleagues to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the Minister for his statement, although I am trying hard to visualise him playing basketball at Hackney college this morning. Perhaps photographs are available to confirm that it actually happened—apologies for that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Some 73% of university-age young people voted against Brexit—they voted to remain in the EU—so Erasmus always felt like a spiteful act, and I am really pleased that we are able to correct that injustice today. I worked in the university sector for almost 30 years before being elected to this place—hard to believe, I know—so I understand the benefits of Erasmus, but I do agree with the Minister that it was not a completely democratic process, and that it was middle-class students who tended to take part. How will he ensure that that changes? Will there be monitoring, perhaps, or will he consider targets?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. A tip for other questioners: the question does not require a preamble.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I may have been putting it a bit high when I said that I was playing basketball, but I did contribute in my own way.
On my hon. Friend’s second point, obviously the Erasmus+ programme has changed so that a wider range of activities is available, from youth work and adult education to sports, but there is also additional support in Erasmus for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. My hon. Friend is right about monitoring it, but my priority for the next few months will be driving that participation in the first place.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I thank the Minister for what is a clear Lib Dem win. I repeat the question from my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), on the need for a transparent assessment of the potential economic growth benefits of a customs deal. In three years, we will all be seeking a new mandate, and if we can really understand the potential economic benefits at that point, our residents and citizens will be able to make an informed decision. Can I please encourage the Minister to give a second thought to that study?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I have a bit of bad news for the hon. Gentleman: it is a Labour win, I am afraid. On his second point, if he wants to discuss the customs union, a good starting point might be the workers at Jaguar Land Rover.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. As he will be aware, my constituency of Harlow has a lower than average number of young people going to university, which is something that I would like to see addressed. However, can he talk me through the benefits of the Erasmus+ scheme for young people in Harlow who do not go on to university education?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When I spoke this morning, I had in my mind someone who wants to do some basketball coaching, or perhaps an engineer on an apprenticeship who has chosen not to go to university but who might well, none the less, want to go on a placement abroad. Those are just some examples of the wide range of benefits that I hope his constituents in Harlow will be able to benefit from.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I warmly welcome the Erasmus agreement that the Minister has announced, which is a Christmas present for young people. Turning to the SPS agreement that he is negotiating, I hope that those negotiations will be just as successful because that is undoubtedly in the best interests of this country. Can he confirm for me and some very invested constituents of mine that bivalve molluscs, or mussels, will be included in the SPS agreement that he is currently negotiating?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First of all, the SPS agreement is a great priority. I am fully aware of the issue with bivalve molluscs, or indeed—from memory—shellfish from class B waters. I am willing to speak directly to the hon. Lady about bivalve molluscs—perhaps she will write to me about that—but I can tell her that the SPS agreement will mean that for products we currently cannot export to the EU, such as British bangers, we will be able to do so again.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend expect the new agency with responsibility for Erasmus+ to work with the excellent Erasmus Student Network UK to promote these brilliant new opportunities for our young people, including in higher and further education institutions in Scotland?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I would certainly expect to see that collaborative approach.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
My constituents will be delighted that the Government are returning the UK to Erasmus+. One of my constituents wrote to me this morning:
“It is a win for those of us who think that international learning should be open to all, not just the children of the rich who can afford international fees.”
But, she said:
“It is too late for me. I was 11 when Brexit happened and I am now 21, and in my last year of university.”
Will the Government undo the wrongs done to such kids by the last Conservative Government, and go further and faster by committing to a youth mobility scheme?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The Government are already committed to a youth experience scheme by the time of the next UK-EU summit. Whether it is through Erasmus+ today or the youth experience scheme, this Government are delivering concrete benefits and opportunities for young people.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Whatever one’s view of Brexit, leaving the Erasmus scheme was unambiguously an act of self-harm, denying the opportunity for thousands of young people across the country to study and learn abroad. I congratulate the Minister on re-securing those benefits, but they cannot just be the preserve of a narrow few. How can we ensure that a far wider group of young people in my constituency are able to benefit from the new scheme?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about spreading these opportunities to people of all backgrounds. I will drive forward work as the Minister, but I say to colleagues from across the House that speaking in favour of this scheme to our constituents is something that we collectively, as Members of Parliament, can do.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I welcome today’s announcement, which will be of huge benefit to students from my constituency. Does the Minister agree that all young people from all backgrounds deserve to be able to work and study in Europe, and that the Conservative party should apologise for snatching opportunities away from an entire generation?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I entirely agree with the hon. Member on the spreading of opportunities. Frankly, I am absolutely baffled by the position of those on the Opposition Front Bench.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
As the son of a Deutschlehrer, may I say danke, because Christmas has come early for the young people and teachers in my constituency? Does the Minister agree that greater co-operation and friendship across Europe and beyond is the best way forward for our world and for our country, and that perhaps that is why those with EU derangement syndrome are so opposed to his policy?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Our co-operative, grown-up approach is delivering results and benefits for people here in the United Kingdom. I am proud of that approach, and it is what delivers.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
This scheme will help countless young people from Wokingham to gain invaluable life experiences and it is to be welcomed. The Minister says that the Conservative Brexit deal was a bad deal. Will he therefore look to correct it and begin negotiations on a bespoke UK-EU customs union, which would cut the endless red tape and free up many Wokingham businesses to do business with their European customers? A bespoke deal could raise £25 billion—far better than increasing national insurance contributions.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The hon. Gentleman is very welcome to continue debating. While he is doing that, I will correct the iniquities in the previous deal every working day.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
It was Christmas eve five years ago when Boris Johnson signed his fateful deal, which took away opportunities for young people and kicked us out of Erasmus. I thank the Minister for exorcising that ghost of Christmas past. Does he agree that the message we have heard in the Chamber today is that the Conservative party wants to keep opportunities locked away from young people, that Reform cares so little it has not even shown up, and that those who want to extend opportunities for our young people need to back a Labour Government?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
One hundred per cent. It is this Labour Government who are delivering for our young people.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister as heartily as everyone else has on bringing the UK back into Erasmus and ensuring that people from all backgrounds, including university students, can once again enjoy the opportunities that the Tory Brexit took away. Part of my Chelsea and Fulham constituency ranks among the 12th most deprived areas in the United Kingdom. I am looking forward, I should tell the Minister, to helping the young people there to seize the new opportunities. May I encourage the Minister to also be ambitious in concluding a youth experience scheme, which would further restore the opportunities that our young people deserve?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Absolutely. Indeed, by the time of the next UK-EU summit, we hope to have concluded negotiations on the linking of our emissions trading systems, on the food and drink agreement, and on the youth experience scheme.
Local Government Finance
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)
On 20 November, my Department published a policy statement setting out our approach to the first multi-year local government finance settlement in a decade. Today, we publish the provisional settlement itself and launch our formal consultation on the proposals. It represents the choices we are making as a Government. Unlike the Tories, we will not look the other way as poverty gets worse. We will not ignore the economic and social costs of deprivation. The spending review announced over £5 billion of new grant funding for local services over the multi-year settlement period. That includes £3.4 billion of new grant funding being delivered through this settlement.
Before I give more details, I want to make this point. For 14 years, the Tories decimated local government, asking local leaders to do more with less, and that had consequences. Local high streets are always changing, but deprived towns saw more empty shops, more vape shops and more pawnbrokers than other places. Their councils did not have the resources to do anything about it. In 2019, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy found that nearly 800 libraries had closed since 2010. In 2022, The Guardian newspaper uncovered a real-terms annual cut of nearly £330 million to the upkeep of our local parks, with the biggest cuts in the poorest parts of the country. The last decade and a half of austerity impacted every community, but the very worst effects were felt by people living in the most deprived areas—and that was a choice.
By breaking the link between funding and deprivation, the Tories punished poorer councils. Year after year, they exacerbated inequality. As a result, too many places in this country feel forgotten and left to fend for themselves. The answer is not Reform’s return to austerity or the Tories’ carping from the sidelines; it is to use the best data we have available to redesign the funding system so that deprivation is recognised and addressed within the settlement. That is why the figures we are publishing today are derived using the very latest data from the 2025 index of multiple deprivation released at the end of October this year. It is why, according to our analysis, whereas under the old system deprivation scores could account for only 25% of variation in per capita funding applications, under this settlement it is up to 75%, with other important factors such as coastline, miles of road or visitor numbers making up the rest.
In addition, we are giving councils more certainty with the first multi-year settlement in a decade, allowing local leaders to focus on long-term investment and change. We are addressing the damage of austerity by maintaining the £600 million recovery grant allocations from 2025-26, targeted towards those most impacted by the cuts, and introducing a recovery grant guarantee, providing an above-real-terms increase to social care authorities that received the grant last year.
We are supporting local authorities through change by providing funding floors and phasing in new allocations across the multi-year settlement. We are improving efficiency and value for money by simplifying an unprecedented 36 funding streams, worth more than £56 billion over the multi-year settlement. We are resetting the business rates retention system to restore the balance between aligning funding with need and rewarding local growth, and unlocking the dream of home ownership for more people by boosting real incentives for councils to build new homes. We know that councils are concerned about what will happen at the next spending review, so we will keep working closely with them to avoid cliff edges in funding.
This settlement is our most significant move yet to make English local government sustainable at last. It will take overall core spending power for local government to over £84.6 billion by ’28-29—equivalent to a 15% cash-terms increase compared with ’25-26. The Labour Government have made it clear that we back local government through action. Since coming into power, we have made available a 23.6% increase in core spending power in ’28-29 compared with ’24-25.
However, we have to do more, because the previous Government’s funding system left local government in chaos. Social care costs were soaring out of control, with very little focus on prevention. Children’s social care, the impact of a failing special educational needs and disabilities system, and the spiralling costs of homelessness and temporary accommodation have destabilised council funding, even where councils have acted judiciously to protect the public pound through this difficult era. That is why we need national change to empower local councils to maximise the benefit of this announcement.
The Government are building a national care service based on higher quality of care, greater choice and control and better integration. This is backed by around £4.5 billion of additional funding made available for adult social care in ’28-29, compared with ’25-26. We are changing children’s social care through the families first partnership, funded with £2.5 billion over the next three years, because all children deserve good parenting and a loving home environment—and we know that costs less in the long run, too.
The children’s social care residential market is broken, and we are taking action. Using powers in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the Housing and Education Secretaries will explore how we might implement a profit cap in the children’s social care placement market, which would be a crucial step in ensuring that public money delivers value and care, not profiteering. We will set out further information on our approach in 2026.
On special educational needs and disabilities, in the new year the Government will bring forward the schools White Paper, which will set out ambitious plans to reform special educational needs provision. But we recognise the impacts of the dedicated schools grant deficits on local authorities’ accounts. In future, special educational needs provision will be funded by central Government; local authorities will not be expected to fund costs from general funds once the statutory override ends in March 2028. We will provide further details on our plans to support local authorities with those deficits later in the settlement process.
On homelessness, Members have already heard me acknowledge that temporary accommodation is another growing financial pressure on councils, with spend reaching nearly £3 billion in ’24-25. Last week, we published the national plan to end homelessness—our strategy to prevent homelessness before it occurs. We have set clear objectives to get our children out of costly B&Bs and to help councils to balance the books.
The Government intend to maintain a core 3% council tax referendum principle and a 2% adult social care precept for the vast majority of councils. We are committed to ensuring that the funding system is fair for taxpayers throughout the country. In some areas, council tax levels are radically lower than others. Council tax bills for £10 million houses in some of the wealthiest parts of the country can be less than what an ordinary working family pays in places like Blackpool or Darlington.
The Government plan to lift referendum principles in ’27-28 and ’28-29 for Wandsworth, Westminster, Hammersmith and Fulham, City of London, Kensington and Chelsea and Windsor and Maidenhead. This change will improve fairness, as taxpayers in those councils have the lowest bills in the country, and this year paid up to £1,280 less than the average council taxpayer. It will enable the Government to allocate more than £250 million of funding in the system more fairly, instead of subsidising bills for the half a million households in those council areas. It will also provide greater flexibility for those authorities in deciding how to manage their finances following our reforms. The councils will decide on the level of council tax increase to set and whether to draw on the relatively high alternative sources of income from which a number of them benefit.
We know that adapting to our reforms will take time. We will therefore continue to have a support framework in place next year to help authorities in challenging positions. Following precedent set by previous Governments, councils in significant financial difficulty can request additional flexibility from the Government. In making that decision the Government have been clear, unlike the Tories, that they will not agree to increases where the council has above-average council tax. In recognition of cost of living pressures, each application will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and decisions will reflect the support offered to low-income and vulnerable residents.
In closing, I go back to the libraries that have been closed and the parks that have been neglected. Under this Labour Government not only is our Chancellor of the Exchequer making sure that our schools have libraries, but we are making sure through this funding that councils can ensure that parks are good for our children to play in. We can never turn the clock back—we cannot undo all the past damage to councils—but we can change town hall finances so that councillors battling the consequences of poverty have a Government who are on their side for once.
We said we would restore the link between funding and deprivation, and today we are doing exactly that. There will be no more forgotten people left to fend for themselves and no more forgotten places sneered at by Conservative Members, but a fighting chance for every place in this country. I commend this statement to the House.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is no surprise that the Government sought to sneak this consultation out with the minimum level of attention, proposed, as it was, for simply a written ministerial statement at the last possible second. We can all see that poverty is rising, driven by a shrinking economy and rising unemployment, combined with inflation running at 3.6% and higher energy bills. Rising business rates are crippling our businesses, and local communities everywhere are feeling the pressure created by this Government’s choices.
How does the settlement help our councils to deal with all that? First, it assumes that working people—all people—will pay higher taxes everywhere. We should not misunderstand the Minister’s words on core spending power. The settlement enshrines an assumption that taxes will rise to the maximum possible extent everywhere, with fees and charges for parking, libraries and everything else following the same trajectory. Even if the inflation target of 2% is reached—which seems unlikely given that it is currently at 3.6%—the increase represents a 1% uplift for local government during the whole life of this Parliament, and that sector was left £1.5 billion worse off by the rise in national insurance contributions alone.
Resources at a local level are going backwards. This is a settlement that punishes efficiency, with those councils that deliver the best value for money being raided to bail out the more spendthrift—and I am sure we can guess which parties tend to run those councils. It is a settlement that introduces new, higher taxes on hospitality—voted for by every party in this Chamber besides the Conservatives—bearing down on investment and opportunity. It brings in a homes tax on more expensive homes—money that goes to the Treasury, not councils. In the Red Book, that is estimated to cost the Government a net £335 million due to the damage it does to the housing market. Only this hapless Labour Government could bring in new taxes that actually cost the Treasury money—and here they go again.
This settlement repeats the fallacy that poverty is the only driver of council costs. The average English local authority delivers more than 800 different services. Our rural coastal areas, and anywhere else with lots of retirees, face the high costs of adult social care but do not necessarily score highly on indices of deprivation, despite the costs being driven by statutory duties. The undertaker Prime Minister is ushering many councils towards their financial doom. As this Government hammer Wychavon and Stratford-on-Avon, they are also hammering Ashfield, Dartford, Burnley, Cambridge, Hyndburn, Lichfield and Bolsover, which are among the places worst hit by this financial settlement.
The Government’s detachment from the consequences of their actions is striking, and all while the Prime Minister and the Chancellor dodge the new high-value council tax in their grace and favour accommodation. All this is behind the smoke and mirrors that disguise from our local authorities the financial impact. They have been required to carry out their public budget consultations without having had sight of the impact of this settlement.
Let me conclude with some straightforward questions. Will the Minister tell the House when our locally elected brethren will learn the net impact of this settlement on their council tax budgets? When will we debate the impact of the Government’s cuts to SEND capital funding? When will the House have the opportunity to scrutinise their decision to impose exceptional financial support or higher council tax rises to bail out the consequences of their decisions? When will they provide clarity on the impact of their SEND proposals on council budgets? How will the Government use the budgets allocated to the new devolution areas and now snatched back to mitigate the impact of their decisions?
Will the Minister admit to the House that this is a tax-raising, job-destroying, housing-hobbling, rate-raising, service-slashing, community-crippling, election-cancelling settlement that fails even on its intended purpose of shunting resources to politically favoured areas?
Alison McGovern
I can hardly wonder at getting that purely political response when I made the perfectly legitimate political point that under the Tories a lot of councils were dealt very bad funding settlements indeed. We do not need to trade political insults to see the libraries closed, the parks left unmaintained and the damage done to councils, but I look forward to discussing this issue with the hon. Member across the Dispatch Box as we move forward, once he has talked to his own councils about the funding settlement they will be receiving.
The hon. Member asked some slightly more important questions, particularly on SEND. He will know that this is primarily a matter of getting the absolute best outcome for our children. The Department for Education will bring forward plans in the new year, and I am working closely with Ministers in that Department to ensure that we get it right. I mentioned some of the details in my statement.
I do not recognise the picture described by the hon. Member on devolution, and I feel confident in saying that nor would the Minister for devolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), who is in her place. She announced significant investment for the places affected, and we all look forward to working with areas up and down the country to ensure that our country grows as we wish it to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for her statement. I know she has been working really hard on this issue since she took on the role a few months ago. She is aware of the many pressing issues facing councils up and down the country—from SEND to temporary accommodation, housing and adult social care—and 14 years of under-investment will not be reversed by one funding settlement. It is therefore important that we continue to work with councils.
This is the first multi-year settlement in a decade, which will help our local leaders in planning for the future and, most importantly, planning for their local residents. I welcome the inclusion of local housing costs in the new funding formula, but ultimately it does not take in local housing allowance, which the Minister knows has been frozen for many years and is still causing a lot of pressure for councils.
The Minister mentioned that the Government will be looking at the council tax freeze in some areas, and at lifting referendum principles. She knows there is growing consensus on wholescale council tax reform instead of us tweaking it. It is the most regressive form of taxation and there is inequality across the country. Will the Minister look at what the Committee’s report says about a wholescale review of council tax banding, so that local leaders can have funding to spend on their local areas, and make sure that other areas see that funding come through?
Alison McGovern
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for that comprehensive run through all the issues. She is right that we need not just funding but policy change to get councils to financial sustainability. I look forward to discussing that with my hon. Friend and her Committee. She also asked about council tax reform, which was not the subject of my statement, but I have no doubt that she will be asking me about it again in the near future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. The Liberal Democrats welcome the fact that this is a multi-year settlement, which gives councils a greater degree of certainty and the ability to plan ahead. We have long called for that. However, a longer settlement on its own does not resolve the deep financial instability facing local government. The Minister is right to say that social care, SEND and homelessness costs are destabilising council finances—a direct result of years of Conservative neglect—but recognising the problem is not the same as resolving it.
It will take us and council teams time to review the detail of the settlement and understand what it means in reality for local government. However, early conversations with local government colleagues have highlighted a concerning lack of clarity on the SEND debt. The settlement provides minimal information on how councils are to manage SEND costs until 2028, or how existing deficits will be resolved. Can the Minister provide a clear timeline for when councils will receive certainty on the SEND deficit? Without one, responsible financial planning is simply not possible.
I also seek clarity on the issue of social care. Although the statement includes various measures to try to address the social care crisis, the reality is that that will be swept away by the rising scale of need and the costs of social care. When will the Government finally bring forward a fully funded, long-term plan for adult social care reform that ensures that local authority funding settlements are not undermined by the escalating costs of a social care system that is bankrupting councils and placing unsustainable pressure on the NHS?
Alison McGovern
The hon. Lady mentions multi-year settlements alone not being the answer—no, but they do help. That relates to her two other points on SEND and social care, because multi-year settlements allow councils to plan properly and undertake commissioning activities over a longer period of time. That was our objective, which we have achieved with this. She asked for more details on SEND. I mentioned in my statement that local authorities will not be expected to fund costs from general funds once the statutory override ends in 2028. We will have more to say on that throughout this settlement process.
