Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Dan Jarvis)
I was pleased to meet my hon. Friend when I visited Cornwall last week, and to meet the local leaders and first responders who have been working tirelessly to keep their communities safe. In response to Storm Goretti, the Government issued two emergency alerts reaching approximately 500,000 people and urging them to stay indoors due to the severe weather. The resilience action plan outlines how we will strengthen local resilience, which includes better integrating voluntary, community and faith organisations into emergency planning.
Jayne Kirkham
I thank the Minister for his answer. Storm Goretti was a wake-up call for Cornwall and nationally. It tested the resilience of rural and coastal Britain to these extreme weather events. In Cornwall alone, we lost over 1,000 trees and thousands of people were left without power and water. It exposed vulnerabilities, particularly in our communications in rural areas, where mobile and internet connectivity is fragile, hard to restore and not backed up. Would the Minister lead discussions with Science, Innovation and Technology Ministers on how to shore up communications in such circumstances, and consider in his own Department how to advise and make individuals and communities more resilient generally to the increasing number of storms?
Dan Jarvis
Yes, my hon. Friend is right, and I will do that. She knows at first hand the importance of hyper-local resilience planning, and I pay tribute to her work supporting her constituents in recent times. The gov.uk Prepare website already provides advice on steps people can take to prepare for emergencies, including storms and power outages, as well as on some of the points she made. I have heard and understood the points she has raised both today and previously, and I will give them very careful attention.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
As I have said many times, I represent one of the largest rural constituencies in the United Kingdom, and Eskdalemuir is one of the most rural parts of that constituency. Constituents there remain extremely concerned about BT’s proposal to switch off analogue lines, given that the area has very poor mobile reception and frequent power cuts. Will the Minister and the Cabinet Office more generally satisfy themselves that the arrangements in place for this switch-off will not impede resilience and will ensure communities such as Eskdalemuir are not cut off during extreme weather events?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for the important points he raises, and I completely understand and agree with his point about rurality. I have heard the point he made about BT, and I know that the Department has been engaging closely with the company. I will look carefully at what he has to say and come back to him.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I recently met representatives of Cumbria Council for Voluntary Service and ACTion with Communities in Cumbria to discuss community resilience in Carlisle and north Cumbria. One of the challenges we face in geographically remote areas such as mine is the speed with which local authorities and other agencies are able to deploy staff to close floodgates and shut roads when we have an area affected by flooding. Will the Minister set out what steps the Government are taking to encourage statutory bodies to train and equip community emergency volunteers to carry out those vital tasks?
Dan Jarvis
I can do that, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it. I know that her constituency has suffered from significant flooding in the past. The Environment Agency, local risk management authorities and the local resilience forum have worked hard to deliver new flood schemes, and improve the warnings and information to communities so that they are better prepared. The Government are considering both regulatory and non-regulatory options to integrate the vital work of the voluntary, community and faith sectors and statutory emergency responders. I will soon be meeting the flooding Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), to discuss this further.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I am very grateful to the Minister for coming to Cornwall last week and visiting my constituency, which was noted and very much appreciated. He will know that west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly took the brunt of Storm Goretti, and we have many lessons to learn, not least the point made by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) about our—I think, evangelical—faith in modern systems and technologies, which have made us more dependent and less resilient. When we are learning such lessons, will the Minister make sure that it is not simply left to local authorities to do so, but that they are learned across the UK?
Dan Jarvis
I absolutely will. I was very pleased to have the opportunity to spend quite a lot of time with the hon. Gentleman in his beautiful constituency, and to meet his local council colleagues as well as many other stakeholders. I agree with the points he has made. I think the response overall was an effective one, but I am working with Ministers across the Government to ensure that we learn all the lessons from Storm Goretti, and I am keen to work with him and other Members in that endeavour.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
My constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle is 624th out of 650 constituencies for resilience in mobile communications. It cannot be right that a constituency such as mine is exposed in the way that it was during Storm Goretti, meaning that villages such as Mawnan Smith were completely cut off. Does the Minister agree that we need to review those constituencies where mobile communications are inadequate at the moment?
Dan Jarvis
I was pleased to meet my hon. Friend at the Eden Project on Friday of last week, along with local leaders, to discuss these matters. I agree with his points and I give him an absolute commitment that we will work closely with Government colleagues, local authorities and other stakeholders to ensure that, where there are lessons that need to be learned from this storm, we will learn them.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I can tell the Minister that the promises made by telecoms companies about the withdrawal of copper landlines have not been kept. A recent power outage that covered both Caithness and Orkney left my constituents without any landline connectivity or mobile connectivity, as there was no power to the mobile masts. As well as talking to BT, will the Minister speak to the mobile phone operators and find out why there are not doing what they promised they would do?