The hon. Lady asked about adult social care. Significant reform is needed there, but I do not think that anybody could say that we have not done anything. We are building a national care service, backed by about £4.5 billion of additional funding for adult social care in 2028-29, compared with 2025-26, including £500 million for the first ever fair pay agreement. I will never forget visiting care homes after they had got through the hell of covid. All that we do on social care has to back those people who did the most when our country needed them.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Members will have seen that many want to speak, so I make a plea to help one another out and keep questions and answers concise.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement. I particularly welcome the restoration of the link between funding for local government and deprivation, and the inclusion of housing costs within the measure of deprivation. It makes no sense to do anything other than that.
Even with the funding settlement, the financial situation will continue to be very challenging for my local authorities of Lambeth and Southwark without meaningful support from the Government with the costs of temporary accommodation. When does the Minister expect to be able to set out more detail on how councils will be supported to reduce the need for temporary accommodation and to bring the costs down?
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend, who chairs the Education Committee, will know that it is not just the cost of temporary accommodation to councils; it is also the cost of children’s schooling. Last week I set out our strategy to counteract that terrible phenomenon and I will talk in detail to councils in the weeks and months to come to do exactly as she asks.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I thank the Minister and her officials for their work—it is the most painful task to have to pull all this together and they are all to be commended. I agree with her that multi-year settlements should lead to smarter commissioning, which should then deliver greater return on the money. She will know that the cost of delivering services in rural areas is higher—everyone across the House recognises that—so can she say what this proposed settlement will do specifically to address that and allow equity of opportunity in access to services, whether one is an urban or rural resident?
Alison McGovern
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight how we have to do things differently in rural areas, and we have tried to take account of that need. That is why we are including a journey times adjustment in our assessment of cost for all services. We are also increasing the cap in the home-to-school transport formula from 20 miles to 50 miles, in recognition of the fact that the original distance cap would penalise local authorities that have no choice but to place children further from home. We are also including a remoteness adjustment in the adult social care formula to address the point that he mentions. Overall, the point cannot be made enough that we have to do things differently in rural areas, and we all need to take account of that.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
The fair funding review is significant. It is the first multi-year settlement for a decade, and the first real attempt at fairly distributing resources based on need, cost and the ability to raise revenue locally. It represents a serious piece of work by decent public servants, and I pay tribute to the finance team in my hon. Friend’s Department. The consultation asked councils to make their case for adjustments. London councils asked for housing to be included in the measure of deprivation, and we can see that in some of the changes that have been made, but that sees a significant shift towards London. The recovery grant has made a significant difference and I am pleased to see it continue, but it shows that fundamentally the formula is not yet picking up the real cost pressures being felt by local government as a result of the previous Government.
Much has been said about council tax, but the inequality goes much further, as the Minister knows: our car parking income is £2 million, but Westminster city council alone generates £90 million. That is more than the entire recovery grant for Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Sheffield and Leeds combined, so there are much wider structural issues that need to be addressed. My hon. Friend will also know that, despite best endeavours, councils will still find this settlement very challenging and that bigger reforms are needed, so can she make the case—I know she will—to her colleagues in the Treasury that, if the Government want the benefit to be felt on every street in every community, in the end local government will need more money put into the pot more generally?
Alison McGovern
First, I must pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on this. I might be putting the ball in the net today, but he was the midfielder who created the goal. It is his work to reconnect deprivation and council funding that we are delivering today, and I pay massive tribute to him. He asked whether we might go further to persuade our Treasury colleagues to invest in local government. I think that the best way to do that—I will welcome his support in this—is to show the results that councils get when they are properly invested in. We see that nowhere more than in his home city region of Greater Manchester and his council of Oldham, which show time and again that they provide value for money and they are growing our economy.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Minister said in her statement that she did not want to look the other way, but in reality this Government are looking the other way when it comes to rural communities. I listened carefully to the answers she gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), but the fact is that, with the exception of adult social care, rurality has been taken out of formula decisions. Can she come to the Dispatch Box and say how areas such as Buckinghamshire, which I am lucky enough to represent, are going to be properly funded, given our rural nature?
Alison McGovern
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman was listening when I gave my earlier answer on rurality. We have recognised where there are extra cost pressures, and I will happily discuss this in detail with him if he wishes. This is recognised in the statement and in the data that we have taken account of. The new deprivation statistics are much more fine-grained, and they can find poverty wherever it is, whether it is in a town, a city, a village, a rural area or wherever.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I do not know whether my hon. Friend is as surprised as I am that the official Opposition could not even bear to mention the word “austerity” when they responded. Before we move on, there was a case of amnesia from the Lib Dems, who forget their role, under the coalition Government, in some of the worse cuts of all that local government experienced. I therefore welcome the Minister’s comments about deprivation. The poorest councils got hit hardest during austerity by the Conservatives. I thank her for putting tackling deprivation at the heart of this settlement.
I have two challenges. The Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), reiterated what we said in the Select Committee in the last Parliament: council tax is regressive and has to be reformed. The Minister mentioned the need for long-term changes to the whole way in which social care is funded. Would she at least begin a conversation across parties to try to get long-term agreement about how this should be done? It has failed over and over again through parties squabbling over the details. We need a long-term settlement. Can we at least start those conversations now?
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend is extremely experienced in these matters and remembers, as I do, the impossible situation that councils, particularly in the poorest areas, were put in under the Tory Government. He is right to point out that the Lib Dems did play a small role in that, too. On his questions, I always read in detail the Select Committee’s reports, and I will do that with the ones he mentions. The Government have set out the pathway, making the immediate change that I said on social care and asking Baroness Casey to drive us towards that long-term vision that he points out. That is exactly what we need to do; we need to fix this for the long term.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Westmorland and Furness is an extremely well-run council and an extremely unusual one as well. It is England’s most rural council. It is the council that accepts the highest number of visitors—non-resident population—as we support everybody else’s constituents, who make up the 15 million who come to our district every year. The council has some of the poorest wards in the country. It is the host of Barrow, which is the centre of the UK’s defence industry, and it has the highest percentage of people in social care. This formula will leave us unusually crippled. We think it will mean a 13% cut to our budgets over the next three years. Given that we are so unusual, will the Minister unusually agree to meet me, her hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham) and local council leaders, so we can work out an unusual solution to this wonderful but unusual council’s problems?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and his description of his unusual and wonderful area. I do not recognise the figures he mentioned just then, but I will happily meet him and any colleagues he wants to bring, and we will go through the numbers together in detail.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement and welcome her commitment to restoring fairness to the heart of the local government financial settlement, giving our councils the long-term certainty they have been crying out for. The Conservatives were a disaster for local government. In both Cheshire authorities, 70p in every pound is now spent on looking after vulnerable adults and children, leaving the remainder to fund every other essential service. That is to say nothing of the ballooning dedicated schools grant deficit. The Conservatives left our communities struggling with deteriorating infrastructure and under-resourced essential services. Can she say more about what this settlement means for my constituents in Northwich, Winsford and Middlewich? Can she possibility provide us with an indication of when councils will get some certainty over what the future holds for the statutory override, so that we can see those dedicated schools grant deficits cleared?
Alison McGovern
It is extremely important that we properly fund authorities in Cheshire to help support those communities. I can confirm that that is what we are doing today, with significant increases in spending power for those authorities. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and colleagues across the county to ensure that we do as he says and get social care back on a firmer footing as we move forward through the years.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I represent a constituency with two district councils with prudently created reserves and a unitary council with high levels of debt. Understandably, residents in the district council areas are concerned that local government reorganisation will see their reserves usurped by any new unitary council areas—if they have not already had to spend that reserve due to decreased funding under the settlement. Can the Minister reassure my constituents that their prudence is not being penalised and that, under the local government reorganisation, any reserves from a council will be ringfenced specifically for the communities that they come from, rather than being used to reduce the debt of the new council?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Lady for her question; she values the prudence and good decision making of local authorities. At their best, that is what we see and it is what I hope to achieve through the local government reorganisation process.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
There is fierce pride in Hatfield, Welwyn Garden City and our villages, but we are a community of contrasts: the gap in life expectancy a few miles down the road is 13 years. I have had an initial look, and it seems that Welwyn Hatfield will benefit to the tune of about £9 million. That is wonderful news for our community.
I thank the Minister for looking at need after housing costs, but will she give me a guarantee that that will continue to be a key part of how our Government look at need? In communities such as Hertfordshire, housing is often such a barrier to people getting on.
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend, who is an impressive champion for his constituency; the people of Welwyn Hatfield should be proud of him. When we are thinking about deprivation, we are determined for it not to be a question of one part of the country against another. It is simply about being led by the evidence: identifying poverty and deprivation wherever it exists—including its cause, which, as my hon. Friend says, can be housing costs. We will keep doing that and take decisions on that basis.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
As an ex-council leader, I welcome the multi-year settlement and am glad that the Government have listened; I have campaigned for it for many years, so thank you.
I welcome the remoteness element. In my constituency of North Devon, we have North Devon council and also the wider Devon county council. Could the Minister describe what percentage the remoteness allocation will represent for places such as Devon and North Devon district council?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman and former council leader for his question. It is nice to have a bit of agreement at Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker—if it is over multi-year settlements, then then so be it. I will write to him with the specific details about his area and how the remoteness formula affects the council's funding.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Government’s investment in Birmingham through today’s fair funding settlement and the £160 million of Pride in Place funding for nine areas, including Bartley Green in my constituency. That stands in stark contrast to the Conservatives’ austerity agenda, which cut £1 billion from Birmingham city council’s budget and placed severe pressure on the public services that my constituents rely on. I have been fighting for eight years in this place for fair funding for Birmingham. Does the Minister agree that only Labour can be trusted to invest in our city?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for that question on behalf of the people of Birmingham. We know that they deserve better. Birmingham is a great city; I was there only recently and always feel welcome and at home. It is right for us to invest in our cities. I am sick to the back teeth of people having a go at places like Birmingham and where I am from in Merseyside. It is time we backed our cities, including Birmingham.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I always like to start on a positive note, so let me add to the cross-party Christmas cheer by welcoming the shift to multi-year funding settlements. I agree with the Minister: local authority funding was decimated under the Conservatives for 14 years and local leaders were asked to do more with less. But I am worried that that might continue for some authorities like mine.
North Herefordshire and Herefordshire council have been facing millions of pounds of funding reductions under the proposals put forward by the Government. We must recognise that a fair funding settlement has to mean fair recognition that providing services in rural areas incurs extra costs, and not just for social care—there needs to be a remoteness adjustment for all the services that we provide. Will the Minister go away, consider that and come back with proposals that fairly recognise the needs of rural authorities like Herefordshire?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Lady for speaking up on behalf of rural areas. In addition to what I have said to a number of hon. Members, I would add that it is not just in adult social care that we recognise the difference that rurality makes. Overturning 14 years of Tory misrule of councils will take time. We will engage with all councils, including her council, and it is my objective to get local authorities back on a sustainable footing.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The reality is that for years the Tory Government relied on formulas that decimated local government and services for the poorest, while giving funding to affluent Tory suburbs, so clearly the Tories will not like the formula set out by the Minister. Today must be a turning point that corrects the grave wrong carried out by the previous Government for 14 years. Will the Minister confirm that the new formula, which I welcome, will mean that places like Bradford, which have some of the highest levels of poverty and deprivation, will finally begin to see their fair share in the settlement?
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend is right to describe the serious and challenging situations that lots of parts of the country face. I am anxious to ensure that we make progress in Bradford, not only because Bradford and places like it suffer from the consequences of poverty, but because Bradford has one of the youngest populations in the country. It is part of our future: we must back our young people, and I want to see Bradford grow and its people do well.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Talking about local government finance, I was shocked to read in The Times yesterday that Reform-led Worcestershire county council has sought permission from the Government to increase council tax by a maximum 10%. Will the Minister take this opportunity to rule that out, and will she tell us if Labour is in cahoots with Reform to whack up council tax?
Alison McGovern
People have accused me of many things, but being in cahoots with Reform is not one of them. I am very, very definitely not in cahoots with Reform. I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. I made some remarks in my speech about the steps that we will take, particularly if people are already paying an average amount of council tax. I am more than aware about the situation that people are facing with the cost of living, so if he wants to write to me with some more details about what he has read in The Times, I will happily respond to him formally.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The Minister mentioned Hammersmith and Fulham council in her statement, so I hope she will not mind my reminding her that it is one of the most efficiently run councils in the country. Despite having had 50% of its funding cut under the Tories, it has made £138 million in savings since 2014. It has pulled most of the levers that it has had available, such as the second homes premium, to deal with that, and it has some of the most deprived areas in the country within it. I invite her to come and visit Hammersmith and Fulham to see how a well-run council works, particularly when it has high levels of need and high-cost areas.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I am sure that the Minister will join me in congratulating Anna Coles, the director of adult and community services at Torbay council, and her team on achieving a “good” rating from the Care Quality Commission this week. The fly in the ointment is that despite Torbay being the most deprived local authority in south-west England, this settlement means that it is set to lose out on adult social care because of the higher than average number of people who are old. Will the Minister explain that?
Alison McGovern
It is excellent to hear that Anna Coles has done so well in providing local services. I do not recognise the figures mentioned by the hon. Gentleman and I would be happy to discuss them with him. Our objective is to get all councils back on their feet, particularly through the Pride in Place programme, in which Torbay is participating.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
May I warmly welcome the announcement today of the linking between local government funding and deprivation and need? That marks an end to the cuts and austerity brought in under the Tory and Liberal Democrat coalition Government. Will the Minister outline how that will benefit the children and young people in my constituency and in Luton, who bore the brunt of Tory austerity?
Alison McGovern
Luton is an extremely important place, with great potential to grow our economy. Most importantly, we want to see those children in Luton thrive, because they are our future. Today’s announcement allocates significant investment in Luton, which I am really pleased to do, precisely because of that relinking to deprivation, and I have every faith in my hon. Friend and her colleagues in Luton to make that money work for our children’s future.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
May I welcome the focus on reducing deprivation in this statement? How confident is the Minister that deprivation in rural areas will not be missed in the funding formula? I should refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because I am still a councillor on Central Bedfordshire council. That council is looking at having to find more than £20 million to balance its budget. That will be a real struggle in central Bedfordshire, which is a high-growth area with high needs and a lot of spending. Will the Minister commit to meet with me and local council leaders to discuss the unique circumstances in central Bedfordshire and what can be done to alleviate the financial pressures and to support them in balancing their budget?
Alison McGovern
I have a much greater level of confidence that we can find pockets of deprivation in rural areas, because the latest indices of multiple deprivation are much better-quality data. I will happily discuss that with the hon. Gentleman as we meet to talk about the finances in central Bedfordshire.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Changes to funding formulas can throw up huge anomalies. The Minister is well aware that Trafford council, which covers part of my constituency, is one of those anomalies. Will she commit to work with my Trafford parliamentary colleagues, Trafford council and me to see if we can iron out some of those issues?
Alison McGovern
Wherever there are challenges as we transition to this new funding formula, I will work really closely with colleagues. I will do that especially with my friends in Trafford, and I look forward to meeting with my hon. Friend again soon to discuss that.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am a sitting councillor in Teignbridge. Looking at the figures—which I have been desperately trying to do, although they are tiny—it looks to me like Teignbridge is getting a negative change in this year’s settlement of -0.07%, while Devon gets a small increase. I suspect that might not adequately make up for what Devon lost last year in the rural services grant. Does the Minister have any hope for our finding a way to solve the problem of delivering services in a rural area, even though we have areas of high deprivation? That is a common thing across the House, and it is clearly hitting everywhere.
Alison McGovern
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers I have already given on rural areas. We have built that into this settlement, and I will work with colleagues in all rural areas to ensure that we can get services improved and make this work.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Over 14 years of the Conservative Government, they cut Hartlepool’s budget in real terms by 40%. That is £50 million missing from that budget every single year. It meant libraries and parks being left behind and child poverty being up by 10% over those 14 years. While some of the Conservatives come here to criticise and others jump ship to Reform, including in Hartlepool, does the Minister agree that they should be ashamed of themselves for their record on local government? This is the start of putting right what they got so wrong.
Alison McGovern
I most certainly agree. Having visited Hartlepool before—I hope to do so again—I know not just what it has been through, but what it has to offer. It has a fine champion in my hon. Friend as its MP, and I look forward to working with him and all my friends in Hartlepool to make good on the promise of the next generation in Hartlepool.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I am really concerned that the Government’s fair funding formula sells many London councils short, such as Richmond and Kingston in the area that I represent. The majority of London boroughs already have lower core spending power per capita than the England average, and several are among the lowest funded councils per capita in the country; additional cuts will impact those councils significantly. London has the highest rate of poverty in the country once housing costs are factored in. According to the Department for Work and Pensions, one in four Londoners lives in poverty, and rising council tax bills will impact those who are struggling the most. With that in mind, what assessment has the Minister made of the impact that rising council tax bills and cuts to services will have on those already living in poverty in London?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I might be a proud northerner, but I was once a councillor in a London borough, so I do not need to be told what poverty in London looks like. In my statement, I mentioned the possibilities for raising income that some councils have access to, and we want to work with local authorities on that. I am determined that we will not make this about geographical division in our country; we will make it a journey for all councils back towards financial sustainability. That is the objective, and I will happily work with the hon. Lady on that if that is what she wants to do.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my officership of an all-party parliamentary group.
In past years, protection uplift funding for Greater Manchester fire and rescue service has been calculated based on inaccurate data, meaning that Greater Manchester receives significantly less money than regions with far fewer buildings. Will the Minister correct this error, so that GMFRS has the necessary resources to carry out essential inspection and enforcement activity across Stockport and Greater Manchester?
Alison McGovern
I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I will happily discuss it with him and with my colleague the fire Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon). If my hon. Friend thinks there are errors, he can by all means send us more details, and we will work on that.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Wokingham is the lowest funded unitary authority in the UK and is struggling to find enough money for adult social care and children’s services. I have three quick questions for the Minister. First, has she protected tier 1 local authorities from real-terms cuts? Secondly, have the Government honoured their commitment to a new fair funding formula by removing the recovery grant that undermines it. Lastly, how does the Minister expect local authorities to afford the dedicated schools grant deficits accrued up to 31 March 2028?
Alison McGovern
I think those three questions have been answered in what I have already said, so I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier answers.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
As a former deputy leader of Milton Keynes city council, I welcome this announcement. As a reminder, Milton Keynes city council faced £200 million-worth of cuts—55% of our grant—while Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire were protected and got bail-outs. This settlement is, for once, going to give us the funding we need to protect Britain’s fastest-growing city, so I thank the Minister. Will she meet us to talk about some of the things we can do to encourage councils to build homes at the same rate as Milton Keynes?
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend is not just a former deputy leader of Milton Keynes city council; she has become a fantastic champion of that great city since coming to this House. If she wants to meet to talk about fast-growing cities and building homes, I will be there all day.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
One fifth of the UK population live in rural areas. They face unavoidable additional costs, including longer travel times, reduced provider competition and workforce recruitment. Those costs have an impact on every single aspect of local service delivery, but funding formulas fail to adequately recognise rurality, putting additional pressure on the vital services that residents in Glastonbury and Somerton rely on. Does the Minister accept that additional cost pressures are linked to geography and sparsity, and will she outline what steps are being taken to support large rural councils such as Somerset to manage these funding gaps?
Alison McGovern
The hon. Lady asked if I recognise that issue, and I have already said several times that I do, as well as setting out some of the steps that we are taking to address it. As I said, I will happily work with hon. Members on both sides of the House to take local authorities, wherever they are, on a journey towards sustainability.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
I am always proud to be in this Chamber, but I am particularly proud to be here today as the Government bang a final nail in the coffin of Conservative austerity. I really welcome what I hope will be significant additional investment in my constituency of Colchester, because that investment will do so much to improve local services for local residents. Can the Minister give us a timeline for that funding—that is, when will we get the cash?
Alison McGovern
I feel like a bit of an old lady in the House these days, having been here in 2010 at the beginning of austerity. I saw the effects of it—
Alison McGovern
Well, you should see the level of debt that the Tories left us with. The global financial crisis was a tough time, but I never thought a Tory Government would leave us with a debt-to-GDP ratio of nearly 100%.
To return to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) and the important work that we are doing to rebuild local authorities after that awful period of austerity, we will be releasing information to councils today so that they can start the budgeting process. We will engage heavily with local authorities over the months to come so that they can set their budgets in the normal way in the spring. I encourage her local authority to be in direct contact with the Department, and I would be happy to meet her to talk about the impact on her constituency.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
Stockport council, along with two other boroughs, missed out on the recovery grant. The grant was not mentioned in the fair funding review or consultation. Why was it not mentioned, and is the Minister concerned that that opens up the whole process to legal challenge?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I have every confidence in the details that we are publishing today. We will be working with local authorities, as I have said, to make sure that they can set their budgets in the normal way and move towards financial sustainability.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I thank the Government for delivering an early Christmas present to my constituents in Bedford and Kempston. The granting of planning permission for the Universal Studios theme park is a landmark moment not just for the eastern region but for the whole UK, as it will bring in around £50 billion of investment and tens of thousands of jobs. Does the Minister agree that Bedford borough council, which is already under significant financial pressure, will need additional Government investment to meet the extra demand on local public services, to support growth and to put our region firmly on the global map?
Alison McGovern
I have to agree with my hon. Friend that it is not just the people of Bedford who are excited about Universal Studios; the excitement can be felt across the United Kingdom. Today’s settlement hopefully helps us on that journey, but I will happily meet him to discuss the impacts on Bedford and the wider area.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I know the Minister is aware that Shropshire council ran out of road this year, having been caught in a perfect storm of 16 years of Conservative mismanagement of the council, surging demand for social care and the failure of the previous Government to recognise the reality of delivering services in a rural area. Can she reassure my constituents that she will not only help us to get through this difficult period with exceptional financial support, but work with me and the other Shropshire MPs to ensure that Shropshire council is put on a secure financial footing for the future?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Member for meeting me recently to discuss that issue, which was really helpful. As I said in my statement, decisions about financial support will be taken in the usual way, and I will of course work with her and other Shropshire MPs to make sure that her area is on a journey towards sustainability.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
When I knock on doors, one thing is said to me repeatedly: Kettering does not get its fair share. I do not have to tell my constituents that the Tories underfunded our local government. The parent taking their child to our rundown swimming pool sees it, the family waiting for a council house sees it, the child waiting for a space at a special school sees it, anyone who drives a car on our roads sees it, and the Tories saw it in 2018 when Northamptonshire county council went bankrupt under their leadership. Will the Minister confirm that this is a Labour Government sending the people of Kettering the message, “You matter, and you deserve your fair share”?
Alison McGovern
I would first say to the people of Kettering that their MP has done a cracking job in making sure that their needs are represented in this place and in the decisions that the Government take. Their MP has spoken up for their future, their children, their council and their needs, and we are doing our best to meet those needs.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I welcome the Government’s announcement of a cap on social care placements, but some special schools are making unreasonable charges. One school in my area that is offering places to neurodiverse children who are struggling in mainstream education but are otherwise without disabilities charges more than £100,000 a year in fees plus transport, while state-maintained alternatives are doing it for £25,000 for the same cohort. Will the Minister commit herself to working with the Department for Education to introduce a cap on charges and profits for specialist schools now? Councils will have collapsed by 2028 and taxpayers will lose out, so this really needs to be addressed before then.
Alison McGovern
The hon. Lady has made precisely the case that I was trying to make in my statement. We must fund councils properly, but if we do not get a grip on escalating costs it will do no good; we will still have unsustainable councils. I am already working with colleagues in the Department for Education, and if the hon. Lady would like to send me details of the case that she mentioned, I will be happy to investigate it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am struggling to get every Member in, given the time, so I ask Members please to keep their questions short.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
After 14 years, the Tories should be ashamed of their legacy in local government. I know that my council, Medway, will welcome the Minister’s announcement about linking deprivation to funding, but we still face other challenges. Will she set out what the changes mean for my local area, and will she agree to come to Medway to meet us and discuss how we can take on some of those other issues?
Alison McGovern
Places such as Medway deserve a lot better, and through her championing of her constituency in the House, my hon. Friend is ensuring that they will get it. We want to see councils invest in high streets, and we want to see those high streets thrive, along with other services. I would be happy to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency and see for myself what we can do to improve it.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Minister constantly says that she does not recognise the figures when presented with what are expected to be the settlements for certain local authorities. That is possibly because we are fumbling in the dark today, as the figures simply are not available. I had to go to the Vote Office, and I have some of the papers here. The fact is that in my own area, the Government have proposed a bespoke arrangement for the Council of the Isles of Scilly, but there is no clarity about what it will mean in the forthcoming years, and in respect of the indices of deprivation, there is no clarity on what it means for Cornwall. Will the Minister meet me, and other local Members, to discuss these issues?
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I declare my interest as an officer of the Special Interest Group of Municipal Authorities team, and as a recovering local government alumnus.
We inherited a system in which 40% of local authorities were at risk of going bust and issuing section 114 notices by March 2026, driven by a rising demand for adult and children’s services and SEND services. Communities such as mine in Calder Valley have faced those pressures every day. This settlement really matters; the new fair funding settlement gives more help to the places that need it most, and gives them long-term stability. However, more needs to be done, so can the Minister confirm that we will prioritise and value local government services and their importance to our economy?
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
The Conservatives have some brass neck when they blame councils like mine for being poor, given that they oversaw 14 years of austerity, underfunding and cuts. The initial figures suggest that by 2028-29 Peterborough city council will be receiving £65 million more from this Government, which will be a life-changer for many people. Can the Minister explain how we can use that money to transform the communities that people like me represent in this House?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for his consistent championing of Peterborough in this House—and, frankly, in my ear—at all times. He always stands up for his constituents, and I have been pleased to visit Peterborough on a number of occasions. I want to see the significant investment that we are making in Peterborough help it to thrive. It has great potential and fantastic young people, and I look forward to being invited back to see exactly what is happening there.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I welcome the multi-year settlement, but I am deeply concerned that the statement made no reference to the particular pressures facing rural areas. Devon has the longest road network in England, so everything costs more—SEND, care, bus services and bin collections—and Dartmouth library is now facing a cut in hours because of funding cuts. Using deprivation as a way to calculate the funding formula does not take account of the older population, and my concern is that hidden pockets of deep deprivation, in an otherwise wealthy area, will not be recognised. Can the Minister reassure me that hidden pockets of deprivation will be recognised by the formula?
Alison McGovern
I have answered a number of questions on rural areas, so I refer the hon. Lady to the answers I have already given. I have real confidence in the latest indices of deprivation. The data quality is much better, so we are able to meet the challenge she sets.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the settlement, which puts fairness at the heart of local government funding. I thank the Minister for the increased funding for Warwickshire, which will benefit people across the county and in Rugby. Would she care to comment on the fact that there is not a single Reform UK MP in the Chamber? Does that not indicate that Reform does not take local government seriously?
Alison McGovern
It certainly does. Our first duties as Members of Parliament are to listen to our constituents and to be in this House. My hon. Friend always stands up for his constituents, unlike others who are not here.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Like others, I warmly welcome the multi-year funding settlement. As a former local councillor, I know the impact it will have on local councils, which will be able to plan when they are tackling some of the thorniest issues that affect our most vulnerable constituents. We in this country are blessed to have remarkable people working in local government, and the best local councillors know their communities, stand up for them and mither their MPs to stand up for them.
At first glance, Stockport appears to be one of the areas that is worse off under this funding settlement, despite containing the most deprived part of Greater Manchester. We missed out on the recovery grant by 0.01%, and the initial indication is that we will be worse off. Will the Minister meet me, the hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) so that we can go through this and work out how we will make sure that my most vulnerable constituents are not unduly impacted?
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I welcome the multi-year settlement, and I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for their engagement with me and Members from across the House as we make the case for our local areas. It looks like Devon county council will get a significant uplift over a period of years. If that is true, I am particularly keen to see the Lib Dem and Green-led Devon county council U-turn on its decision to cut 66% of its homelessness budget, get on top of the weeds that it has allowed to grow throughout our entire city, which are engulfing some communities, and go back on its current consultation to cut library hours. Will the Minister set out how she thinks the increase in funding to local authorities will have a positive impact on services and local people?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he has done, as part of our homelessness strategy, to draw attention to homelessness and rough sleeping in his city of Exeter, which is a wonderful place and deserves to have the county council and others look after it properly. This investment in local authorities will make sure that everyone in our country feels proud of the place where they live. We want to see all our places grow, and I expect all councils to do that work. I look forward to meeting him to discuss this issue further.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
I welcome the Government’s funding formula, but I would like to bring to the Minister’s attention my conversation with my local council leader and its chief executive just last week. They are worried that the council cannot afford the spiralling cost of children’s services. For one particular child, the cost is £25,000 a week. Councils often have no choice but to rely on private providers at market rates. Will the Minister commit to tackle the cost of private provision, or look into introducing a cap?
Alison McGovern
I think I answered that question in my statement. I am just as concerned about the cost as the hon. Member is.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement. She is right to talk about play parks, homelessness and libraries. As a councillor, one of my proudest achievements was replacing five play parks, but I have seen how Tory-run Kent county council cut everything to the bone. I am grateful for the multi-year funding settlement; will the Minister share what this will mean and look like for Gravesham residents?
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend is right to point out, as I did, the consequences of council cuts. They are not just theoretical on a spreadsheet—we all saw the effects in our parks and our town centres. We want to turn that around in Gravesham, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend over the weeks and months to come to make that real for her residents.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Between 2015 and 2020, under the last multi-year settlement, the Conservative Government cut Bracknell Forest council’s funding by £500,000. I am delighted that this provisional settlement would see Bracknell Forest’s funding rise by almost £10 million—an increase of over 7%. Does my hon. Friend agree that this shows that Labour will always invest in our local services and the Conservatives will always choose austerity?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for the case he makes, which shows people in Bracknell that they have an effective MP who is prepared to stand up for them, champion them and make sure they get the services they need.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s taking into account deprivation in the multi-year funding settlement. If there was ever a demonstration of what a difference a Labour Government can make, it is this: investment in our poorest communities, not crippling Tory austerity. It looks like in Croydon we are set to get an extra £158 million over this Parliament, which is a game changer for us. Will the Minister outline the timetable for our getting this extra investment? I thank her again for her work.
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for being a brilliant champion for Croydon. She has stood up for the people she represents. We know that poverty in London has changed, and areas such as Croydon have experienced an increase. This funding settlement is a recognition of that reality. We want Croydon to thrive, which is why, after publishing this information today, we will work with local authorities over the coming months so that they can set their budgets in the normal way in the spring. Croydon has a great future ahead and I want to work closely with my hon. Friend to make sure that happens.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
I welcome the additional investment the Minister has announced, and what it will mean for my constituents in terms of local government funding. Firefighters, such as those based at Heywood fire station in my constituency, are attending a massively increased number of flooding and water-rescue incidents, which are up 40% over the last 10 years. Has any consideration been given to introducing a statutory duty on local fire and rescue services, along with commensurate funding to ensure that firefighters are properly resourced and equipped to respond to flooding and water rescues?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point, which is very apposite given the effects of climate change and other things. I am sure that the fire Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), will have heard what she said, and we will all work together to make sure it is addressed.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Five years ago, the Conservative-controlled council in the London borough of Bexley found itself in such a dire situation that it sought a capitalisation order, made 15% of staff redundant and had to sell a building because it could not even fund the redundancy notices. [Interruption.] For the Conservative Members chuntering, that is a real example of there being “no money left”. Will the Minister contrast the announcement she has made today with the approach taken by the previous Government?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for being such a champion for his constituents, and for making sure that their voice is heard in the decisions we are taking. The situation he describes was chaotic and, as he said, people paid the price for that in their job security and in the services we all rely on. The difference is that we are taking a long-term approach, with a multi-year settlement, and funding according to deprivation means that where the need is greatest, the money will follow.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
On behalf of Nottinghamshire county council, I thank the Government for a £234 million—or 30%—increase over the course of this Parliament, which will make a huge difference, and for the 4.6% increase in core spending for my area, Rushcliffe. I previously raised with the Minister in writing the need to avoid cliff edges. The borough council was particularly concerned about the loss of the new homes bonus and similar mechanisms. Will the Minister expand on the decisions that have been taken? I also want to mention rurality, which really matters and drives up service costs; I hope she will meet me and other Nottinghamshire MPs to discuss that.
Alison McGovern
Members will be reassured to know that ample time is reserved in my diary to meet them in the new year, and I would love to meet my hon. Friend to discuss rurality and the other things he mentioned.
On new homes, we are making sure that councils get all the benefit for every new home they build. That is part of the settlement. We want to build 1.5 million new homes and we want councils to feel the benefit of that when they make the relevant decisions. I will happily talk my hon. Friend through the detail when we meet.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
Black Country people are proud and resilient, but 50 years of deindustrialisation and 14 years of Tory austerity have left my borough of Sandwell the fifth most deprived in the country. Does the Minister agree with me that this Government can finally see deprived urban areas—post-industrial areas like mine—and is finally giving us back what we are due?
Alison McGovern
I very much agree. For those places that bore the costs of bad decisions many years ago and have never been able to get fully back on their feet, this is part of turning the corner. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend on that.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I am sure you would like to join me, Madam Deputy Speaker, in thanking the Minister for backing Bradford in her response to our hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain). This Government’s fair funding is finally turning a corner for councils like Bradford that have been at the sharp end of Tory cuts to local government. Does the Minister agree that, with elections in May next year, if residents in my Shipley constituency want to see improvements in local services, they will need a Labour council working with a Labour Government?
Alison McGovern
My announcement today is a massive vote of confidence in the people of Shipley and of Bradford, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to make sure that every penny piece of that investment improves her constituents’ lives.
INEOS Chemicals: Grangemouth
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the agreement the Government have secured to protect vital chemical production and hundreds of jobs at the INEOS ethylene cracker in Grangemouth.
Three quarters of Grangemouth’s ethylene production is consumed domestically by our key industries, and the plant is strategically important for those industries and for UK supply chains more broadly. Its ethylene is essential for critical national infrastructure, including medical-grade plastics used in the health service, and its chemical supply chains are used for water treatment. These materials are also vital to many of our industrial strategy priority sectors, including advanced manufacturing, life sciences and defence, which all depend on a ready supply of them. The plant also links to the Forties pipeline system, which is key for transporting our North sea oil and gas to onshore infrastructure.
Despite the site’s strategic importance, we know that INEOS has faced a number of significant challenges that have had a severe impact on trading. The site, like many chemical complexes in the UK and the EU, has faced the risk of closure. Given the national importance of the plant and its unique contribution to the UK economy, the Government are clear that closure is not an outcome we are willing to accept. That is why I can confirm to the House today that we are stepping in and providing a support package to INEOS of over £120 million, which forms part of a wider £150 million investment with INEOS to help to ensure the site remains commercially viable and sustainable in the long term.
This support package comprises a grant and a Government-backed loan to protect 500 jobs in Grangemouth and many hundreds more within critical supply chains. As part of the agreement, Ineos will continue operations and will invest at least £30 million into the site, on top of the hundreds of millions it has already invested in recent years. The agreement will therefore protect jobs and safeguard taxpayers’ money.
The Government set a very high bar for interventions of this kind. We assess the viability of the business, the economic and social impacts of our investments, and the contributions of the private sector, including shareholders. Where we do intervene, we set clear and strict conditions on how those investments are used. In this case, our funding will secure ongoing operations. It will improve the site’s energy efficiency, decrease carbon emissions and increase productivity. Funding for this support will be covered by existing budgets that have been agreed as part of the departmental spending review settlements.
Interventions of this kind are rare, but when workers’ livelihoods and our strategic interests are at risk, a Labour Government will never hesitate to take action to protect this nation’s assets and economic security. We will work with businesses to build a secure, prosperous future for our industrial heartlands and for the whole of the UK. We are taking bold action today to ensure that the chemicals sector in this country remains strong for the workers and communities who have depended on it for generations. We are also ensuring that this sector can play its part in making the UK a clean energy superpower by the end of the decade. The chemicals sector plays a fundamental role in the supply of parts for wind turbines, for carbon capture and storage, and for our nuclear powerplants. We cannot afford to see those domestic supply chains disrupted, and we will not.
That is why, beyond this agreement, we will improve the business environment for British industries, including our chemicals sector. The industrial strategy is one of the ways we are doing that. Our gas prices remain competitive in Europe, but we are tackling long-standing problems with our high electricity prices. We have already pledged to increase the discount on electricity network charges from 60% to 90% for businesses in sectors such as steel, cement and chemicals. Some 550 of our most energy-intensive businesses will save up to £420 million a year on their electricity bills from next April thanks to that one change alone. Our new British industrial competitiveness scheme will reduce electricity costs for over 7,000 eligible businesses, including chemicals. We want to save them up to £40 per megawatt-hour, or 25%, from April 2027.
Supporting a skilled workforce is also at the heart of the industrial strategy. We are providing an additional £1.2 billion of investment in the skills system by 2028-29. That is because we recognise that a strong economy must rest on strong foundations. That includes our defence capability, energy security and chemicals sector. I say that because hon. Members will know that Ineos is not the only business, and Grangemouth is not the only site, to have experienced challenges over the past few years. That is why we have a vision for Grangemouth’s long-term future that is energy efficient and sustainable.
The agreement we have announced today shows that we will forge the right partnerships between industry, the UK Government and the Scottish Government to make it a reality. As part of those efforts, up to £200 million of investment from our national wealth fund will support new opportunities in Grangemouth. Several projects are already under active consideration. Backed by funding announced by the Chancellor at the Budget, the Scottish company MiAlgae has announced that it will deliver a new biotech project at the site, creating 400 well-paid green jobs.
To support workers at the nearby ExxonMobil Mossmorran plant, which will close early next year, the UK Government and the Scottish Government, alongside Fife council, are setting up a dedicated taskforce. It will ensure that employees affected by that closure will be afforded every chance of securing valuable employment. As part of the agreement being announced today, Ineos Grangemouth has committed to giving those impacted workers a guaranteed interview for available roles at its site. The Grangemouth training guarantee will also be expanded to those employees who provided shared services for the refinery, ensuring that they have the skills and qualifications they need to succeed in the local labour market.
All those measures complement the efforts being undertaken as part of the Grangemouth just transition. That is important, because the agreement we have announced today is not just about supporting a single site or a single company; it is about securing a stable industrial pipeline now and for many years to come. It is about having a clean break from the managed decline of the past and delivering the decade of national renewal that we promised for Grangemouth and for the whole UK. For those reasons, I commend this statement to the House.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I thank the Minister for the advance copy of his statement. The steps announced today by the Government to secure the ethylene plant at Grangemouth are welcome news, especially for the workers at the site who can now look forward to the new year, assured that their jobs will remain at the strategically vital site—and Grangemouth is vital, as the UK’s last plant producing ethylene, a key ingredient in plastics used in advanced manufacturing and the automotive and aerospace sectors. To have lost domestic production capacity for such a core product would have been unconscionable.