Dan Jarvis
Yes, I will. I am looking forward to meeting the right hon. Gentleman soon to discuss these things. It is important to say that we worked closely with mobile phone operators and National Grid Electricity Distribution to get more than 900 engineers out and about reconnecting homes in the south-west, but I have heard the right hon. Gentleman’s points and I look forward to discussing them with him soon.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
I am delighted that the Government have negotiated associate membership of the Erasmus+ programme from 2027. That could open up opportunities for more than 100,000 young people from all backgrounds to learn, train, study or volunteer abroad. It is good news for further education colleges, universities and businesses, and is just one example of how this Government are building a strong new relationship with the EU that is in our national interest.
Matt Rodda
I thank the Minister for his answer and warmly welcome the Government’s new commitment to this scheme. It is hugely important to my residents in Reading, for families and young people, for employers and for science and technology. Could the Minister say a little more about how this wonderful scheme will help employers and growth in the Thames valley and help our local Reading University and the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts?
Chris Ward
I know that the scheme has been welcomed at many universities, including Reading. I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned on this for a long time. In my constituency, Sussex University was home to the first Erasmus student. When I visited last week, the university was delighted that it will have more students soon. I want to point out, though, that this is not just about universities; it is also about apprenticeships, FE colleges, youth workers and sports professionals. It is a huge opportunity for 100,000 people, so quite why the Conservatives and Reform oppose it is beyond me.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Minister has mentioned apprenticeships. Does he agree that there should be opportunities through the future town funding that the Government have announced? Coleraine and Londonderry, in my area, should enable young people to take advantage of the opportunities and ensure that local employers offer more training and apprenticeships.
Chris Ward
As I have just said, this is about apprenticeships as well as universities. The hon. Gentleman should write to me and the Minister for the Cabinet Office about how we can roll this out. It is a UK-wide programme that will benefit all parts of the United Kingdom. The Minister for the Cabinet Office met the devolved Governments yesterday to discuss that and other matters.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
In his statement last month, the Paymaster General promised us that he had secured a great deal for the first year of the Erasmus programme. It is a technique that will be familiar to mobile phone and satellite TV customers around the country. Can the Minister tell us what the Paymaster General could not tell us in that statement: what will it cost in the second and subsequent years?
Chris Ward
It is a one-year agreement, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and we have negotiated a 30% discount. That is a good deal. It will be reviewed after 10 months, as he knows. At its heart, the programme is about opportunities for young people from all backgrounds—youth workers, sports professionals, universities and so on. If the Conservative party really wants to fight the next election promising to take that away and to narrow opportunities, I am afraid that it is making a big mistake —on this, as on so much else.
Mike Wood
I think the Minister has given the game away: he has just said that it would be wrong to walk away from that. He will know, as the whole House knows, that any negotiation is successful only if you know, and more importantly your negotiating partners know, that there is an alternative to a negotiated agreement. Can the Minister assure the House that, if the European Union is not able to offer similar terms and similar cost for second and subsequent years, he would be prepared to walk away from the negotiations?
Chris Ward
The cheek of the hon. Gentleman to talk about unsuccessful negotiations! The Conservatives had years to negotiate and they left a Brexit deal that narrowed opportunities, harmed our economy, harmed businesses and made it tougher for young people. We are very confident that this is a great deal for the British people. It will be reviewed after 10 months. If the hon. Gentleman wants to put himself in a position of narrowing opportunities for young people, he is making a big mistake.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
The Government agreed a new strategic partnership with the EU in May last year, delivering for UK jobs, easing the burden on bill payers and strengthening our borders. Whereas we are making significant progress, it seems the Conservative party and Reform would rip it up. Given that Reform has just recruited that well-known remainer, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who knows what its latest position is.
Yuan Yang
The inflation figures out yesterday show that despite the Government’s good progress on energy prices, food inflation remains stubbornly high. Even the price of a Tesco meal deal is stuck at £4.25. The Government need to make food and life more affordable, so will the Minister update us on his negotiations over agrifood trade with the EU?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The sanitary and phytosanitary agreement removes export health certificates and routine border checks, slashing costs and red tape for agrifood trade. For example, businesses will save up to £200 per shipment, making trade cheaper and easier. The Conservative party wants to put those costs back.
Callum Anderson
My right hon. Friend will know that the UK and EU financial systems are closely linked by cross-border capital flows that support jobs on both sides of the channel. Regulatory co-operation is beneficial for financial stability, but our ability to diverge from some of those regulations can also support our competitiveness. Will the Minister set out a bit more about how he is working with the Treasury to ensure that the UK’s engagement with the EU on financial issues balances our strategic sovereignty and autonomy with our economic prosperity?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
That is precisely why the Government take a pragmatic approach. We choose to align in areas where it makes sense to do so. Where it makes sense to diverge, we will also continue to do so. We are always driven by our national interest.