However, this move, welcome as it is, demonstrates just how exposed sites such as Grangemouth have become under this Government. This Government’s policies are leading to the deindustrialisation of this country, with unemployment rates soaring and the economy shrinking as a result. From potteries in Stoke to the Prax Lindsey oil refinery in Lincolnshire and, most obviously and glaringly, our oil and gas industry in the North sea, this Government are not just overseeing but engineering the decline of energy-intensive industries in this country.
Of course, I am genuinely glad that 500 jobs at Grangemouth will be protected, but that will be cold comfort for the thousands of workers in and around the wider oil and gas industry who have already lost their jobs, or those who will spend Christmas next week not knowing whether they will have a job next year because of Labour party policy. Last week it was Harbour Energy, and before that it was the Port of Aberdeen, Apache and Petrofac. TotalEnergies has had to merge with NEO NEXT Energy to operate, while Shell has merged with Equinor.
Those businesses all say the same thing: the exorbitant taxation regime, increased and extended until 2030, is driving away investment. Couple that with the utterly astronomical cost of energy here in the UK, pushed ever higher by unnecessary green levies and carbon taxes, and it is no surprise that, in his response to today’s announcement, Sir Jim Ratcliffe said that
“high energy costs and punitive carbon”
taxes were
“driving industry out of the UK at an alarming rate. If politicians want jobs, investment and energy security, then they must create a competitive environment.”
Week after week, more jobs in the sector are lost and critical national assets shut up shop as a direct consequence of policy decisions made by this Government. Since Labour stepped into office, more than 15,000 manufacturing and industry jobs have been lost—that is the scale of the crisis we are dealing with.
Great Britain has a proud manufacturing legacy, but current Government policy towards energy is squandering that legacy, damaging Scottish jobs, and damaging an important national asset.
“There are 200,000 jobs in the UK associated with oil and gas, and they are all at risk unless the government changes course.”
Those are not my words, Madam Deputy Speaker, but those of the chairman of Ineos at Grangemouth.
Today’s announcement is timely, however, as tomorrow I will be visiting Mossmorran to meet the team following the news that the polyethylene plant there will be closing. ExxonMobil’s chairman there has explained that he does not have two of the keys needed for success because of Government policy. He said:
“We’ve had windfall taxes, we’ve had a ban on production licences—I need cheap sources of abundant ethane, and I do not have them, because the North Sea—because of Government policy—is declining rapidly…we paid £20 million last year in CO2 taxes, that will double in the next four or five years.”
What is shocking, though, is that for some inexplicable reason the Secretary of State for Scotland chose today to attack ExxonMobil when explaining why it was not receiving the same support as Grangemouth, saying that the management
“weren’t able to give us a pathway to profitability.”
Of course they cannot do that—at every turn this Government are putting up hurdles, shutting down the North sea and taxing these businesses until they burst. Honestly, this Government just do not get it. They are not listening.
Today’s announcement does not even scratch the surface when it comes to rectifying the damage and pain that this Government have inflicted on industry in this country. Given that this is the second time this Government have launched an unprovoked attack on a leading investor in the United Kingdom, does the Minister want me to pass on an apology from the Government when I visit Mossmorran tomorrow?
Today’s announcement is welcome, but this Government could do so much more. We should scrap the energy profits levy and remove the punitive carbon taxes—we are not getting an exemption to the EU emissions trading scheme anyway, according to the EU Commission. We should incentivise, not punish. A Conservative Government will do all this and more when we return to office in three years’ time—unfortunately, those are three years I do not think British industry has.
Chris McDonald
I start by thanking the hon. Gentleman sincerely for welcoming the support for Grangemouth—it really must be the season of good will. On this occasion, I can assure him that he is correct: this is the last ethylene plant, so we can agree on that this time.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the business environment for the chemicals industry. I thought I had set that out reasonably well in my statement, but perhaps not. I shall just say a bit more. On energy costs, we already have the energy-intensive industries scheme and, as I mentioned, we have increased the level of the supercharger. The British industrial competitiveness scheme will come in in 2027 with an additional 25% reduction. He may be interested to know that our electricity costs are already more competitive than many countries in Europe, but not France and Germany, which are the benchmark for me. That is why we are introducing the British industrial competitiveness scheme. On gas, after policy costs we are already competitive. These businesses trade internationally, and our success in striking international trade deals with the EU, the US and India, and with Korea just this week, means that there are more market opportunities all the time.
The shadow Secretary of State made the contrast with ExxonMobil. I reiterate the point that this Government —the Government would always do this, as I am sure he would expect—are investing in a business with a viable and sustainable future where there is a viable business plan, primarily because the owner of the business has invested in the business over time. As I said a few weeks ago in my statement on Mossmorran, ExxonMobil had failed to invest in that plant, and that is why it said that there was a £1 billion investment gap.
On jobs, in the clean energy sector we are creating 40,000 new jobs in Scotland alone and 800,000 jobs across the whole of the country. This is a transition that the Government are actively engaging in and managing. The shadow Secretary of State says that a Conservative Government would do something different from what they did last time, but they did not do anything last time. When Ineos announced in November 2023 that it was going to close its refinery, the Conservative Prime Minister at the time said, “That’s a commercial decision.” They did nothing about it—nothing at all.
Investment in this area is very important, so I refer the shadow Secretary of State to an article that was published this morning by my noble Friend Lord Stockwood, the Minister for Investment. He talked very carefully about the international investment environment and the performance of the UK economy and lamented the fact that so many people in this country—so many Cassandras, such as the shadow Secretary of State—are constantly talking the economy down and frightening investors away. I think it is about time he recognised the success of our clean energy industries and the success of this Government’s industrial strategy and stopped talking Britain down.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, I thank him and the teams across Government who have worked so hard to secure the deal to protect jobs at Grangemouth. I also want to commend all those in Government who have worked so hard to ensure that Babcock flourishes, Methil stays open, and BAE Systems secures contracts with Norway, and just last week they also secured the MiAlgae deal for the Grangemouth site too. All of that stands in stark contrast to the actions of other parties who had, or perhaps should have had, a role in these matters. Can the Minister reflect on that fact and give us some more information about what other developments we see in Grangemouth in the weeks and months ahead?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is quite right, and I would also like to thank her for her engagement on these subjects as well. She rightly pointed out what a vibrant industrial community there is around the Grangemouth area. Already we have companies, such as Babcock, that are keen to recruit people in that local area and that recognise the skills of the workers who will no longer be employed at Mossmorran from February onwards. With the support that the Government have put in place, including the taskforce led by Fife council, and with the Scottish Government and the UK Government working together in concert, I am confident that we will find new jobs for those people, recognising their very high skills.
My hon. Friend mentions MiAlgae—£3 million of support was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget. This great company will be operating on the Grangemouth site, directly in line with the strategy set out in Project Willow, which was commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and which he spoke about at the Liaison Committee earlier this week. That points directly to the bright future for Grangemouth.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. I welcome the Government’s announcement that they are stepping in to offer support and protect jobs in this vital industry. We have a duty to safeguard our national security and economic prosperity, and to ensure a fair transition to clean energy. This statement is a step in that direction.
We have long been champions of British industry. We are proud of the industrial policies that we introduced in government, and we must never return to the neglect we saw under the Conservatives, who scrapped our industrial strategy. Having said that, we need to see a far more cohesive plan from this Government to support British business, including our chemicals sector.
High energy costs are a fundamental challenge. The industrial competitiveness scheme will support the 7,000 most energy-intensive firms, but it will not launch until April 2027. Will the Government confirm whether the Grangemouth plant will be included in the scheme? Do Ministers acknowledge that if the scheme had been in place earlier, the situation might have been avoided? Does the Minister agree that we need a long-term plan to slash energy costs for households and businesses alike by seriously investing in renewables and decoupling electricity from gas prices?
Finally, I must press the Minister on another huge added cost for which the Government are responsible, which is of course the national insurance increase. Will he tell the House what is the tax hit imposed on the Grangemouth plant through the national insurance hike since last year’s Budget? Is it greater than the £50 million Government grant handed to Ineos today?
Chris McDonald
I thank the hon. Member for recognising the importance of both the site and the Government’s intervention. She mentioned the £50 million grant. It is important that hon. Members look at that in the context of the total package: a grant and an investment from the owner of the business—and, as the owner of the business said today, an agreement in principle for a profit-sharing arrangement.
That points to the hon. Member’s other question about the detail of the industrial strategy. This industrial strategy is a significant break with the past. It is not about last-minute interventions, which is what the previous Conservative Government did or did not do, depending on how the mood took them. It is about a serious partnership and engagement between Government and industry to ensure that we have sustainable industry in the UK.
The hon. Member asked me about energy costs. I mentioned earlier the relative position on energy costs. Of course, we are doing more on that, and I intend to do much more. In answer to her question on whether it would have helped had the scheme been in place earlier, clearly it would have helped if there had been a Labour Government in place earlier. That would be my advice: always vote Labour.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I very much welcome the protection of 500 jobs at Grangemouth and the commitment to making the most of the energy transition through this investment in carbon capture and storage, in components for wind turbines and indeed in nuclear power plants, as the Minister mentioned in his statement. I turn to the very high electricity costs that industry faces. We have talked about this before, and I raised it with the Prime Minister on Monday at the Liaison Committee. What alternative options are available? The British industrial competitiveness scheme is a very good step in the right direction, but many businesses who will not qualify for that scheme also need help with their very high electricity prices. What is the Minister working on that will start to move the dial for those businesses as well?
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for the close attention he gives to this area through his chairmanship of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. He started his question by mentioning the 500 jobs at Grangemouth, which perhaps we have not discussed enough. I really do understand how this announcement from the Government will bring certainty to those workers at Grangemouth as well as their families and their local community. It is incredibly important that we acknowledge that.
On energy costs, my benchmark is how competitive we are in Europe. I mentioned how our electricity costs—particularly our industrial electricity costs—are cheaper than those in some countries in Europe, such as Italy, the Netherlands and Spain, but more expensive than in France and Germany. The British industrial competitiveness scheme will take us a good way towards that, and we are already seeing the benefits of our investment in clean energy. As I have previously said at the Dispatch Box, from 2030 onwards we will see some significant reductions, particularly as we are bringing forward interconnectors that will connect not only the UK with other countries, but wind farm to wind farm—it is always windy somewhere in the North sea—which will help to release capacity and drive down costs. My hon. Friend will see that through both our policy measures and our investment in infrastructure.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
It would be wrong not to commend the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) on this announcement as he has always been such a strong advocate for jobs at Grangemouth. Indeed, owing to his willingness to speak out against his Government, he lost the Labour Whip.
I noted from the photographs issued around today’s launch that workers at Grangemouth did not seem overly happy to see the Chancellor. Perhaps that was because they know that her policies, which continue to attack the oil and gas industry—particularly through the windfall tax—are leading to the undermining of the oil and gas industry across Scotland.
Chris McDonald
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for mentioning my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman). I am sure that he would have liked to be here, but he was invited by the Secretary of State for Scotland to join him on the visit. He and I have spoken over the last few weeks. I assure the right hon. Member that I very much value my hon. Friend’s contributions, his relationship and his support, and I know that he is as pleased as I am by the announcement.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
People in Falkirk, Grangemouth and across Forth valley are delighted to see the decisive action taken by this Government to preserve 500 jobs in our community. The £120 million investment and £150 million deal are Labour’s industrial strategy in action. It protects our industrial community and keeps essential national infrastructure viable. I hope that there is a consensus in this House that that is a welcome, positive step. It is worth noting that, earlier this year, the head of external affairs for INEOS told the Scottish Affairs Committee that prior to the November 2023 announcement of the refinery’s closure,
“Both Governments were given the opportunity, the data and access to the data to make an investment decision, and neither Government chose to do that.”
Both the Tories and the SNP had the opportunity in government to support workers at Grangemouth, but they did not lift a finger. Contrast that with this Government’s approach to the ethylene plant, acting decisively before it was too late.
Our action today and further action support new industry, with the welcome announcement last week of MiAlgae bringing 400 jobs across Scotland. Grangemouth’s industrial future must move forward and the Labour Government are providing substantial further resources towards that. Will the Minister provide us with greater detail on what guarantees the Government have received from INEOS for the long-term viability of the ethylene site at Grangemouth and when Grangemouth can expect further funding announcements from the National Wealth Fund’s £200 million commitment, as well as the additional £14 million secured by Scottish Labour MPs in the Budget last month, to get announcements made soon?
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for his continued support for his constituents and the Grangemouth site. He welcomes the announcement and, quite rightly, he then presses me for more funding too. Further to the remarks that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made to the Liaison Committee earlier this week, on the £200 million committed earlier this year for projects through the National Wealth Fund, those projects are being examined and shortlisted. I hope that they will come forward soon. I also take this opportunity to commend Siobhan Paterson, councillor for Upper Braes on Falkirk council, who has supported my hon. Friend in this work. I hope that when voters go to the polls for the Scottish parliamentary elections in Falkirk East and Linlithgow, they will recognise that and vote Labour too.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I am glad that the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) did not get an invite, because we got to hear his excellent speech then.
Five hundred jobs being saved is incredibly important and, contrary to what the Prime Minister said earlier, everyone will welcome that, but we cannot escape the fact that 500 jobs are being lost every two weeks in Scotland’s North sea—not my figures but those of Paul de Leeuw from Robert Gordon University, and they are emphasised by the GMB trade union, local charities and industry itself. The Chancellor, while at Grangemouth —[Interruption.] I do not know why Labour Members make quips about people losing their jobs in the North sea. How dare they! While the Chancellor was at Grangemouth today, she was asked whether she agreed with that expert analysis. She said no. Does the Minister agree with her?
Chris McDonald
I sincerely thank the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming the announcement. The season of goodwill really is spreading right across the House. He asks a serious question about the transition. We have made no bones about this: oil and gas is an incredibly important industry for the UK and will be for decades to come; but as the oil and gas basin declines, it is important that there is a transition. Fundamentally, that is the difference between this and previous Governments and the point of our industrial strategy.
The right hon. Gentleman mentions Robert Gordon University, which also identified that 90% of workers in the oil and gas sector have skills that are readily transferable into the 40,000 jobs that we are creating in Scotland in clean energy industries. That is in marked contrast with the SNP. In September, Professor Mariana Mazzucato—he may have heard of her because she was an adviser to the Scottish Government—said that the SNP Ministers in Scotland, on industrial strategy, talk the talk but do not walk the walk. This Government are walking the walk.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
Is it not the stark and inconvenient truth for the Opposition parties that for years the Tories and the SNP sat on their hands and allowed the industrial needs of Scotland to go to the wall? Does my hon. Friend agree that, with this £120 million package, this Government are serious about backing our strategically vital industries as well as protecting thousands of jobs on the site and through our supply chains?
Chris McDonald
I do agree with my hon. Friend. It really is astonishing how the previous Conservative Government and the SNP Government in Scotland were prepared just to stand by and let the refinery at Grangemouth close after having been given data for years and deciding not to do anything about it at all. He rightly mentions the supply chains, and the multiplier of jobs in the supply chains is much greater. We recognise that this is a good investment for the taxpayer, not just to secure the vital product that we need in our chemicals and defence industries or because the ethylene plant is important in its own right, but to spread the economic benefits through the supply chains in Scotland and beyond.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
First, like everyone else, I welcome 500 jobs having been secured, but 500 jobs a fortnight are being lost from the oil and gas sector because of this Government’s policies. The Minister has spoken about the supply chain, but those jobs and skills in the supply chain are being lost and will not be there for the transition because of the energy profits levy. The Government have defined what a windfall is. There are no longer windfall prices or windfall profits, but there is still a windfall tax. When will the Government get rid of the windfall tax to protect the supply chain, the oil and gas sector and our vital industries?
Chris McDonald
I thank the hon. Lady for her welcome for the announcement. I think that is something that we can share across the whole House. I would just reiterate the point that the Government recognise the importance of the oil and gas sector. Of course it is important to the UK, to the people who work in it and to local communities as well, but we also recognise that the North sea is a declining basin. We have taken the actions, through our clean energy jobs plan and our clean energy initiatives, to ensure that we secure the supply chains for those clean energy jobs here in the UK. Again, this is a marked contrast between this Government and the previous Conservative Government, who were proud to boast of the UK being the largest market for offshore wind but enabled those jobs to be located in Denmark and other countries around the North sea. We do not think that is acceptable. That is why we are bringing the jobs here and helping workers to transition into those industries.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
I strongly welcome this announcement, which, along with the agreement of the Forth green freeport full business case, demonstrates this Government’s commitment to reindustrialising Grangemouth, Leith and the wider Forth area. Can the Minister provide any details on when we will see the £25 million of seed capital attached to that deal being deployed to further secure and create jobs across the area?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend makes the point incredibly well about the need to reindustrialise and create good industrial jobs. It is my mission as Industry Minister to release additional productive capacity in the UK that will increase our manufacturing output and improve our productivity and balance of trade. That is rare—it might be decades since a Government have had this level of ambition for our industrial and manufacturing sectors—but for us it is about not just ambition and words but delivering jobs on the ground.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
It would be churlish of Opposition Members not to recognise the importance of these 500 jobs or welcome their being saved, as it would for Government Members not to acknowledge that we are seeing a sort of self-licking ice cream here—a self-perpetuating system whereby the Government have to intervene in industries that are being damaged by their own policies. Industry that is hanging on by the skin of its teeth will not take well to the news of cheaper energy prices in due course—years down the line—because it is almost at the edge of going out of business. Instead of measuring ourselves against expensive Italy and France, should we not be looking at the much cheaper prices in the United States and China?
Chris McDonald
I enjoyed the analogy about the self-licking ice cream, but it demonstrates a lack of understanding of what a real industrial strategy is on the Conservative side of the House. We all like to think that things are simple, but then we grow up. It is important to recognise that these industries are trading in international markets and need to abide by their rules. What we have done is to create a package that supports a sustainable business plan for that industry. The hon. Member mentions the lower energy prices in the USA—I acknowledge that the USA has lower energy prices, primarily due to its decision to introduce fracking. We have decided not to do that. Is he saying that he would like to do that? If he would, that is fine, but it is a point of difference between us—we will not do that. Our policy is to ensure that our industries remain competitive without that.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the statement and the work his team and the Scotland Office team did in securing the 500 jobs at Grangemouth. I also pay tribute to the former Business Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds)—now the Chief Whip—for the work he did on this deal and on keeping the lights on last Christmas at Harland & Wolff in Arnish, Methil, Belfast and Appledore. Then as now, voters and workers expect the two Governments to work together, but the Minister will confirm that the SNP sat on its hands over Grangemouth. The SNP checked out—as it has checked out today—on standing up for Scotland’s workers.
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is right to mention the hard work of the Chief Whip and former Business Secretary, because deals like this with international businesses require a significant amount of discussion and engagement. That is precisely the point of our industrial strategy: it is a partnership in which the Government work closely together with businesses to secure investment for the long term. Investment like this hangs around for a generation and provides generational opportunities for employment in local areas. We know that the decisions that this Government are making will provide those employment opportunities for people in Grangemouth and across Scotland for generations to come.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Minister mentioned in his statement the £200 million for projects in Grangemouth from the National Wealth Fund. I would like to raise with him a concern that was raised in evidence to the Treasury Committee, which is that the National Wealth Fund has to operate on the riskier end of project proposals because it does not want to crowd out private investment, but that means necessarily that many projects will fail. The worry is that politicians will not be ready to defend projects that fail under the National Wealth Fund. Does the Minister agree with that assessment, and is he willing to accept that, given the risk profile of the National Wealth Fund, some projects will fail as part of the deal?
Chris McDonald
I very much welcome the hon. Member’s question because it gives me an opportunity to talk about risk appetite in investment, which I certainly am interested in—if other Members are not, I apologise in advance.
The National Wealth Fund is doing something special and different, but it is also worth looking at it alongside the other tools that the Government have: the British Business Bank and UK Export Finance. The hon. Member is right that the National Wealth Fund’s job is to crowd in, so it should not be at the easy end of the investment; otherwise, it would be crowding out. It has a target to produce a return on investment. Ultimately, the National Wealth Fund needs to take a portfolio approach that delivers that return. I know that in the past, industrial strategies in this country have suffered from casual approaches around things like “picking winners”—that sort of language is incredibly unhelpful. The point of taking a portfolio approach is that, of course, some businesses will succeed and some will not. Frankly, if every business the National Wealth Fund invests in succeeds, its risk appetite is in the wrong place. Some businesses will fail—we accept that; that is absolutely the point of the approach—but as a result of the National Wealth Fund’s investment partnering with industry in the commercial sector to de-risk projects, we will see some big successes, too.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
This is such welcome news for Grangemouth and Scotland just prior to Christmas. My thanks go to the Minister and all Departments that worked jointly to secure the deal. It is a pity that the SNP could not bring itself to mention the Grangemouth investment earlier today at PMQs—perhaps after decades of failure, the SNP cannot recognise success. Does the Minister agree that both the SNP and the Tories sat on their hands while the future of jobs at Grangemouth was at risk? Does he agree that today’s announcement demonstrates that Scotland needs a Scottish Labour Government in Holyrood to secure more good jobs?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is correct that the Government’s decision here and their previous industrial strategy decisions have been in marked contrast to the decisions of the Scottish National party and the Conservatives previously.
There is something astonishing about this. I know that the Conservatives are hidebound by their free market ideology, which means that they are prepared to let British businesses and jobs go to the wall, but surely they should stand up for things like defence and national security, for which these businesses are so vital? They support our defence supply chains, as well as health and water. It should be natural for the Conservatives to stand up for things like that. The past inaction of the Conservatives and the SNP on this issue has been astonishing. The big message to the voters of Scotland is: vote Labour in the spring.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I know that Government Members forget which Parliament they are actually in—who knows, maybe they would feel better in the Scottish Parliament.
This is a welcome announcement. For months now, the Scottish Government have been calling on the UK Government to intervene to protect jobs at Grangemouth and Mossmorran at a scale seen in other parts of the UK. The news will give some much needed Christmas cheer, at least to the Grangemouth community and the workers at Ineos Olefins & Polymers. Last week the Scottish Government, jointly with the UK Government and Celtic Renewables, announced an £8.5 million investment at the Grangemouth industrial cluster, including in MiAlgae. That will create up to 460 jobs, demonstrating that a long-term industrial future at the site is achievable. We will continue to do all we can within the limited powers that the Scottish Parliament has.
However, the announcement today does not help those at the neighbouring refinery whose jobs have already been lost. Although there may be some crossover support for nearby Mossmorran workers, there is still a substantial gap in support. Will the Minister finally accept that one of the most fundamental causes of the need for support is the fiscal regime being inflicted on oil and gas and the use of the energy profits levy, which make a just transition a near impossibility?
Chris McDonald
The hon. Gentleman mentions the refinery; as I said earlier, Ineos made the final decision to close the refinery in November 2023, having provided data for years to the Conservative Government in Westminster and the SNP in Holyrood, who said and did nothing.
The hon. Gentleman talks about the scale of investment; I am really surprised, to be honest, that he has not raised that even more firmly. We are talking about a complete package of investment in Grangemouth, announced by this Government, that approaches half a billion pounds: £100 million in the summer, £200 million from the National Wealth Fund, £14.5 million in the Budget and £150 million in this package. That is only a rounding error shy of half a billion pounds for Grangemouth. I would have thought that the SNP would at least acknowledge that.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
I pay tribute to all the Ministers across all the Departments who have worked together to get this over the line. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) for not giving up and making sure that it happened.
Grangemouth matters to all of us; we all have constituents who work in the complex or the supply chain. There has been real investment. As a result of announcements over the last few months and again today, we can talk about new highly skilled jobs for a generation. We are again able to talk to people locally about how important it is to get jobs in the advanced manufacturing and chemical sectors. Given that skills are devolved to the Scottish Government, how is the Minister liaising with them to make sure that we are getting that investment for our young people?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend spoke powerfully about how Grangemouth matters to the local area. I was chairing a roundtable of the chemicals industry at the Wilton cluster in Teesside; those who, like me, have worked in the chemicals industry or work there now know that Grangemouth matters to all of us across the United Kingdom. The support of the workers and families in Grangemouth makes a big difference to all our lives.
My hon. Friend mentioned jobs. I have talked about the jobs in the clean energy sector created in Scotland and the rest of the country. Last week, I saw that for myself when I attended a clean energy jobs fair at the port of Tyne. I spoke to apprentices excited about the new job opportunities that this Government are creating. The one thing that they know—they heard it from me and said it themselves—is that Reform are coming for their jobs. They know that firmly, and should certainly take it into account when they vote.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Members know that I want to get everybody in, but I am aiming to finish the statement at around 5.30 pm, so please help each other by asking short questions and giving short answers.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I strongly welcome today’s announcement, which is important not only for workers in Grangemouth but for the wider Scottish economy. Whether it is today’s announcement about Grangemouth, protecting shipbuilding on the Clyde or the supercomputer in Edinburgh, the Labour Government are standing up for workers and for Scotland’s strategic industries. Does the Minister agree that whereas Labour stands up for manufacturing, the SNP can only manufacture grievance?
Chris McDonald
I certainly do agree with my hon. Friend. Given that he represents Edinburgh, he might like to learn an interesting Grangemouth fact: if the Government had not stepped in to support Ineos, the Grangemouth site would be flaring enough gas every day to power the entire city of Edinburgh, such is the scale and importance of the Grangemouth site.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
No pressure, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for his statement and for not giving up on these workers. He was slightly generous in describing the situation inherited from the SNP and the Tories as “managed decline”, but perhaps that was because it is Christmastime. It is great to see my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), on the Front Bench, and I thank him for all his work in saving these jobs as well. On Monday, my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and I were at a meeting with representatives of the aviation sector, where Grangemouth was mentioned repeatedly. The aviation sector is desperate for more sustainable aviation fuel production in the UK and it is targeting Grangemouth as a potential source. Does the Minister agree with the sector about that?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Minister, I need you to lead by giving an answer that is the definition of succinct.
Chris McDonald
I will try to do that, Madam Deputy Speaker. Grangemouth certainly has great potential for the manufacture of sustainable aviation fuel, along with our other clusters. My hon. Friend mentioned managed decline, but it was worse than that: it was complete indifference to industry and manufacturing in the UK.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I will try to keep my question brief. The SNP and the Tories sat on their hands while jobs and livelihoods were at risk, so I warmly welcome the announcement today and I thank the Minister and all Departments involved. The announcement not only protects 500 jobs; it is an investment in our national security. Does the Minister agree that it is only Labour that is backing business, backing workers and backing Scotland?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is right that this is an investment in our national security, our infrastructure, our industry, the workforce and the opportunities for young people in the Grangemouth area.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Today’s news of UK Government investment in Grangemouth is welcome. Following the devastating announcement by ExxonMobil about job losses at Mossmorran in my constituency, the Mossmorran taskforce is now up and running to give maximum support to the workforce and to consider the future of that site. I welcome the news today that the Mossmorran workers will be prioritised for interview for new jobs created at Ineos in Grangemouth. The Minister and I have discussed this, but will he confirm that the Government are exploring investing in possible alternative futures for the site and the workforce at Mossmorran?
Chris McDonald
Industrial sites like the one at Mossmorran are incredibly valuable to the UK. We mentioned the strategic sites accelerator in our industrial strategy, and I would be interested to explore whether Mossmorran could be a part of that. It is important that we do that and that we move fast, because I learned only today that prior to this, the SNP-led Scottish Government have not held a single meeting about planning transition for Mossmorran, so we will have to run fast to catch up.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
In common with colleagues, I thank all the Members on the Government Front Bench for their work on this investment, including the former Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), and the current Secretary of State. Grangemouth can be seen from the Fife coastal path in my constituency, and many of my constituents work at Grangemouth. While the site was totally ignored by the SNP and the Tories for years, this Government have dutifully and quietly gone about their work of finding an effective solution that will not only protect 500 jobs, but create more in the future, showing the commitment that this Government have to the Forth valley. Does the Minister agree that this shows what can happen when we have a constructive Labour Government, and that we could do even more with Anas Sanwar as the First Minister next year?
Chris McDonald
I do agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that with Anas Sarwar as the leader at Holyrood, we will be able to implement the Government’s work on Project Willow, which has identified Grangemouth as the ideal site for plastics recycling, biofuels and other projects that will maximise the local competitive advantage and the skills of the workforce.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
After the Tories and the SNP did nothing for so many years to address the long-term future of Grangemouth, it is hugely welcome that Labour Ministers have made this announcement, which offers opportunities to workers in Fife affected by the closure of the ExxonMobil plant at Mossmorran. What further opportunities will the modern industrial strategy offer for skilled jobs in high-growth industries in Scotland, including at the Methil yard in my constituency, which was saved by this Government?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is right to point out that it is only this Labour Government who have made this decision. This is an appropriate time to identify that the intervention in Grangemouth has a significant impact on securing our ethylene pipeline, which runs across the whole of the UK, as well as on chemical plants in Runcorn and the Forties pipeline. That demonstrates that interventions like this and plants such as Grangemouth work well when we are all part of an integrated United Kingdom.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Members might ask, “What has Grimsby got to do with Grangemouth?” Well, this is great news for Grangemouth, but I am afraid it will be cold comfort to the workers at the Prax Lindsey oil refinery, where 400 directly employed people have already lost or will lose their jobs by March, along with hundreds more in the supply chain. They will be asking, “Why the investment there but not here?” Is there any good news on the horizon for jobs in petrochemicals or energy in the Humber?
Chris McDonald
That is exactly the right question to ask about the Prax Lindsey oil refinery. One of the fundamental differences between the two is the Government’s ability to deal with the owner. The owner of the Prax Lindsey oil refinery left the business in a really terrible state. Of course, we all care very deeply for the workers there and for the families in Humberside; having worked in Humberside myself, I empathise greatly with them.
We are now in the late stages of the process with the official receiver, who has confirmed some redundancies because the offers he has received do not see refinery production returning within the next few years. We hope that process will conclude in the new year. I believe the jobs are guaranteed until March, and the Government have provided significant transitional support to help the workers to move into other jobs in the local area.
Points of Order
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. More than 40 Members of this House, led by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), wrote to the Justice Secretary on Monday urgently requesting that he respond, intervene and meet the lawyers of the Palestine Action prisoners, who have been on hunger strike for over 45 days. Since then, one of the prisoners, 20-year-old Qesser Zuhrah, was not transferred to hospital until just a couple of hours ago, despite her urgent pleas for urgent medical treatment since yesterday afternoon.
Prisoners have the right to humane conditions, to a fair trial and to medical treatment. Given that lives are at immediate risk and that points of order have been raised by Members of this House to no avail, could you kindly advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, what we may do to get an urgent response and intervention from the Justice Secretary before the House rises tomorrow for the Christmas recess?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. I understand that this matter was raised with Justice Ministers yesterday. The hon. Member may also wish to raise this issue during tomorrow’s debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment. In the meantime, if she requires further assistance in raising it with Justice Ministers directly, she may wish to seek further advice from the Clerks.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In a written answer on 9 December 2025 to a parliamentary question that I had submitted, the Treasury stated explicitly that it had not opened any new inquiries into child benefit eligibility in the context of the serious errors in a trial of data sharing between the Home Office and the Treasury. However, I have recently seen correspondence between the press team at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and journalists that directly contradicts the answer given through the Table Office, with HMRC’s press office stating that the programme was not paused and that therefore new inquiries were continuing. As both things cannot be true at the same time, can you give me advice and guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how the official record can be urgently set straight?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. While I am not responsible for the accuracy of responses that Ministers give to written parliamentary questions, I am clear that it is of the utmost importance that Ministers are properly held to account by Members, and that they take their responsibilities to the House seriously. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the hon. Member’s concerns, and I hope they will pass them on to the relevant Minister. The hon. Member may also wish to raise the matter with the Procedure Committee, which is currently undertaking an inquiry into written parliamentary questions.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter relating to access to the House. Unison had arranged, today, a lobby day for migrant care workers to meet their Members of Parliament and discuss concerns around care worker visas, exploitation and support for the sector. Those attending came from across the country, including from my constituency, and some came from as far as the Scottish highlands and Northern Ireland.
The event was originally intended to take place on the parliamentary estate, either in Westminster Hall or in Committee Rooms, giving some of the hardest-working and lowest-paid workers in our country a valuable opportunity to visit and engage in this place of democracy. Many workers took time off at an incredibly busy time and arranged cover to enable them to attend. However, I was shocked to learn that they were informed late on Tuesday evening that they would no longer be permitted to use the facilities in the House. They were instead moved to a venue off the estate, meaning that the majority were not able to visit Parliament at all.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would be grateful for your guidance on how such decisions are made; how Members can raise concerns with the House authorities; and whether you would be willing to join me in apologising to these key workers, and ensuring that they will be able to visit the House and meet Members properly at a future date.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for notice of her point of order, and for raising this important issue. I will draw it to the attention of Mr Speaker and the House authorities so that she may receive a substantive and full response.
Bills Presented
Afghanistan Schemes Data Breaches (Independent Public Inquiry) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
James MacCleary, supported by Calum Miller, Monica Harding, Richard Foord, Helen Maguire and Cameron Thomas, presented a Bill to make provision for establishing an independent public inquiry into data breaches by the Ministry of Defence and other public bodies relating to applicants to the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy Scheme and Afghanistan Locally Employed Staff Ex-Gratia Scheme; to provide the inquiry with the power to question Ministers, former Ministers, officials and other relevant persons about the circumstances surrounding such breaches, including action taken in response to the breaches and decisions taken by the Government in relation to legal proceedings in respect of the breaches; to require the inquiry to report within one year of its establishment; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 January, and to be printed (Bill 350).
Leases (Integrated Retirement Communities) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Dr Andrew Murrison presented a Bill to make provision about leases for occupancy of premises in integrated retirement communities; to make provision about any fees associated with such leases; to make provision about the regulation of operators of integrated retirement communities; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 January 2026, and to be printed (Bill 352).
Youth Services
Wednesday 17th December 2025
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberYouth Services Bill 2024-26 View all Youth Services Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the delivery of youth services by local authorities, including services under section 507B of the Education Act 1996; to require local authorities to specify groups of young people to receive particular services for the purposes of personal and social development of people in those groups; to make provision about the inclusion of youth services in arrangements for the inspection of children’s services and social care services; to make provision about targets for the delivery of youth work and measurement of delivery against those targets; to require local authorities to consult users and prospective users of youth services about the provision of those services; and for connected purposes.
As outlined in the Government’s national youth strategy, every young person deserves a safe place to go, a trusted adult to turn to, and the opportunity to develop skills, confidence and a sense of belonging. For generations, youth services have provided exactly that; they have offered support beyond the school gates, stability when home life is difficult, and early help long before problems escalate to crisis. Today, though, too many young people are growing up without access to those services.
The duty on councils to provide youth services already exists in law. Section 507B of the Education Act 1996 requires local authorities to secure sufficient leisure-time activities for young people. However, the law does not define what “sufficient” means. There are no clear expectations, no common standards, and no effective way to assess whether the duty is being met in practice. This lack of clarity has left youth services vulnerable when councils are forced to balance competing statutory pressures. As a result, funding for youth services has been cut by £1.2 billion since 2010.
Over the same period, the number of council-run youth centres has fallen by more than half. What remains is not only smaller in scale, but increasingly uneven in reach, with spending on youth services ranging from around £1 per young person in some areas to over £130 in others. That inconsistency is the predictable outcome of a statutory framework that is vague, weakly enforced and too easily sidelined.
That matters because youth services do not exist in isolation. When they are absent, pressures do not disappear, but simply resurface elsewhere. In England today, one in five children and young people have a probable mental health disorder. Incidents of youth violence remain at high levels, with 3,000 knife crime offences last year involving children. The Office for National Statistics reports that 16 to 24-year-olds are now the loneliest group in our society. Last year’s “Good Childhood Report” states that the UK’s children and young people are the unhappiest in Europe.
I have seen at first hand the impact that a lack of statutory protection and the defunding of youth services can have on a community. In Croydon, London’s youngest borough, we have lost our council-run youth engagement team. That team of youth workers provided a critical link between the council, the voluntary sector and vulnerable young people across the borough. The lack of statutory protection meant that this vital service was cut without proper consultation with key partners like the local police and the NHS, and without consulting widely with Croydon’s young people. Although Croydon’s voluntary sector is doing all it can to step up and step in where the council has stepped back, without sufficiency benchmarks there is little that our community can do to ensure that Croydon’s youth services are delivered consistently across the borough and in a way that reflects local need.
The purpose of the Bill is to address that structural weakness. It starts with a simple premise: if Parliament places a duty on local authorities, that duty should be meaningful and clear, and should hold local authorities to account. Youth services should not be left to chance and young people should not be left waiting for support that never comes. At present, statutory guidance sets out broad principles but avoids firm expectations. It does not define minimum levels of provision, workforce capacity or accessibility. Over time, this lack of clarity has hollowed out provision and widened regional disparities.
The Bill proposes benchmarks around three core areas. First, on workforce capacity, youth work is a skilled profession, built on relationships, trust and safeguarding, so the Bill sets expectations around access to qualified youth workers, recognising the importance of professional expertise alongside volunteers and community organisations. The expectations are not about imposing a one-size-fits-all model or micromanaging local delivery. They are about setting a clear national floor below which provision should not fall, while leaving local authorities free to design services that reflect local need.
Secondly, the Bill proposes targets and benchmarks for delivery, which could include a per head funding model, the distance that young people must travel to access services, or ensuring that there are enough safe spaces for young people in each area. The benchmarks would bring transparency and comparability to spending decisions, and make it easier for councillors, inspectors and local residents to see whether youth services are being properly resourced. Without a clear sense of what adequate investment looks like, youth services will always struggle to compete with other statutory responsibilities.
Thirdly, the Bill proposes ensuring that young people are consulted, so that services reflect local need and young people’s priorities. Youth services work best when young people help to shape them, and the Bill seeks to embed consultation, participation and the democratic involvement of young people in the design of their services. The good news is that this has been done before. In the early 2000s, national guidance set out clear expectations on leadership, workforce and inspection. Those arrangements have since fallen away, but they demonstrate that it is possible and appropriate for the Government to define what sufficiency looks like.
The Bill also recognises the reality of modern delivery. Local authorities increasingly work in partnership with voluntary and community organisations. That partnership working will be made stronger if it is underpinned by co-ordination, data and accountability. By strengthening reporting requirements and linking youth services into existing inspection and outcome frameworks, the Bill aims to support improvement rather than impose punishment.
The aim of the Bill is to make youth services a core part of the local safety net, not an optional extra that disappears when finances are tight. That is important because youth services sit at the point where opportunity meets prevention.
About 85% of a young person’s waking hours are spent outside the classroom. What happens during that time shapes their wellbeing, their confidence and their future. The evidence is clear: investment in youth services pays off. Research by UK Youth and Frontier Economics shows that every £1 invested in youth work delivers between £3.20 and £6.40 in social value, through improved wellbeing, reduced crime and better long-term outcomes. This is not just a moral investment in our nation’s future; it is a practical one too.