Victoria Collins
Given the strength of power shown by the EU to the US, not only is the relationship with Europe more strategically important than ever, but it matters because of the £90 billion black hole in our economy and to people such as Hazel from Tring, whose medical devices family business has been cut by costs and bureaucracy since Brexit. When will the Government finally start taking seriously negotiations on a new EU-UK customs deal?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On the hon. Lady’s first point, we agreed the new strategic security and defence partnership with the European Union in May last year, which is absolutely crucial. On the point about the food and drink agreement, we agreed just before Christmas that that will be completed by the time of the next summit.
Alison Bennett
A close and strong relationship with our European partners is vital to our interests. Mid Sussex is home to high-tech life sciences companies such as CSL Behring and Roche Diagnostics. The regulatory and trade barriers put up after Brexit have made business harder for them. With a mercurial Administration in the White House, as evidenced this week, surely it is time for the Minister to get behind Liberal Democrat calls for a bespoke customs union with the EU.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Our democratic mandate from the general election is clear: we will not rejoin the single market or the customs union, or go back to freedom of movement. However, what we do, and what I do every single week, is negotiate that closer UK-EU relationship, which is in our national interest. The hon. Lady and her colleagues should support that.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
This week the Prime Minister hit the phones again to protect our interests; meanwhile, the Leader of the Opposition risked undermining those efforts, acting almost like a Trump Trojan horse in this Chamber. Diplomacy is paying off: tariff threats are receding and Greenland solutions may be emerging. Does the Minister agree that we must always put country before party and work with the US and our European allies, and that our efforts should command cross-party support?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Leader of the Opposition should have risen to the occasion yesterday in a profound moment for the nation. She chose not to do so.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for travelling to Belfast later today for the East-West Council. As he knows, the council was created to strengthen ties within the United Kingdom, and one of the impediments to those economic ties is the Windsor framework. Knowing that punitive measures are still to be implemented, including customs required on parcels moving from one part of our country to another for ordinary consumers, does the Minister recognise that in building a better relationship with the European Union more pragmatism is required when it comes to Northern Ireland?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I look forward to visiting Belfast later today. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the East-West Council is an important part of our “Safeguarding the Union” arrangements. I certainly take a pragmatic and proportionate approach to the Windsor framework, which is one of the reasons I am so keen to get the food and drink agreement with the EU implemented as soon as possible, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, will mean we can reduce the levels of checks in the Irish sea.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Since the Paymaster General was last in the Commons, the Health Secretary has said that Britain should rejoin the customs union, the Deputy Prime Minister has suggested rejoining the customs union, 13 Labour MPs have gone against the Whip and voted with the Liberal Democrats in favour of a customs union, 80% of Labour voters at the last election have said they want to rejoin the customs union, and the Business and Trade Secretary has said that it would be “crazy” not to join the customs union. It would seem that the only people in Labour opposed to the customs union are the Prime Minister and the Paymaster General. The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that in this one regard, I do not think he is crazy at all—I think he is doing the right thing. Will he tell the House why he thinks all the other members of the Labour party are so wrong?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
There is a real issue of democracy here, in the sense that we won a general election with a mandate to negotiate a closer UK-EU relationship. It is in our national interest to do so, and we have set out the red lines within which those negotiations are taking place. Listening to what the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is saying, it seems he has suddenly pivoted to supporting my approach—how welcome that would be.
Alex Burghart
I certainly support the right hon. Gentleman in telling the rest of the Labour party that they are wrong, although, given the success of the Labour Back Benchers in forcing U-turns on the Prime Minister recently, I wonder how long that position will hold.
Earlier this month, the Prime Minister told the BBC that he wants “closer alignment” with the single market—a serious policy development on which we have had no statement in the Commons. I hope that will be addressed very soon. Closer alignment will, of course, mean dynamic alignment, which will mean Britain following rules over which we have had no say. The Opposition will respectfully oppose such a move. In November, Downing Street sources told journalists that it was accepted that the UK would have to pay billions of pounds for closer alignment and market access. Will the Paymaster General confirm to the House that that is his understanding?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
To clarify, there are no access fees in regard to either the emissions trading system linkage or the food and drink agreement that is being negotiated. That is absolutely clear. In terms of moving forward, we take pragmatic decisions in the national interest in various sectors, which is why we opened negotiations on electricity trading before Christmas. The hon. Gentleman has crystalised the choice at the next general election: this Government are negotiating a deal that will bear down on food and energy bills, give law enforcement more tools to keep our country safe and create jobs; the Conservatives, for ideological reasons, are setting their face against those things. I would welcome that debate with them.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
We expect an EU reset Bill in the coming months to update the arrangements around our relationship with our European neighbours. Following the terrible Brexit deal delivered by the Conservatives and cheered on by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), which trashed our economy and our international standing, a reset is essential, and we welcome it. Does the Minister agree that Parliament should have the ability to fully scrutinise the legislation to ensure that the Government deliver the change that we need and that we can hold Ministers’ feet to the fire as they set up new structures or committees as needed? To that end, will he assure the House that the Bill will contain enough detail to allow meaningful democratic accountability and that the specifics will not be kicked into secondary legislation?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Well, on the basis of my exchange with the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I thoroughly look forward to bringing the Bill to the Commons and debating it fully. I can assure the hon. Lady that what we will be debating is why the Government’s approach is good for jobs and how it will bear down on bills for consumers. Members should not just believe what I say, but look at what the supermarkets said about the deal that was struck last year. I will also welcome a debate about how we will reduce trade barriers and costs for businesses. It is the Conservatives who want to put red tape and costs back on businesses. Good luck to them with that argument.