In that context, we must wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s national youth strategy, the political focus that it gives our young people and the extra £500 million of investment that comes with it. The strategy rightly recognises the importance of youth work, and the need to look again at the statutory framework that underpins it. However, a commitment to explore and review, although important, does not in itself restore provision on the ground. Young people who are growing up today cannot wait years for clarity to emerge.
This Bill takes the Government’s stated ambitions and gives them the practical effect that is needed. It replaces ambiguity with clarity, aspiration with benchmarks, and guidance with accountability. It strengthens an existing duty rather than creating a new one, and it builds on mechanisms that are already in place. This is not about dictating a single model of provision; it is about setting a fair and transparent baseline so that no young person is left without support simply because of where they live; it is about giving local authorities the framework they need to prioritise youth services and to work effectively with voluntary and community partners; and it is about ending the often patchwork postcode lottery of provision that young people currently face.
The Youth Services Bill offers a practical and proportionate way to achieve that. It strengthens the statutory duty, provides clarity where there is currently confusion, and helps to ensure that youth services are treated as a core part of our commitment to the next generation. For those reasons, I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Natasha Irons, Dr Lauren Sullivan, Josh Dean, Jim Dickson, Shockat Adam, Vikki Slade, Mrs Sharon Hodgson, Abtisam Mohamed, Gareth Snell, Afzal Khan, Rachael Maskell and Kim Johnson present the Bill.
Natasha Irons accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 January 2026, and to be printed (Bill 353).
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill
Wednesday 17th December 2025
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberNational Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill 2024-26 View all National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:45 - The House divided: - Ayes: 312 / Noes: 165 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a short and simple Bill. It is a stocking filler to yesterday’s Finance Bill. [Interruption.] There are just three clauses for the chuntering Opposition Members to enjoy. They focus on amending the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, and they do so to create a power to apply national insurance contributions to salary sacrifice pension contributions above £2,000 a year from April 2029.
I will focus my remarks on three areas: first, why Government action in this regard was inevitable; secondly, the case for the pragmatic, balanced approach that we propose to take; and thirdly, how this sits with wider, crucial questions about pension savings on which the House rightly focuses.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
My intervention will be very brief. The Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland has told me of its concerns about national insurance contributions, but it has also told me that utility prices are up by 52.7%, labour costs by 51.5%, and taxes by 47.2%. I ask the Minister respectfully how he and the Government can expect small businesses to survive increases at that level.
Torsten Bell
I will come to the exact point that the hon. Gentleman raises. The main answer to his question is that we are introducing this change with a very long implementation period—it will not come in until 2029—in order to give businesses and others time to adjust. Businesses have welcomed that across the board, but I will come on to it shortly.
It is always important to keep the effectiveness and value for money of tax reliefs under review; after all, their cost is estimated to be over £500 billion a year. That is always true, but it is especially true when we see the cost explode. That is why we acted in the Budget to reform employee ownership trust capital gains tax relief, because the cost was set to reach more than 20 times what was intended at its introduction.
That is what we see happening in the case of pension salary sacrifice: its cost is on course to almost treble between 2017 and the end of this decade. That would take it to £8 billion a year. For some context, that is the equivalent of the cost of the Royal Air Force. I will repeat that: the cost of pension salary sacrifice was due to rise to the equivalent of our spending, in real terms, on the Royal Air Force. The growth has been fastest among higher earners, with additional rate payers tripling their pension salary sacrifice contributions since 2017. While those on higher salaries are most likely to take part, many others are unable to do so at all.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I understand the justification for making changes to the salary sacrifice arrangements. The Minister mentions higher earners. Can he explain a bit more about the breakdown of those who are benefiting under the current system as a percentage of the whole? I do not know whether he has that data with him.
Torsten Bell
I will come on to some statistics that might answer my hon. Friend’s question.
While those on the highest salaries are most likely to take part in salary sacrifice, others are completely excluded. This goes to the question from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Torsten Bell
I will make some progress before giving way again.
The majority of employers do not offer salary sacrifice at all, including many small businesses. Workers on the national living wage are excluded entirely, and so are the 4.4 million self-employed people across the UK. On grounds of cost and fairness, it is near impossible to defend the status quo.
Of course, a major part of the job of the Opposition is to oppose some things that the Government are doing. I do not want to prejudge the remarks that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), will offer shortly, but I am confident that we will hear some opposition—maybe a word or two—to the Bill.
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to the Minister for arguing for more money for the Royal Air Force, and I very much hope that his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury are listening. We were told a little over a year ago that we had wiped the slate clean and that the Government would not be coming back to demand more money to fill various non-existent black holes. What has changed over the past several months that means he is now coming back to levy this very large sum of money?
Torsten Bell
I think I have already answered the right hon. Member’s question: it is important to keep tax reliefs under review. The cost of pension salary sacrifice is growing very fast indeed, so we have reviewed this tax relief and think it is important to bring in pragmatic changes, as I will come on to.
As I was saying, I am confidently looking forward—
Torsten Bell
I am going to make a bit of progress, and then I will give way to the hon. Member.
The truth is that reform was inevitable. Although Conservative Members are not saying it now, they know this is true, because it is what they said in government. In the 2015 summer Budget, they said:
“Salary sacrifice arrangements…are becoming increasingly popular and the cost to the taxpayer is rising”—
[Interruption.] I will come on to what the last Government wanted to do in the pensions space in a second. I am glad that the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) is so keen to hear this; he is setting me up nicely for what is coming in a second.
The summer Budget of 2015 went on to say:
“The government will actively monitor the growth of these schemes and their effect on tax receipts”,
which is the same argument that I just made to the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). That monitoring led, a year later, to the then Chancellor—now Baron Hammond of Runnymede—announcing benefit-in-kind restrictions. He told this House:
“The majority of employees pay tax on a cash salary, but some are able to sacrifice salary…and pay much lower tax… That is unfair”.—[Official Report, 23 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 907.]
He was right then, and the same argument holds today.
Former Conservative Ministers should certainly agree, because in government they were planning exactly the kind of change to pensions that we are now introducing. By way of proof, in 2023 the Conservatives commissioned research on restricting salary sacrifice arrangements for pensions, which is exactly the same measure they are opposing today. What was the proposed cap on pension salary sacrifice in that report? It was £2,000 a year, which is exactly the same cap they are opposing today.
Lincoln Jopp
The Minister seems to have co-opted the amount of money spent on the Royal Air Force into his argument. Is he aware that absent the defence investment plan—it was promised in the autumn, and the House rises tomorrow—we have no idea about the size, shape and cost of the Royal Air Force, because the Government are late with their homework?
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Gentleman, as I always do, because he always makes interesting points, but my larger point is this: if the Conservative party refuses ever to support any increases in taxation, increases in such spending—I think there is cross-party support for the Ministry of Defence, as the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire mentioned—cannot be funded and cannot happen.
Almost every tax expert in the country has noted the need for change, and most have called for pension salary sacrifice to be ended entirely. However, we are taking a more pragmatic approach by recognising that change will affect many employers and employees. Our balanced approach has two key parts. The first is time. As I said to the hon. Member for Strangford, nothing will change overnight. We are providing over three years’ notice of the reform’s implementation. What did the previous Government provide to employers? One year’s notice of their reforms to salary sacrifice. This will give everybody involved time to prepare and adjust, which is widely welcomed by firms and business groups. Employers and payroll providers have already been working with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to ensure that this change operates in the most effective way, and that process will continue as we approach implementation.
The second key design choice is the cap of £2,000. This cap protects ordinary workers and limits the impact on employers, while ensuring that the system remains fiscally sustainable. The cap means that the majority of those currently using salary sacrifice will be unaffected. It means that almost all—95%—of those earning £30,000 or less, who work disproportionately for small businesses, will be entirely unaffected, and 87% of affected salary sacrifice contributions above the cap are forecast to be made by higher and additional rate taxpayers. This is a pragmatic and fair approach, as well as the fiscally responsible one.
Some will claim—I am sure we will hear this from the Opposition—that salary sacrifice arrangements drive aggregate levels of pension savings. That is simply wrong. After all, salary sacrifice arrangements existed through the 2000s and into the early 2010s, and what happened to pension savings during that period? There were not rises, but big falls in private sector participation in pension savings. The existence of salary sacrifice did nothing to prevent a situation in which, by 2012, only one in three private sector workers were saving into a pension.
What made the difference was not the complicated national insurance reliefs available to some employees, but automatic enrolment, the groundwork for which was laid under the last Labour Government and which was continued by Conservative and Liberal Democrat Ministers. That reversed the collapse in workplace pension saving, and it means that over 22 million workers are now saving each month.
We also see that contributions have risen in line with regulatory requirements, not with the growth of salary sacrifice. Pension salary sacrifice relief doubled between 2019 and 2023. Was that associated with a surge in average pension contribution levels? No, they have remained entirely stable as a proportion of pay, because all the evidence indicates that it is largely automatic enrolment that drives changes in pension savings. That should not surprise anybody, because the research commissioned by the Conservative party that I mentioned earlier pointed in the same direction. It found that the majority of employers reducing their tax bill by offering pension salary sacrifice did not use the savings to increase pension contributions.
More importantly for any member of the public listening—and it is important for all of us to be clear about this throughout this debate—pension saving will remain highly tax-advantaged after these changes. I have seen some deeply misleading comments in the media and otherwise on wider changes to pension tax relief, saying that people will not be saving as much as they previously were. The public should be clear that we are spending over £70 billion per year on pension tax relief, and that will be entirely unaffected by these changes. Employer contributions will continue to be the most tax-advantaged part of the pension tax system, being made entirely national insurance contribution-free.
These are necessary changes that everyone who has thought about this subject knew would be needed, and they are changes being implemented in a pragmatic and balanced way. They are also consistent with the longer-term approach to reforming the pension system that is now in train.
There is cross-party agreement that the work of the Pensions Commission is important as it examines questions of adequacy and fairness. We all know too many people are under-saving. Many commentators have called for higher minimum saving rates within automatic enrolment, including some on the Opposition Front Bench. The commission is crunching the numbers and talking to employers, trade unions and the pensions industry. We should not prejudge its work so I would now simply note that higher savings rates means pension tax relief costs rising further. If we combine that with the reality that if pension salary sacrifice remains unreformed, the end point could be all employee contributions being funnelled through this route, it implies costs at least doubling again to well over £15 billion a year, which means £15 billion in higher taxes elsewhere or cuts to public services. That is the logical conclusion of the arguments from those opposing today’s Bill.
Then we come to the real problem of some groups disproportionately under-saving, which, again, Members on both sides of this House have rightly raised in debates on pensions in recent months. The Pensions Commission is focused on groups we know are most exposed, including low earners, some ethnic minorities, women and the self-employed. This is a real challenge for our pension system but the data is entirely clear that today’s salary sacrifice is not the answer. That is true whichever group we look at. Let us take them in turn. The self-employed are a top concern, with only one in five saving into a pension, but they are entirely excluded from pension salary sacrifice. Low earners are most likely not to be saving, but it is higher earners who are most likely to be using salary sacrifice. And many more women are under-saving for retirement, but many more men use pension salary sacrifice.
These are fair and balanced reforms. They protect ordinary workers, they give employers many years to prepare, and they ensure both our pension system and the public finances are kept on a sustainable footing. Opposing them is not cost-free: the savings from this measure are equivalent to over 250,000 knee and hip operations every year. The truth is that they are inevitable, which is why at least one party opposite was planning to introduce them. I gently suggest to some Members that they can, of course, take the easy route of opposing this change, but the truth is that they will be doing so with their fingers crossed behind their backs, because many know this change needed to come one day, and I suspect not one of the parties opposite will promise to undo it in the years ahead—but we will see.
The Budget delivered badly needed tax reforms ducked for too long by previous Chancellors. Whether it is the pragmatic reform in front of us today or ensuring that everyone driving on the roads contributes to their upkeep, these reforms are what it takes to keep cutting waiting lists, cutting borrowing and cutting energy bills, and I commend them and this Bill to the House.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I have to say that it is a joy to yet again be locking horns with the Pensions Minister on a topic that is important to us all: saving for our retirement. And it is important to note that there are many things that we agree on. We all acknowledge there is an impending issue with pension adequacy: when 50% of savers are projected to miss a retirement income target set by the 2005 Pensions Commission, we agree there is a problem that needs dealing with. We also all acknowledge that UK pension funds are not investing into the UK equity market to the extent that we would all want, although I would caveat that with a fundamental disagreement: on this side, we want to understand the problem; the Minister wants to tell fund managers what they should and should not be doing in terms of where their investment goes. But we also agree with the noble aim of delivering growth in the UK economy, even if the Government are making a little bit of a mess of delivering that aim— growth slowing, inflation up, unemployment up—but we hope they get the hang of it in due course.
But that is why the Chancellor’s Budget is disappointing. For pensioners, she has flown kites about the tax-free lump sum, frozen the personal allowance threshold, and forced millions of pensioners to start paying income tax. Those are her choices. For savers, she has reduced the cash ISA limit to £12,000, scrapped the lifetime ISA for new investors, and increased tax on dividends and savings by two percentage points. Those are her choices. For hard-working people, this Government have reduced real household disposable income, pulled millions more people into paying the higher rate of income tax, and created perverse incentives that make some better off on benefits. These are her choices. So it is no wonder that this Budget has been dubbed the smorgasbord of misery.
It has now got to the stage where our economy has never been taxed so much, and it will get worse. When coming into office, the tax take was 36.4% of GDP. By the time Labour leaves office in four years’ time, it will be 38.2%. It is worth looking at examples of how it is levied. For example, a basic rate taxpayer earning £100 will pay 20% tax, but they will also pay 12% national insurance—an actual tax rate of 32%. Add to that their employer’s contribution, and for a headline basic rate taxpayer on up to £50,000, for each £100 they earn, the taxman takes £47. For a higher rate taxpayer, the marginal rate goes to 57%. The taxman takes more than the employee.
Given the hit to payrolls, both at the employee and employer level, it is no wonder that saving into a pension through salary sacrifice has become popular. Even the Government think it is a brilliant idea, using it for 10% of government employees. It is no wonder, therefore, that people use incentives such as salary sacrifice to make the most of their money, to do the right thing, to save a little bit more, to take responsibility for their futures, and to not rely on the state in their retirement. It is no surprise then that 7.7 million people take advantage of that.
Here we are with something that is popular and that incentivises the right behaviour, and the Government say, “No, we don’t like it.” The Government’s proposal, which we are discussing today, is a tax on 3.3 million people and 290,000 employers—those in the highest levels of pay. How much are they being asked to contribute? How much are we going to whack savers? Some £4.48 billion. That is right—if you do the right thing, if you work and save, this Government will come after you. The Office for Budget Responsibility gets it. It realises—unlike, apparently, the Government—that this will change behaviour and so the tax take drops to £2.6 billion in the second year because people will change their behaviour. Even the Government lose out.
The Government’s contradictions are legion. The financial inclusion strategy, published recently, stated very clearly:
“Our aim is to create a culture in which everyone is supported to build a savings habit, building their financial resilience in the long term.”
A brilliant idea. [Interruption.] Thumbs up from the Pensions Minister! But even after that very clear message, the Government reduced the cash ISA limit, scrapped lifetime ISAs for new investors, and introduced a 2% increase to dividend tax and, the icing on the cake, a £4.8 billion tax on pension savers.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
To the hon. Gentleman’s point about changing behaviour, we have already seen reports that two out of five people are less likely to save if the salary sacrifice scheme goes. We have already seen a reduction in contributions because of the cost of living crisis. Are we not just moving the pain somewhere else? Will we not end up with fewer people able to support themselves in old age and it will be back on the state again?
Mark Garnier
Absolutely. The Government are really keen to get people to save for their futures and then they do everything they can to try to stop them doing that. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are just going to kick another problem down the road. By the way, when the Minister talks about hip replacements and so on, it is savers’ money. It is just that they are taxing them less.
At the same time as the Government look to improve pensions adequacy, they will be taking £4.8 billion from savers and employers. They identify a problem, say they will work to make it better, and then make it worse. Surely, when they were writing the Budget—I know the Pensions Minister has been a significant penholder in that process—they must have seen the extraordinary contradictions in their proposals?
The House would expect me to bang on about this—I am the shadow Minister and that is my job—but let us listen to the verdict from a few experts about the policy we are debating today. Pensions UK stated:
“Any change to salary sacrifice would inject uncertainty into a system that needs long-term trust, not sudden shocks…Introducing a cap would weaken incentives to save when we are facing a generation retiring with inadequate retirement savings.”
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales stated:
“This cap will make it more complex for employers to offer a simple and flexible solution for retirement savings.”
The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries stated:
“The decision to impose a £2,000 limit…will undermine current efforts to improve retirement outcomes for individuals. In doing so, the act of saving into a pension will now be more expensive, more complex and less attractive to both employees and employers.”
Evelyn Partners stated:
“Restricting this sensible tax benefit that makes private sector saving more attractive adds insult to injury in a two-tier pension system”.
PwC stated:
“In a bid to bolster the public purse…Budget risks reducing employees’ take-home pay while placing additional pressure on businesses through rising employment costs”.
Hargreaves Lansdown stated:
“Restricting salary sacrifice on pension contribution could cause long-term damage to people’s retirement prospects. We could see employees less likely to increase pension contributions beyond auto-enrolment minimums”.
The Society of Pension Professionals—it goes on and on. Are the Government proud of this rousing endorsement by the industry? It is absurd.
When I was quizzing the Minister about this last week at oral questions—he will remember it well—he proudly held up the report that was commissioned under the previous Government—
Mark Garnier
Indeed—our report, though it was published in May this year. It is a weighty tome. Even its title is pretty dry: “Understanding the attitudes and behaviours of employers towards salary sacrifice for pensions”. The Minister proudly told us that this document underscored the rationale for—[Interruption.] Oh—because it is important stuff. He told us that it underscored the rationale for capping salary sacrifice. However, having read the report, I can tell the House that it actually concludes that:
“All the hypothetical scenarios explored in this research”,
including the £2,000 cap, “were viewed negatively” by those interviewed. The changes would cause confusion, reduce benefits to employees and disincentivise pension savings. The report the Minister is using tells him not to do this.
The report also goes into why salary sacrifice for pensions is used by employers in addition to the incentive of paying into a pension, stating that extra benefits include: savings for employees, so that they have more to spend on essentials, tackling the cost of living crisis; savings for employers, which they can then invest back into their business and staff; and incentives for recruitment and retention. These are all good things—this is the stuff of delivering growth and the basis of creating a savings and investment culture. Why would this Government want to take it away?
The report came to the conclusion that of the three proposed options for change, the £2,000 cap is no more than the least terrible option. [Interruption.] The Minister talks about it being a secret plan—it is a published document. What is he talking about? It is the most extraordinary thing. He refers to it in terms that none of us recognises. But he has brought this in—this is the point. Is the Minister chuffed that his choice comes down to the least worst option for everyone? Here is the truth: it was the Chancellor’s choice to introduce this policy, and this Government are the ones implementing it—they are the ones who are in government.
Let us get to the measures and the impact of the Bill. To be fair, it is a very even Bill; there is something in it for everybody to hate. Take middle-income earners, who are typically in their 30s, and who earn on average a touch under £42,000 a year. This is the target area where the attack on savings starts. This is right at the point in life where people should be doing their very best for their future retirement. It is a perfect target market for the Government’s savings ambitions. However, it does not stop there. In total, at least 3.3 million savers will be affected, which is 44% of all people who use salary sacrifice for their pension. These are all people who work hard—people on whom the Chancellor promised not to raise taxes.