Lisa Smart
Yesterday, the Trade Secretary was the latest senior Government figure to break ranks by saying that it would be “crazy” not to look at a customs union with the EU. That position is already supported by the Prime Minister’s economic adviser, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Health Secretary. Since leaving the EU, many businesses including those in my constituency have found it harder to trade with our neighbours, which is having an obvious impact on the economy. The Government have changed their mind on many things since the last election, having said that they definitely were not going to. Does the Minister accept that it would save us all a lot of time, be the single biggest lever that the Government could pull to generate growth, and give those on his own Benches something that they are crying out for if he just agreed to crack on and start negotiations for a bespoke customs union with the EU?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
No, and the situation is not as the hon. Lady has described. The work that the Government are doing in building a closer EU-UK relationship is crucial, and we can do it alongside a trade deal with India and an economic deal with the United States that is saving jobs at Jaguar Land Rover. The Government’s position is in the national interest, and we will continue to pursue it.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Josh Simons)
A new digital identity system is a vital part of the infrastructure that the UK needs to transform public services and accelerate digital government. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said this week, our goal is simple: to make government work better for people by joining up public services so that people do not have to fight to get the support that they need. It will be inclusive, secure and useful, and will give people more control over their data and public services than they have now.
Susan Murray
I welcome the Government’s U-turn on digital identity cards, but they must go further. We are now looking at a largely redundant system that is expected to cost nearly £2 billion. Will the Minister explain why this is the best use of public money and whether he agrees that the resources would be better directed to tackling organised crime rather than building a system that primarily monitors compliant citizens?
Josh Simons
We are building a digital ID system because it is the infrastructure that we need for the foundation of the British state and better public services in years to come. I am proud that we as a Government are investing the time and resources to improve government and make it work better for people so that it is easier to access public services. We are doing the hard work that Government should do rather than expecting people to do it for themselves. I hope that hon. Members from Opposition parties will come to see the force of that argument for their constituents.
Graeme Downie
At the beginning of the year, I visited Estonia to see how 100% of public services are delivered via its digital ID system. It is done safely and securely, and as the Minister said, citizens now have better access to and control over their data, including over who sees what, when and where. The system also saves Estonia about 2% of GDP, which has allowed it to re-energise its system and continue to evolve for the future. Will the Minister reassure me that, despite the news last week, we will continue to press forward strongly with a digital ID system and show the people of the UK that it can be beneficial to their lives and make things much better for them?
Josh Simons
Absolutely. By the end of this Parliament, every UK citizen who wants a digital ID will be able to get one free of charge. To deliver that, we will launch a huge digital inclusion drive across the UK, and I look forward to working with hon. Members from across the House on that, including my hon. Friend. Like Estonia, we will build the UK system to earn citizens’ trust, adhering to the principles of data minimisation and decentralisation with strong safeguards in place. We will consult imminently on how best to design that system.
Dame Meg Hillier
I had the privilege of chairing the Public Accounts Committee for nearly a decade, and in that role I saw the challenges caused by how poor data often is across Government. In one hearing, for example, we learned that Government Departments have 13 different ways of recording an individual’s address, and there are many other issues around data. Is the Minister alert to those issues, and how will he tackle them to make sure that this system is watertight?
Josh Simons
My hon. Friend has deep experience of these challenges, and she is absolutely right: the reason why digital ID is so vital to the future of our public services and government is all about data. That will become ever more important in the future age of artificial intelligence. When I worked in AI, we had a saying: “garbage in, garbage out”. Bad data management produces bad public services, and that is why my colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology have a massive programme across Government to upgrade and secure data for the benefit of ordinary citizens.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
With the 100 in, one out deportation scheme having had the same impact as the Prime Minister’s many resets, compulsory digital ID was billed as the next magical answer to illegal migration. Now that it has been U-turned on, what is plan C?
Josh Simons
It has not been. Digitising right-to-work checks is a vital part of how we will toughen up our illegal labour market enforcement regime. It will mean that this Government are cracking down on illegal working, reducing the pull factors and delivering on one of our key commitments, which is to crack down on illegal migration.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
The Prime Minister has given the independent ethics adviser the independence to initiate his own investigations, which is just one of the measures the Government have taken to improve transparency and standards. The high standards the Prime Minister expects of all of us who have the privilege of serving in high office are set out in the ministerial code.
Ian Lavery
With public trust in politics at an all-time low, I am grateful that the Government are implementing the Hillsborough law, and clearly the duty of candour should be extended to all public servants. Speaking truth to power is central to our democracy and to global democracy. Does the Minister agree that when the so-called leader of the free world stands up in public and lies with impunity about our great country and our allies at every opportunity he gets, there is no law or legislation that will ever restore public trust?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On the first point, I met the families of the victims of the Manchester Arena bombings and the Hillsborough families only last week. It is critical that we get the balance right between allowing our intelligence services the secrecy that is essential to their work and having proper oversight. That is exactly the work the Government will engage in. On the wider point, the Prime Minister made it absolutely clear yesterday that he would not yield on the question of Greenland’s sovereignty. While I was proud to see our Prime Minister take that position, what a shame it was that the Leader of the Opposition could not rise to the moment, too.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
In the interests of improving Government transparency, will the Cabinet Office now publish the details of how the Government reached the decision that allowed Lord Mandelson, the man who described the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein as his “best pal” and who then urged him to fight for his early release following his conviction, not just to retain his place in the House of Lords but to keep the Labour Whip and his Labour party membership card?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The Prime Minister made his position clear with regard to Lord Mandelson’s position when that additional information came to light. With regard to the House of Lords, Lord Mandelson is currently on a leave of absence. The revocation of a title requires a bespoke piece of primary legislation and is separate from the rules related to suspension and expulsion. Frankly, there is no alternative formal mechanism for a title to be revoked.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Dan Jarvis)
The Government are absolutely committed to using all available tools to disrupt cyber-threats and to keep the public safe. Our new national cyber action plan will address the evolving cyber-threat and technological opportunities. We are working with partners across Government and law enforcement to deliver real-world impact against cyber-criminals. Through the Crime and Policing Bill, we will introduce measures to empower police to suspend IP addresses and domains being used for serious criminality.
Nick Smith
There has been a tendency to offshore much cyber-support, but we are producing excellent cyber-security talent at Ebbw Vale college to protect our digital infrastructure. Will the Minister please outline what is being done to develop our home-grown workforce and security resilience to help reduce the risks from cyber-attacks in future?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend is right, and I am very interested to hear about the course at his local college. Skills are the foundation of the UK’s cyber-security, and the Government are investing £187 million in the TechFirst programme. That initiative will bring digital skills and AI learning into classrooms and communities, and aims to reach 1 million students by 2026 and provide a thousand annual scholarships. Those skills projects will help bridge the gap in our cyber-resilience.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I thank the Minister for his answers? They are always very helpful. Cyber-crime and fraud are now the most common crime in the UK, accounting for some 50% of all offences and costing the economy billions of pounds per year. Will he please discuss with Cabinet colleagues providing additional funding to ensure that our universities and colleges can provide high-level training in cyber-security, and to ensure—if he does not mind my saying so—that Belfast’s title of cyber-security capital is retained?
Dan Jarvis
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as I always am, for the important points that he raises. I think he knows how seriously we take these issues. He is right to raise the point about skills and education. We are doing a lot of work to support the victims of cyber-crime and providing free guidance, tools and incident response advice through the National Cyber Security Centre, alongside targeted awareness campaigns. I give an assurance of the seriousness with which we take these matters.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
The Government are committed to delivering the largest wave of insourcing in a generation. As part of that, we have consulted on plans to introduce a public interest test before any further services are outsourced and we will publish the results soon. Let me be clear: this Government will end the decade-long drive to outsource our public services and we will do so to deliver better value for money for taxpayers and better services.
Graham Leadbitter
The Minister repeated the promise that was made nearly 18 months ago when the Labour party came into power. We are not seeing a massive amount of insourcing at the moment. I have constituents in Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey who work on three different military bases as contractors. Many used to be civil servants and they have lost considerable pension benefits as a result of that outsourcing. There are many others in a similar position in Department for Work and Pensions offices, the Cabinet Office itself and other Government offices throughout the country. When can those workers expect to see some fairness in their contractual arrangements?
Chris Ward
I know that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point about workers in his constituency before. We are making progress. The Employment Rights Act 2025 will make some progress, particularly by reinstating the two-tier code. We have consulted on a public interest test. I will bring forward our conclusions and proposals on that very soon, but as I say, the central point is that this Government will reverse the decade-long drive to outsource and bring more powers and resources in-house to deliver better value for taxpayers.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
When the Government finally bring the in-sourcing process to fruition, they will have a lot more purchasing power over the services they buy and the goods they procure. Can the Minister give the House a categorical assurance that every penny of British taxpayers’ money spent using these new powers will be spent with British companies and British industries, so that we are supporting our own British economy?
Chris Ward
That is one of the Government’s goals. Prime Minister Carney said he thought that Canada should be Canada’s best customer. I think that Britain should be Britain’s best customer, and we should work towards that. As I say, we will publish the proposals soon and I hope that we can make progress quickly.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I have been trying to get records from the Cabinet Office of a meeting held between Peter Thiel of Palantir, then Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings on 28 August 2019. I am getting conflicting data back. Is it in the public interest that the management of this information is being outsourced to Palantir?