In fact, middle-income employees will be affected more than higher earners. According to the Financial Times, under the Bill, an employee who earns £50,000 and sacrifices 5% of that will pay the same amount in national insurance contributions as an employee on £80,000. If the contribution rate is doubled to 10% of their salary, the disparity grows even further, meaning that an employee earning £50,000 will pay the same amount in national insurance contributions as an employee on £140,000. How is that fair? The Government keep telling us that this policy will affect top earners, but the reality is that those on middle incomes will be disproportionately hit—the very people we should be encouraging to save more.
The Bill will also potentially hit low earners. Somebody who is lucky enough to get a Christmas bonus will not be able to add it to their salary sacrifice, taking advantage of any headroom, because the accounting looks at regular payments, not one-offs. [Interruption.] I am slightly worried, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the pairing Whip has a rather bad cough; I hope he gets better. This will potentially hit the 75% of basic rate taxpayers the cap supposedly protects.
Finally, the Bill hits employers. In the previous Budget, the Government absolutely hammered business. They increased employer national insurance contributions to 15% and, at the same time, reduced the starting threshold to £5,000. Businesses reacted and adapted. They were reassured by the Chancellor’s promise that she would not come back for more, yet here we are discussing further tax rises on businesses.
Let us look at the actual impact this raid on pensions will have on employers. According to the Government’s own impact assessment, it will hit 290,000 employers. A business highlighted in the 2025 report that
“If salary sacrifice were to go away, it would be additional cost of £600,000 to £700,000 per annum to the company in national insurance”.
While the Government are not abolishing it altogether, 44% of people currently using salary sacrifice—[Interruption.] I am worried; the pairing Whip is coughing. Anyway, there is going to be a cost, and that money will be taken away from businesses. This is going to be—[Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position; he is obviously proud of what he is doing to the pensions industry.
Furthermore, the change will create administrative burdens for employers. With the current system, there are few administrative issues; the only thing that businesses have to bear in mind is ensuring that their employees’ pay does not fall below the national living wage—that is it. So what do the Government do? They go for the most complicated option that the report considered. That was explicitly stated by those involved in the research. As a pensions administration manager for a large manufacturing employer said,
“We’d have to reconfigure all our payroll systems and all our documentation. It would be a big job.”
The National Audit Office estimates that the annual cost on business just to comply with this Government’s tax system is £15.4 billion, yet the Government feel that the time is right to put more costs on businesses. I have to ask, what happened to the Chancellor’s pledge to cut red tape by a quarter?
I think I will move on to my conclusion in order to save people. [Laughter.] There was some great stuff in this speech, but I understand that people want to get away and wrap their Christmas stockings—particularly the Pensions Minister who, like the Grinch, is taking a lot of money away. To conclude, the Government should think again on this policy. People are simply not saving enough for their retirement. We need to do more to encourage them to save for their retirement. I know that the Minister would agree with that, so I hope that he hears the genuine concerns I have raised on behalf of a lot of people. Many people and businesses and are very worried about this policy, and he needs to take it away and think carefully about it.
Fundamentally, we are taking away something that is beneficial to the individual while also being tax efficient for business. Instead of encouraging the creation of incentives such as salary sacrifice or pensions, we are reducing the number. It is the wrong policy, and it sends the wrong message at the wrong time. All it does is add to the ongoing narrative that, “If you work hard to make a decent income, you will lose out. If you work hard as an employer to grow your business, you will lose out. If you try to save towards dignity and retirement, you will lose out.” It is the wrong policy to pursue and we will definitely vote against it tonight.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I remind Members that the knife will fall at 7 o’clock.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
The Chancellor’s Budget, delivered at the end of November, enables the Government to deliver on the priorities that we set out clearly in our manifesto last year. I pay tribute to the work that the Chancellor and the Ministers on the Front Bench tonight and across the Treasury team have done on that.
As the Minister said, this is a very straightforward Bill. It means that from April 2029, there will be limits to NICs relief that higher earners can take advantage of through salary sacrifice. Importantly, it protects lower earners with a £2,000 threshold. It is always a challenge for any Government to find the right balance in their policies. This change ensures fairness in a system where we could otherwise have seen the costs of salary sacrifice schemes triple between 2017 and the end of the decade. That would undermine vital public service and investment priorities, such as the armed services, the NHS, SEND, our prison system and a vast number of other public services that everyone in this House would want to see properly funded.
The greatest burden in this change is therefore being borne by those with the broadest shoulders. It is right that we have kept our manifesto pledges on tax, and it should only be in the most challenging of circumstances that we step back from those commitments. This change has enabled us to keep those pledges. It is good to see the Government getting on with delivering the change we promised, with inflation coming down; a sixth cut in interest rates coming soon, we hope; gilt prices moving in the right direction; and growth forecast to rise next year.
As a Member of the Treasury Committee, I have not had a chance to speak in the Chamber since the Budget. With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to welcome the lifting of the two-child benefit cap. It was clear from the evidence we heard on the Committee that this change will transform thousands of young lives—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I will make exactly the same point I made yesterday. Yesterday’s debate was about the Finance Bill, and this debate is on the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill. It is not on the two-child cap or on spending commitments.
Jim Dickson
Thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I will conclude simply by saying that when the Chancellor appeared before our Committee last week, she was clear that this was a Budget of necessary and fair choices on tax—of which the Bill is one—so that we can deliver on the public’s priorities of rebuilt public services and fair growth. This change enables us to do that.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
What we see here is the tune remaining the same from the Budget, but perhaps the words changing a little. We see short-term gain for the taxman and long-term pain for the taxpayer, and particularly for those who wish to save for their pensions.
The Minister was right to highlight how we need to be driving more people to save for their pensions: in fact, we see about 12 million people falling short. Scottish Widows shared a report in the not-too-distant past showing that up to 40% of people are set not to have a comfortable retirement, and the figures have been going in reverse in the last couple of years. The Association of British Insurers highlighted that 40% of people would be less likely to invest in their pensions if these measures were taken forward, so there is a double whammy on those wishing to save. I ask the Government to reflect on the impacts that these measures will have.
The Federation of Small Businesses suggests that a number of small businesses use this mechanism as a way of enhancing their offer to employees in order to retain them. There is a suggestion that there will be higher national insurance costs for some of its members if and when the allowance is withdrawn.
One has to reflect on what businesses have had to suffer. The Ukraine war has led to higher energy bills, the national insurance hike that kicked in in April has put a cold hand around the heart of our businesses and, of course, business rates are set to go up significantly over the next few years. Our economy is in a parlous state. As Liberal Democrats, we really want to see a jump-start for our economy, and we have clear proposals—I will not go over them again for fear of getting in Madam Deputy Speaker’s bad books—for the way forward. We do not want to see our economy go into reverse gear, so we call on the Government to reflect again on these proposals.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
It strikes me that it should not be particularly controversial that a Government should be encouraging people to save for their retirement, to take responsibility for their future and to feel secure in later life. Therefore, although we are dealing with a short Bill that appears to be purely procedural in nature, its practical consequences are profound, because it takes us in precisely the wrong direction.
Beneath the layer of technical language lies a troubling choice. It is a choice to tax aspiration, penalise prudence and chip away at the very habits that ensure financial security in our later years. The Government have sought to assure us that this only affects high earners and that most will not be affected, but that is not how it will feel to the majority of people in the real world. One in five people—approximately 20%—rely on salary sacrifice. Those are people who are doing the right thing; they are choosing long-term security over short-term consumption. Yet under the Bill, to save means to pay more. That is not positive pension reform; it is a stealth national insurance rise, dressed up in the cloak of technicality.
At a time when businesses are struggling under huge wage bills, regulatory uncertainty and sluggish growth, the Bill quietly imposes on them yet another burden. I remind Government Members that fairness cuts both ways. It is not fair to tell people to save for their future and then tax them more for doing so, it is not fair to talk of fiscal responsibility when penalising prudence, and it is not fair to build long-term public finances on short-term revenue grabs.
There is a moral component to this, because women will be disproportionately affected. Many women, on returning from maternity leave, increase their contributions to cover for that career break. The proposals as drafted will result in those who plan responsibly being encumbered with higher additional national insurance charges.
Torsten Bell
I am reluctant to intervene, but I just want to pick up on two points that the hon. Member has just made. Men are much more likely to use salary sacrifice than women, so I offer him the chance to reconsider his last point about women being disproportionately affected. Before that, he said that the Bill meant that people were being encouraged to save but that they would be penalised if they did so. Given that there are members of the public listening who will make choices about their savings, I invite him to remind everyone that saving into their pension is still a very tax-advantaged thing to do. All Members on both sides of the House should encourage people to save into their pension, as the tax system will continue to do.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
The Minister is right that people should be putting into their pensions and we should encourage them to do so, but we should not put forward legislation that disincentivises that. In respect of women, it is a fact that they are more likely to take career breaks and, by virtue of that, they may want to make up their contributions. This legislation will disadvantage those individuals.
The salary sacrifice scheme has become the bedrock of the modern pension system in the workplace. By decreasing gross pay, it decreases employer national insurance contributions and allows firms to invest more in their people. That is a positive step. My fear is that, as a consequence of this piece of legislation, many employers may scale back those contributions, cut other benefits associated with work or even discontinue schemes entirely. If we want a country that values responsibility and rewards work, and in which people make long-term plans for their economic security, I am afraid that the Bill takes us in entirely the wrong direction.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
While businesses are still reeling from last year’s national insurance increase, with this Bill the Labour Government are set to increase tax again by making salary sacrifice pension contribution schemes worse for workers.
What has the Labour party said previously? In its 2024 manifesto, on page 79, it stated:
“Our system of state, private, and workplace pensions provide the basis for security in retirement…We will also adopt reforms to workplace pensions to deliver better outcomes for UK savers and pensioners.”
It gets even more ridiculous when we see that the same manifesto also stated on page 21:
“Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance”.
That is exactly what the Bill does.
Recent survey data from the Confederation of British Industry showed that three in four employers will have to decrease pension contributions as a result of the measures in the Bill. As the CBI has said, it is
“‘a tax on doing the right thing’”.
It goes on to state:
“Ultimately, this unwise move will only damage growth, investment and pension saving rates.”
It is not just the CBI that has voiced alarm at the Bill. The Association of British Insurers stated:
“Capping salary sacrifice for pension saving is a short-sighted tax grab which will lower pension saving and undermine people’s retirement security.”
The Minister said in his introduction that
“everyone who has thought about this”
will come to the same conclusion. He might not wish to refer to the CBI and ABI coming to different conclusions, but they have clearly thought about it.
It is not even clear that the measure will raise the money that the Chancellor expects. A former pensions Minister from the coalition era has said that he expects it to raise “a fraction” of the intended amount, as firms will restructure payments to evade it. In addition to the likelihood of payments being restructured, even the OBR has made it clear to the Chancellor that it expects employers simply to pass the cost on to employees through lower wages and less generous schemes. It will be working people who ultimately pay for this short-term thinking, with a lower standard of living and less spending power in their retirement.
As we have seen with the maladministration of pension changes for 1950s-born women, politicians cannot and must not change the goalposts on retirement planning without giving significant advance notice. Any approach otherwise, such as in the Bill, is deeply unfair to savers. This move will land businesses with yet more administrative costs, disproportionately hitting small to medium-sized employers who are still absorbing the increased NIC costs from last year’s Budget. Is this muddled policy really from a Government who stood on a pledge of growing the economy? This is yet again another Budget with another rise in national insurance by Labour.
There are numerous unanswered questions, but the following are top of the list. What assessment has the Minister made of likely behavioural changes to pension savings as a result of this policy? What is the estimated increased cost to businesses as a result of this policy? Does the Minister anticipate lower pensions for workers as a result of this policy, and if so, how much would the decrease be? Can the Labour Government seriously make a commitment in this Chamber not to increase national insurance in next year’s Budget, given the rises in both their Budgets since coming into power? This Bill is deeply flawed and the SNP will not support it today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
As there are no further Back-Bench contributions, I call the shadow Minister.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
For a Bill that proposes to raise taxation on working people by such a large amount, this has been a remarkably brief debate. But I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), who correctly said that this was yet another anti-aspiration measure from this Government, and the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter), who made it clear that this was yet another example of Labour breaking its manifesto pledge not to raise taxes on working people. He also asked one of the key questions, which I hope the Minister will address in his reply: as this measure is due to come into force in three years’ time, what assessment have the Government made of behavioural changes, and can the Minister be assured that the amount in the OBR forecast is robust on a dynamic accounting basis?
This is the final economic Bill of the year to be voted on in the House of Commons, and it is another Bill that targets people who are trying to do the right thing. The Bill is a bad measure. It is an anti-savings measure and it is an attack on prudence, so of course the Conservative party will oppose it. This final Bill, at the end of this full-on year of Labour government, leaves me with one fundamental question: why do the Labour Government hate the private sector so much? If you are a family farmer, the Labour Government will snatch your farm away from your children when you die. If you believe in private education, the Labour Government will put up a barrier at the school gate. If you save for your retirement, Labour will tax your every effort to achieve security in retirement. Why do the Labour Government take every opportunity to punish people who are trying to do the right thing?
The Bill makes a mockery of the Government’s own Pensions Commission, set up in July this year, when it wrote:
“Put bluntly, private pension income for individuals retiring in 2050 could be 8% lower than those retiring in 2025—undermining a central measure of societal progress.”
Back in June, the Government recognised the problem of a secure retirement. Now, they are adding to the problem.
I have a question about the numbers. It is interesting that this measure is scored by the OBR in that crucial year of 2029-30 at £4.845 billion, falling the following year to £2.585 billion. That is an important year, because that is when the Chancellor says she has put in all this headroom—how interesting. Does the Minister agree with the director of Willis Towers Watson, one of the world’s biggest advisers on pensions, when he said:
“While earlier introduction would be unwelcome, the change appears to have been timed to maximise revenue in 2029/30—the year that counts for the Chancellor’s fiscal rule. £1.6 billion of revenue in that year is a temporary gain which will be returned to taxpayers who pay employee contributions instead and claim back part of their tax relief”?
On the £4.845 billion—the full amount—is any of that actually a fiction that will be returned the following year, as experts suggest it will be?
The Bill makes it less attractive for employers to contribute to private sector pensions. We all know that there is less certainty in the private sector, because that is where defined contribution schemes predominate, whereas in the public sector, greater certainty is given by a defined benefit scheme. In the public sector, there is also benefit because the contribution from the employer to employee pensions is much higher than in the private sector. In the public sector, employer contributions are equivalent to 27% of earnings, on average, according to research by the Taxpayers’ Alliance, but in the private sector the average contribution is only 8%. Why are the Government proposing to make it harder for private sector employers to contribute to the pensions of their employees? The Bill actively exacerbates the differences. By the way, it does nothing to tackle the unfunded £1.5 trillion liability of unfunded public sector pensions, which will fall on taxpayers.
The Bill is yet another example of the lack of private sector experience on the Government Front Bench. This Government are the least business aware Government in our country’s history. They are taxing and regulating growth out of our economy. Labour Ministers are punishing workers who want to save more for their retirement, and making it harder for their employers to help them to do so. While they can rely on their cushy, gold-plated public sector pensions, private sector workers are worse off.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before I call the Minister, I want to put on the record that the behaviour I have seen on both Front Benches this evening has been about the worst I have ever witnessed. The debate should take place across the Dispatch Box, not from a sedentary position. [Interruption.] No—not “He started it!” This is not a classroom.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for bringing the Front Benchers on both sides to heel at just the right time, before I make the closing remarks. It is a pleasure to close this Second Reading debate, and I thank all Members on both sides of the House for their contributions. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) for his contribution and his brief foray—and it was brief—into broader points around the Budget, which I did appreciate. I will try to minimise doing so in my remarks.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), raised a few points. While he is whispering over there, I will confirm to him that the costing provided by the OBR accounts for the dynamic effects of this policy. The costing itself has been certified by the OBR. The reason why the change does not come in for a number of years is because it will give businesses time to plan, which we think is an important thing to do when we are making significant changes to the pension system.
This is an important Bill, if small. This is an important debate to have, although it has felt somewhat rushed given that it has come after the many final-week statements and urgent questions today. But that has given me a bit more time to prepare some remarks, which I have hastily cut down from the 30 minutes I was planning; we will see whether we can make faster progress than that for the sake of all concerned.
In my extra time this afternoon, I thought I would attempt to shoehorn a Christmas theme into my closing remarks, given that this will be the last time the House divides before Christmas. Very briefly, I present “The Twelve Numbers of Christmas: the Salary Sacrifice Edition”. I start with 12 words from Baron Hammond of Runnymede on how some employees are, in his words,
“able to sacrifice salary…and pay much lower tax….That is unfair”.—[Official Report, 23 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 907.]
The Whips can count, and I can see that they have counted that as 12 words—very good. It is clear that even 10 years ago the Conservative party was aware of issues with salary sacrifice schemes. They knew that we must ensure that significant tax reliefs totalling £75 billion a year are properly targeted. That is why we are capping pension salary sacrifice contributions at £2,000.
Let us be clear: we are not removing pension tax relief, just the ability for unlimited relief via salary sacrifice, which many people cannot access in any case. That brings me to my No. 11. Those earning £11, £12 or £13 an hour at the national minimum wage or the national living wage cannot make use of salary sacrifice schemes because if they sacrificed their salary, they would be paid less than the minimum. It is the richest who benefit the most from these schemes.
Chris Vince
It’s Christmas! I have been here the whole time, by the way, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Minister talks about the impact on different earners. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury mentioned that only one in five self-employed people actually gets a pension, and there was another statistic about low earners. Can the Minister reflect on that? We need to get more people signing up for a pension.
Dan Tomlinson
Some 4.4 million of the self-employed are also not able to save into salary sacrifice schemes; it is right that we make the scheme fairer for all.
Let me continue to run through my numbers. Some 10 million people have signed up to a pension since auto-enrolment, which has limited the need for salary sacrifice. There are more than 900 tax reliefs; this is one of a number that we are reducing to raise revenue fairly at this Budget. Without intervention, salary sacrifice would have cost £8 billion a year by the end of the decade. Instead, we will now raise £7 billion from this change over the course of the scorecard.
The change will affect those on higher earnings more: 60% of the contributions come from the top fifth of employees and just 5% of those earning less than £30,000 will be affected. We will give businesses time to plan—this is not coming in for a bit less than four calendar years.
Dan Tomlinson
We should make progress.
I step back for my final three numbers. Let me briefly set out how some of the long-term decisions the Government are taking are paying off. Figures today show that inflation has fallen to nearly 3%, with wages up more under this Government than in the first decade under the Conservatives. In the past two Budgets, the Government have made the right decisions for the good of the British people. We have focused on improving public services because we know that we were elected to put them right. We have focused on getting living standards up because we were elected to end decline. We have focused on making the right decisions for the long term because we were elected to put to bed the short-term chaos of years gone by.
To conclude, my final number is not a partridge in a pear tree but this fantastic country—my No. 1. We are all here to represent and improve this one great country of ours. It is a land full of hope and wonder, particularly at this time of year, with families and friends looking forward to seeing each other over the coming weeks, neighbours who look out for one another, communities who come together at Christmas—which we all want to get to in good time—and people who work hard and who want the state and the economy to work for them in return.