Chris Ward
My understanding is that that has been dealt with by way of a reply to a written question that we have already put in the public domain.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that too many retired civil servants are waiting too long to be paid their pensions and lump sums. Seventy thousand people are still caught up waiting for past discrimination to be addressed under the McCloud remedy, and there are already concerns about Capita’s management very early in its new contract period. Does the Minister share my concern that this is completely unacceptable and that urgent action, as called for by the Public and Commercial Services Union, is required? Can he provide the House with a full statement on Capita’s performance in administering the civil service pension scheme at the earliest opportunity?
Chris Ward
I know that this issue is affecting a lot of constituents who are former civil servants. I have had a lot of letters on it; I am sure everyone else has as well. The Minister for the Cabinet Office met PCS about the issue recently. He has also, I believe, met the chief executive of Capita. We are committed to holding Capita to account. We will do so, and if it is okay with my hon. Friend, the Minister for the Cabinet Office will write back to him with a fuller statement.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
The Government are putting power, opportunity and resources in the hands of local communities and local businesses. Just last week, the House approved measures to reserve around £1 billion of contracts a year for local businesses in the UK. That will make a big difference to businesses in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend. We are consulting on further steps and will bring them forward soon.
Tristan Osborne
I thank the Minister for that answer. Under the last Government, social enterprises were decimated by cuts to their budgets during austerity. We have many good social enterprises in my constituency, such as Medway Community Healthcare, Emmaus and Medway Voluntary Action. What more can be done to support social enterprises after 14 years of austerity?
Chris Ward
I agree that social enterprises are the backbone of many communities. I pay tribute to the ones my hon. Friend mentions, and there are some in my constituency as well. I agree that we need to do more to open up procurement and to support social enterprises, as well as SMEs and the voluntary sector more widely. We published a procurement statement last year to help to address that, but we will go further on it soon.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
East Sussex county council has launched a scheme to fine East Sussex Highways when its roadworks overrun and cause disruption to local businesses. A clear case is that of Victoria Place, where businesses such as Gianni’s, Qualisea, Gr/eat Greek Cuisine and many more were disrupted by overrunning works to pedestrianise the street. Does the Minister agree that the fund should be used to help compensate those businesses for the disruption, and can the Cabinet Office support East Sussex county council to do just that?
Chris Ward
As half of my constituency is in East Sussex, I am always happy to support East Sussex county council. I think we are slightly off beam with the broad thrust of the topic, but I get the hon. Member’s point about the frustration that constituents, including mine, have with overrunning works. We will follow up with him if there is anything further that the Cabinet Office can do.
Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
The consultation on the compensation scheme closes today. I am grateful to all who have shared their views. The Government will consider the consultation carefully and respond within 12 weeks. I am pleased to tell the House that, as promised, the first payments to affected people were made by the end of 2025, and that as of 13 January, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has made over £2.4 billion in compensation offers.
Jeff Smith
I have a number of constituents affected by the infected blood scandal. Justice for them and for the other victims is long overdue, so I am pleased that the Government are making progress on this issue. May I ask how many interim £100,000 payments have been made to date to the estates of people who have sadly passed away?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am more than happy to write to my hon. Friend with an up-to-date, precise figure for interim payments. I should also mention that, as was raised with me in the House on a number of occasions in the autumn, inheritance tax bit on secondary beneficiaries, and I was pleased that this Government dealt with that issue at the Budget.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)
Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am here to earn my salary. I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The Government will be taking a “digital first” approach to modernising public services. On Tuesday, I highlighted that we are expanding the No. 10 innovation fellowship programme to bring more specialist digital skills into Government. On everything from justice to health, people with those skills will be working on building in-house digital solutions to create more efficient, value-for-money public services.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my right hon. Friend for making sure that he is earning his keep. I welcome the written statement from the Minister for Digital Government and Data on the plan to use artificial intelligence to boost productivity in public services. It is right that we look at all avenues, but I am concerned about the gender and racial bias in artificial intelligence, which many studies have shown, particularly as regards health outcomes. My right hon. Friend may be aware of a King’s College London study, which showed racial bias in AI when it comes to heart scans. The data shows that black and minority ethnic people have worse health outcomes, but we want them to engage in these programmes, so that they are not left behind. What steps is he taking to help identify and, most importantly, resolve these biases, so that our public services and AI work in step to make sure that no community is left behind?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important question. These AI solutions are only as good as their ability to serve the public fairly; equality should be built in at the start. The AI Safety Institute and officials at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology work across Government to ensure that those values and ethics are built into programmes as they are developed by the Government.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Dan Jarvis)
The Government’s Prepare website provides emergency preparedness advice to the public, including information about signing up for emergency alerts and warnings and preparing their home for emergencies. By using this advice, including the downloadable household emergency plan, people can improve their emergency preparedness, regardless of the cause of the emergency.
Caroline Voaden
As the Minister will know, a recent gas outage in my constituency left thousands of people without power, many for several days, and Cornwall has recently seen huge disruption from storm Goretti. Those incidents highlight how vulnerable households can be when essential services are disrupted. Given impending climate breakdown and the increasingly uncertain geopolitical environment, will he outline whether the Government are considering any kind of personalised, nationwide information campaign to help people prepare for a crisis? Not everyone will look at the gov.uk website. The Dutch Government have recently sent a 33-page booklet on emergency preparedness to every home in the country, so that people know what they need to do in a crisis.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful for the points the hon. Lady raises. We look very carefully at what international allies are saying about these matters. I am concerned to hear about the situation in her constituency. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero works closely with industry, regulators and other stakeholders to improve and maintain the resilience and security of energy infrastructure. When incidents occur, as they have in her constituency—even exceptionally disruptive ones—industry has tried and tested response plans to minimise disruption to customers as quickly as possible. That said, I am keen to further increase our resilience, so if she would like to write to me, I will look closely at what she has to say.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The advice from the previous Government was that households should stockpile three day’s-worth of non-perishable food and water. This week, The Guardian has reported that other European countries are looking at creating strategic food reserves. Can the Minister tell us a little more about his thinking on these issues?
Dan Jarvis
I could, and I welcome my hon. Friend’s interest and expertise in this area. The Government’s Prepare website includes a suggested list of supplies to improve household resilience, including non-perishable food. I take a close interest in the messaging of our partners in Europe on this subject. The Government are committed to ensuring that the whole of society—particularly the most vulnerable—are best prepared for and supported during crises.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Darren Jones)
This week, I gave a speech recognising the public’s frustration with our public services. I rejected the Conservative party’s offer of continued cuts and decline, and I rejected the offer of the populist parties, which just want to tear everything down and leave people on their own. Labour will build public services anew, so that accessing services in the future will feel more like online banking or online shopping, and so that public services are there when people need them most.
I have tabled a written ministerial statement about other changes in how we perform our duties in government. There will be new taskforces; the expansion of the innovation fellowship scheme; the new national school of government and public services; and reforms to the recruitment criteria, bonuses and performance management of the senior civil service. All of those are spelled out in the written ministerial statement, and I am happy to answer any further questions today.
Sarah Olney
In his speech this week, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set out his plan for the future of the civil service, in which he envisioned further sackings in a digital transformation. Last week, we saw the untested and potentially dangerous nature of artificial intelligence when the chief constable of West Midlands police admitted that his force had used AI to come to its verdict that Maccabi Tel Aviv fans should be banned from attending their European game away to Aston Villa. As Government Departments are already using AI to make critical and life-changing decisions, can the Minister clarify whether he plans to replace diligent civil servants with artificial intelligence?
Darren Jones
In the first instance, I am trying to put in place computers that work. Before we even get to artificial intelligence, we need to build some pretty basic services—services like those that the public are used to using in the private sector, but that are not used for public services because of 14 years of austerity from the Conservative party.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. That is a very important question, and I fully support it, but we have to shorten the questions to get others in. The Minister will give a good example in his reply.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)
My hon. Friend raises a really important issue that affects her constituency. As I said earlier, we need to do more to support great British businesses like Alexander Dennis. In the consultation, we are looking at reforming social value. I think it needs to go further; there should be meaningful social value that really helps local communities.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
At the risk of overworking the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I would like to ask him a question. It is boring but important; my last boring question was to the Paymaster General. The Opposition have found that his Department often refuses to release information to Members in response to parliamentary questions, but then releases it in response to freedom of information requests. Does he agree that, in principle, that is wrong?
Alex Burghart
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply; I really appreciate it. In his role as chief of staff to the Prime Minister—
Alex Burghart
In his role as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, will he please write to all other Government Departments to make sure that the good example that will now be set by the Cabinet Office is followed by other Departments?