Although we disagree on much, I know that right hon. and hon. Members from across the House care deeply about this country of ours, and it deserves our best. Although the Bill is short and has only a few clauses, it is part of a bigger story about a Government who love this country and its people and want the best for it, a Government who are making the right decisions for the national interest, and a Government who are working every day to help everyday Brits get a fairer deal, in every way that we can. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Business without Debate
Petitions
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I am pleased to present this community petition on behalf of Kathy Allday. Alongside it, there were over 2,300 online signatures. It calls to save Knaresborough castle, which is in a poor state of repair but is vital to our town’s history and our thriving tourism industry. The petitioners therefore request
“that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage North Yorkshire Council, which is responsible for Knaresborough Castle’s maintenance, to work with the Duchy of Lancaster to prioritise the maintenance of the Castle and its estate, by creating a comprehensive restoration plan and securing a dedicated funding stream to help preserve the integrity of the castle and its history.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of North Yorkshire,
Declares that Knaresborough Castle is an important local asset, providing space for residents and visitors alike to discover local history, participate in community events and enjoy fantastic views of Knaresborough Riverside; and further declares that the Castle has been left to deteriorate, causing erosion of its structure and other signs of neglect.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage North Yorkshire Council, which is responsible for Knaresborough Castle’s maintenance, to work with the Duchy of Lancaster to prioritise the maintenance of the Castle and its estate, by creating a comprehensive restoration plan and securing a dedicated funding stream to help preserve the integrity of the castle and its history.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003152]
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
I begin by offering my deepest sympathy to the family of Ethan McLeod, who died tragically in a car accident yesterday. He was a brilliant footballer and an inspiration to young people across Macclesfield.
I am proud to present to the House a petition signed by 7,200 residents on paper, complemented by a further 11,714 online—totalling nearly 19,000 people—who express their clear opposition to this proposal. That is a view I wholeheartedly share. Residents and local councils are united in concern about the loss of green-belt and agricultural land; the strain on already stretched roads, schools and services; and the impact on local wildlife and the rural character of our communities.
I thank the volunteers who worked tirelessly to raise awareness, collect signatures and make their voices heard. The petitioners therefore request
“that the House of Commons urge the Government to abandon the proposal for a new town in Adlington”.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Macclesfield and neighbouring boroughs,
Declares that the small village of Adlington, Cheshire (with a population of approximately 1,250) has been highlighted by the New Towns Taskforce as a potential site for large-scale development; further declares that, while the plans are only in the early stage of consideration, the scheme would risk inflicting significant, large-scale and irreversible harm to a cherished area of Green Belt on the edge of a National Park; further declares that the construction of the indicated minimum of 14,000 homes there would completely change the nature of Adlington village and the surrounding area, and put immense strain on already stretched local services; and further declares that Cheshire East Council has met its housing targets in the past and would do so again under a democratically agreed local development plan, which would ensure that development happens in the right places, with the right infrastructure.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to abandon the proposal for a new town in Adlington, Cheshire.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003154]
Window Cleaning Industry: Workplace Safety
(1 day, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
On 6 April last year, my constituent Jason Knight was cleaning the last window of the home of a regular customer in Westbury when he was electrocuted by 33,000 V from an overhead cable. He was blown 7 feet across the garden, waking up on a patch of scorched grass with catastrophic injuries. Found by his customer, he was airlifted to hospital in Bristol in 12 minutes and placed in a coma. He woke up surrounded by his distraught family. He was very lucky to survive.
Jason was left with life-changing injuries. He has lost his left arm below the elbow, several toes, and a great deal of leg musculature. He has undergone over 20 sets of surgical intervention, suffered severe burns all over his body, and can walk or stand only with the utmost difficulty. Now he is losing his sight as a delayed effect of the electrocution. He is just 34 years old with three small children. He had started his own business that was growing and he was providing for his young family. He is a real doer, but his injuries are such that it is going to be extremely difficult for him to work again.
What happened was this: 33,000 V leapt, without physical contact, about 2 metres from an overhead power cable to Jason’s telescopic water-fed cleaning pole. The Health and Safety Executive made inquiries, of course, but concluded there was no breach of regulations that warranted investigation. Indeed, an HSE spokesperson told the BBC that the overhead powerlines involved in this incident met national safety standards. In the UK, we tolerate high tension power cables that are slung surprisingly close to commercial and residential buildings.
However, it was not the overhead powerlines that failed Jason; it was the cleaning pole. As Jason said to his father, John, shortly before he was taken to theatre to have his forearm amputated, “I don’t understand, Dad—I bought an insulated pole.” It should not have mattered that he was close to a power line, because the pole should have been fully insulated, but it was not. Jason was using a telescopic pole that could extend and retract. The handle section at the bottom was insulated, but the extended section was not. He was electrocuted when he reached up to retract the extended section.
I have to say that before Jason came to see me, I knew very little about window cleaning. As he and John recounted the story, I assumed that it was the water from the water-fed pole that was the culprit, since tap water, being impure, conducts electricity perfectly well. Jason and his dad put me right: window cleaners, including Jason that day, use pure water, or what is often called “zero water.” This kind of water has been filtered to remove all or nearly all dissolved solids, so that it leaves no watermarks on windows after cleaning. Ordinary tap water does not have that property. At that moment, I realised why my own attempts at window cleaning at home invariably left the glass looking worse. The crucial point is this: pure water is non-conductive, so the water in Jason’s pole was not the culprit. What caused this accident was inadequate insulation in a tool designed to be used at height, even in proximity to overhead power lines.
This is not a new, unforeseeable risk. The first water-fed poles, developed in the United States in the 1950s, were made entirely of aluminium. When window cleaners started to be electrocuted, the manufacturers simply slapped on some warning labels. At that time, the greatest hazard to window cleaners in Britain was falling off ladders, but when pole technology crossed the pond in the 1990s, its safety issues came with it. One British manufacturer, Craig Mawlam, head of Ionic Systems in Swindon—whose expertise I have drawn on extensively—recognised that danger early. He sought out non-conductive materials, developing composite glass-fibre and carbon-fibre poles. He prioritised insulation in the handle, and worked with the Health and Safety Executive to introduce training and guidance as the industry moved away from ladders and towards working from terra firma. Critically, however, this was voluntary, not required. There was, and remains, no mandatory British standard governing the electrical insulation of telescopic cleaning poles.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for raising this subject. I was sitting here and thinking to myself that years ago I lived on a farm, and years ago farmers were not aware of the dangers of telescopic hydraulic lifts touching cables, just as they were not aware of the dangers of falling off roofs. A campaign was started to ensure that farmers took greater care of themselves by following health and safety regulations. My sympathies, concerns and thoughts are with his constituent as he deals with the challenges of the life he is now leading. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that a campaign might now be necessary to protect those who could be affected by workplace safety issues—such as those who use water-fed poles in the window cleaning industry—like the campaign to protect the farmers many years ago? Today, farms are very safety-conscious.
Dr Murrison
The hon. Gentleman is, of course, quite right. Occupations that are not predictable are particularly dangerous. Agriculture is clearly one, as is construction, and window cleaning is plainly another. The window cleaning industry, as its association will say, is a particular issue, because many in the industry are essentially start-ups. They are often one-man bands—they are usually men—and they do not necessarily undergo training. They are probably not aware of the need for it. That is why it is so important to make the changes that I am suggesting we make, and to engineer out the problem so that people are not exposed to the hazards that I have mentioned and to which, sadly, Jason has fallen victim.
The omission of any recognition of the issue in British standards matters now more than ever, because the poles that I have described are no longer specialist equipment; they are used everywhere. They are used on residential streets beneath overhead cables; they are used near rail infrastructure; they are used in airports, hospitals, schools and industrial sites. They are used not just for window cleaning but, increasingly, for solar panel cleaning, gutter clearing, roof treatment, camera inspections, and building maintenance. They are available online relatively inexpensively, and they are available for use by amateurs and DIY-ers. Moreover, they are increasingly imported cheaply from overseas, especially from China, meeting no enforceable UK electrical safety standards at all.
In 2011, a British standard was published that could have changed everything: BS 8020. This standard governs insulating hand tools used near live electrical conductors up to 1,000 V. It requires rigorous construction standards. It requires batch testing at 10,000 V, providing a 10:1 safety margin. It mandates clear marking and verification. As an example, it covers narrow bladed shovels that might be used close to where underground cables could be—they are the ones sold at builders’ merchants or DIY shops, typically with a yellow or orange plastic section in the shaft or handle. Some pole manufacturers chose to apply BS 8020 to the handle section of their poles. Since 2017, at least one UK supplier has done so as a matter of course: Ionic Systems in Swindon, Wiltshire. But here lies the problem: BS 8020 is not mandatory for cleaning poles, and it does not require insulation of the section immediately above the handle. That is why Jason Knight was injured.
The UK remained free of fatal water-fed pole electrocutions until 2022. In that single year, two window cleaners were killed while working at residential properties. In 2024, Jason was very lucky to survive. Window cleaners now account for a significant proportion of overhead powerline electrocutions, yet unlike in agriculture, construction or scaffolding, there is no targeted awareness campaign, no mandatory training requirement and no enforced equipment standards for this trade. That is why I have brought this matter to the House.
The Federation of Window Cleaners, the Health and Safety Executive, the British Standards Institute and representatives of the energy networks have begun discussions on what to do. Some suppliers have engaged constructively, but others have refused entirely. The manufacturer of the pole that Jason was using when he was electrocuted claims that its products are “tested to 5,000 V”, without reference to any recognised standard. That figure is arbitrary; it is meaningless without methodology, certification, or context. A pole tested informally to 5,000 V may be vastly less safe than one certified to British standard 8020 to 1,000 V but good for 10,000 V with a 10:1 safety margin, yet the higher number sounds more reassuring to a sole trader or DIY-er choosing equipment online. That is exactly why British standards exist, and why we need one for telescopic water-fed poles.
This debate is not about banning water-fed poles. They have made the industry safer, because they have reduced the need to use ladders and to work at height. Nor is it about blaming workers, many of whom are sole traders operating on tight margins, without access to formal training or industry bodies. This debate is about designing danger out of tools in the first place, not just warning people to be careful while continuing to sell sub-optimal equipment.
The remedy is simple, proportionate, cheap and immediately available. First, British standard 8020 should be amended or extended to cover telescopic cleaning poles explicitly, and to require that both the handle and the first telescopic section above it meet the insulation standard and are marked accordingly. That single change would ensure that an operator’s hands remain on verifiably insulated material throughout normal raising, lowering and operation of the pole. It would create a safe clearance of 3 metres to 4 metres in most real-world situations.
Secondly, compliance with the standard should be mandatory, whether through regulation, conditions attached to limited liability insurance, or the procurement requirements imposed by major building occupiers. It is worth admitting that products would become about 70 grams heavier and slightly less rigid, but that is completely tolerable. On the flip side, glass-fibre insulation is cheaper than the carbon fibre it would replace.
I am pleased to say that the British Standards Institution, after a bit of encouragement, has seen the merit of the case. Its director general, Scott Steedman, kindly wrote to me earlier this month to say that he is working up proposals that will determine if there will be an amendment to the relevant British standards, drawing from the guidance published by the British Window Cleaning Academy. However, I remain concerned that the right British standard is amended. BS 8020 is an equipment-based British standard. It appears to me to be the more appropriate target, rather than the BSI’s current suggestion, which is BS 8213, a British standard which deals largely with safe systems of work. It could be that both standards need to be amended. Nevertheless, Mr Steedman’s news is most welcome, as is his assurance that a draft of the proposed changes will be published for public consultation in accordance with the BSI’s normal practice.
Britain has led the world in industrial safety by setting clear, enforceable standards. Given British manufacturers’ global exports, a UK standard in this could well become an international benchmark, saving lives, limbs and livelihoods across the world. Jason Knight, his father John and Craig Mawlam are not campaigners by choice. They have become campaigners because they do not want what happened to Jason to happen to others, and I pay tribute to them today. We cannot accept a system in which warning labels are seen as a substitute for a simple engineering solution that removes risk at source. I feel sure that the Minister will agree with all this, and I hope he will use his good offices to encourage the BSI and the HSE to bring forward the changes I have outlined as quickly as possible.
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) for securing this debate on this important subject, and for his very thoughtful speech. The Government place a great deal of importance on workplace safety, and I want to seek to reassure him and the House that we have an effective regulatory framework in place to secure the health, safety and wellbeing of those who work in window cleaning. Let me also offer my sympathies to his constituent, who suffered those life-changing injuries that he described while cleaning windows at a regular customer’s home last year. I do hope he is receiving the support that he needs.
Health and safety in window cleaning is covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and a number of regulations, such as the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, the Work at Height Regulations 2005, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989. Section 6 of the 1974 Act places duties on the manufacturers of articles for use at work, including ensuring the equipment is designed and constructed so that it is, so far as reasonably practicable, safe when being set up and used; doing adequate research and testing to prove the safety of the equipment; and providing users with adequate information so that they can use the equipment safely.
Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and the associated regulations, all employers undertaking window cleaning are required to identify risks to their workers and to the public from those activities, and to take action to manage those risks. Those who are self-employed, which, as the right hon. Member said, is most of the industry, are subject to these duties only where their activities place others at risk. Where self-employed window cleaners are not subject to the regulations, they nevertheless should obviously look after their own health and safety. They should check work locations for hazards such as overhead power lines and/or use safe equipment. One way of doing that is to carry out a fit-for-purpose assessment of the risks. The areas of focus in the legislation are those that self-employed people should give particular attention to when considering how to work safely.
The Work at Height Regulations 2005 cover one of the most significant risks to people cleaning windows, because the vast majority of window cleaning obviously takes place above ground level. Working at height is always high risk. Whenever somebody leaves the ground to carry out an activity—up a ladder, on a platform, in a cradle—there is the potential for harm, most likely from a fall. The HSE’s recently published health and safety at work statistics reported that falls from a height continue to be the biggest type of fatal workplace accident, accounting for over a quarter of fatal injuries to people at work in 2024-25. Over the last five years, falls from a height have caused 28% of all deaths at work, while contact with electricity or electrical discharge accounts for 5%—a significant proportion, but a good deal smaller.
The HSE records for the last five years include eight incidents involving falls from height in which window cleaning was the main activity, and five of those resulted in fatal injuries, so the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the use of poles has made this activity safer. Employers and self-employed people can eliminate the risk of a fall by removing the need to work at height, and here is the advantage of water-fed poles for cleaning windows.
Poles can be designed to reach up to 25 metres in height and can be made from a variety of lightweight materials—the right hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of them. Depending on the material and weight of the pole, they can cause back and shoulder injuries through continued use. There is often a balance to be struck between weight, reach and cost. Prices start at around £100 for a very basic, budget, short-reach pole but can be over £700 for high-reach ones, while mid-range poles cost around £200.
I cannot comment on the efficacy of these poles for cleaning, but there obviously are safety benefits from using poles from the stable footing of a ground-level position, and certainly the view of the HSE is that they are safer than ladders. However, there are risks, and using a pole to carry out an activity at elevation in the presence of overhead power lines does carry the risk of electric shock, as the tragic experience that we have heard about underlines. If there are overhead power lines close to a property, the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 would require a risk assessment to be carried out. If there is a danger of electrocution, the HSE advice is not to carry out the work on that part of the building or to find another method that reduces the risk, particularly one that does not involve water-fed poles.
Other risks associated with water-fed poles, and window cleaning in general, include musculoskeletal injury from the handling of the pole, slips or trips, injury from falling poles, and the spread of Legionella from water systems. It is a legal duty under health and safety law for employers to identify and manage all those risks and, in doing so, to protect their workers and the public from harm. As I have said, the self-employed are subject to those duties only where their activities place others at risk, but it is nevertheless a good idea to observe them.
I understand that in the tragic accident we have heard about, as the right hon. Member has said, the power line was compliant with statutory clearance distances and those set out in industry guidance but the pole manufacturer’s guidance was to avoid touching overhead power lines, including by having a warning marked on the pole itself. From the account the right hon. Gentleman has given, my understanding is that the pole did not in this instance touch the overhead cable but got quite close to it without touching it.
Enforcement of the duties in law is carried out by the HSE and by local authorities, which have powers to inspect workplaces, to investigate accidents and to take action to address non-compliance up to and including prosecution. To help employers comply with these duties, the HSE produces general guidance on a range of topics relevant to window cleaning, such as manual handling, control of hazardous substances, and slips and trips. In addition, guidance specific to working safely when cleaning windows is available from the window cleaning industry itself. That includes two pieces of guidance on the safe use of water-fed poles, produced in collaboration with the HSE, and guidance on the use of window cleaning equipment near overhead power lines, produced in collaboration with the Energy Networks Association. The latter is called “Safe use of window cleaning equipment near overhead power lines” and it is jointly branded by the Energy Networks Association and the Federation of Window Cleaners.
I just want to read part of what it says. I appreciate that this is no comfort to the right hon. Member’s constituent, but it may be helpful to others to quote from it:
“Be aware of the dangers of working near or underneath Overhead Power Lines (OHPLs). Always assume they are live and beware that electricity can jump gaps. Plan ahead and note the location of OHPLs. Consider your position at ground and the extent of your equipment (i.e. Telescopic devices) and ensure that when extended it will not encroach or breach the exclusion zone as a minimum. Generally remain 5 metres away to be safe. If you are in any doubt about whether the lines in question are power or telephone (this is a very common mistake) always assume that they are power lines and are live.”
It goes on:
“It is not normally practical for electricity companies to shroud high voltage conductors and even when low voltage conductors are shrouded, the shrouding is not designed to protect against contact by Tools or Equipment—again, Keep your Distance! If unsure, always contact your local electricity network operators”.
That is available on the website of the Federation of Window Cleaners. In the specific case of a 33 kV line, which the right hon. Member told us was the case here, the Energy Networks Association advises a clearance distance of 3 metres to be maintained. I should perhaps also point out that the federation provides a training course on “Using water-fed poles and portable ladders”, which is approved by the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health. It is a one-day course, and it costs £175 plus VAT per person for members.
The right hon. Member referred to the product introduced by Ionic Systems of Swindon. I know that Ionic Systems, in pursuing the case the right hon. Member set out this evening, met the relevant British Standards Institution committee, PEL/78, on 22 July this year to discuss including water-fed poles in standard BS8020 on tools for live working. The idea was to include fully insulated water-fed poles to avoid an incident like that which befell Jason Knight. As the right hon. Member said, the system uses de-ionised water, which will not conduct electricity.
The committee concluded that the standard on tools for live working is just not suitable for water-fed cleaning, because it is intended to cover tools used by people who have been trained in working on, or near, live electrical conductors in the electrical industry. Industry training is generally three to four years to become competent to work on live conductors. The committee’s view was that a water-fed pole is not a tool for live working, and that window cleaners should not be encouraged to carry out live working near a live electrical cable. On that basis, the industry experts on the committee and the BSI rejected the application.
I note from the what the right hon. Gentleman has told us that the BSI may be looking at making a change to another standard. The BSI is independent of Government and makes its own decisions, so I will certainly follow with interest the outcome of the work he has referred to.
I should also make the point that British standards are not routinely made mandatory. If they are followed, they can be used to demonstrate compliance with the law; however, as they are set independently, legislating for them to be mandatory would introduce the risk of falling behind technical advancements. I think there are consumer uses where there is some mandation, but in an instance such as the one we have been talking about this evening, BSI standards are not generally made mandatory. The right hon. Gentleman may wish to correspond with me on that.
To conclude, the Government continue to take the health and safety of people cleaning windows very seriously. We have heard this evening of serious accidents—in some cases fatal—that can befall people engaged in this work. I hope I have been able to reassure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that we have a regulatory regime and framework in place that are sufficiently robust to protect the health and safety of those workers, as we must. I will certainly follow with great interest the developments he has indicated to the House, and the thinking that is under way at the moment, and see where that gets us in the coming months.
Question put and agreed to.