Darren Jones
Mr Speaker, you will know that I take accountability to Parliament very seriously, as do the whole Government. As I said in my first answer, I am happy to take a look at that.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Darren Jones
I could not agree more, and I thank my hon. Friend for making such an important case for his constituency, as he did yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions. Whether on defence, nuclear energy, or fixing public services, the SNP have failed Scotland for far too long, and only with Anas Sarwar as leader of the Scottish Government from May will things start to get better.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
That is a matter for Parliament, not for Government. There is certainly a European Union relations secretariat in the Cabinet Office, with some absolutely excellent civil servants, and I am very proud to work with them on leading the negotiations.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
Darren Jones
I could not agree more. Perhaps with those what3words, more Tory MPs can find their way to the Benches next time.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
As I made clear in a lengthy and detailed statement to Parliament earlier this week, we will not get into the technical detail of the mitigations. I was reassured to see the letter from the director general of MI5 and the director of GCHQ, in which they pointed out that there are clear security advantages from the proposal. I also sought to make the point that we have agreed with the Chinese Government that there will be a reduction in their current diplomatic footprint from seven sites down to one.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Chris Ward
I absolutely do. As I have said previously, Britain should become Britain’s biggest customer. We have a procurement budget of £400 billion a year. In my opinion, we do not use that well enough to support British companies, but I am working with the Chancellor and colleagues across the Government to make sure that we do so in future.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Last year, in their UK-EU trade deal, the Government sold out British fishermen, giving away 12 years of access to our fishing waters, and we have seen that the Government have form in using our fishermen as pawns in negotiations. Will a Cabinet Office Minister please confirm that, in any trade negotiation or sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, no part of our fishing industry will be returned to the common fisheries policy?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
We are not returning to the common fisheries policy, and the hon. Lady is completely wrong in what she just said. The medium-term stability that we have delivered for our fishing industry will mean a £360 million investment in upgrading our fleet and in our coastal communities. If she opposes that money going into our fishing communities, she should say so. Secondly—[Interruption.]
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Josh Simons)
As with so many things, the previous Government gave up, accepted fraud as inevitable, and stopped tackling it properly. By contrast, this Government are delivering the most significant package of measures to tackle fraud and error in recent history. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecast that those measures will deliver £14.6 billion of savings by 2030.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
Will the Minister update the House on the delay to the pension payment of civil servants who left employment under the voluntary exit scheme? A number of constituents have complained to me that they have been left without any income, due to the delay by the pension administrator Capita. Will the Minister take personal control of the situation, and will he update the House at some point on contingencies and a new escalation process for people who are affected?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. If he writes to me on those specific points, I will be happy to look at them. I have seen the chief executive of Capita and have made clear the standards that I expect. Capita should be in no doubt about the contractual tools available to me, which I will employ to drive performance.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
As chair of the Labour rural research group, I continually hear about the challenges facing rural communities, including access to education and transport infrastructure. Will the Minister set out the specific steps that the Cabinet Office is taking to ensure that rural voices and rural communities are meaningfully represented throughout Government decision making?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for the great work that she does in Parliament and within the Labour party as a leading voice for rural communities across our country. On Government action, I point her to the rural taskforce, a cross-departmental group looking at how policies taken across Government can have a positive impact in rural communities while recognising the unique risk that we want to mitigate.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Paymaster General has told the House this morning, on more than one occasion, just how wonderful his new EU deal will be for British food and drink manufacturers, so why is he refusing to appear in front of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to discuss the matter in more detail?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
To be frank, when we have the final negotiation and the legal text I will of course be willing to appear before the Select Committee at the appropriate moment. If the hon. Gentleman looks at how many Select Committees I have appeared before, in this place and in the Lords, he will find that it is a very high number.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The 10-year bus pipeline is yet to be published, and a media report about the investigation by the National Cyber Security Centre and the Department for Transport into kill switches suggests that 700-plus Chinese buses on British roads have remote disabling technology. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government are delaying the publication of the 10-year bus pipeline until the report on Chinese kill switches is concluded?
Dan Jarvis
I believe that my hon. Friend has had a meeting with a Transport Minister to discuss these matters, but I would be very happy to discuss them with him further.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
The Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill is still under consideration in the Scottish Parliament and has not been passed, contrary to the views of a number of Members of this House. This week, a number of measures had to be removed from the Bill because they were not compliant with the powers of the Scottish Parliament, but Scottish Ministers suggested that they were in an ongoing discussion with the UK Government about a future section 104 order. Can Ministers update the House on the current discussions with the Scottish Government? And do they agree with me that ultimately—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government take a neutral position in relation to that Bill. It is also important, both recently and going forward, that we work sensitively with all the devolved Administrations.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
On Tuesday, the Chief Secretary set out plans to “promote the doers” across the civil service by establishing the new national School for Government and Public Services. Will he tell the House what steps he plans to take to ensure that Whitehall is focused on delivering services that actually work really well for my residents in Exeter?
Darren Jones
My assessment is that government conflates policy and delivery. That is why we will be promoting people from the frontline into the more senior levels of the senior civil service, to make sure that we understand the customer experience and how citizens expect their services to work more than has been the case in the past.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
I questioned the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons), earlier about the U-turn on compulsory digital IDs. Much to our confusion, he said that there had been no U-turn. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster clear this up? Is digital ID going to be compulsory—yes or no?
Darren Jones
There has been no U-turn—[Interruption.] The hon. Member has asked the same question twice and has had the same answer. If he would like, I will write to him in plain English and he can read it a third time.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
North West Leicestershire is home to East Midlands airport, which carries the highest volume of small parcel air freight in the UK. In the light of the new trading agreements with the EU, can the Minister update me on how we will ensure that small businesses can make the most of these additional trading benefits, for current and future agreements?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The deal that we struck at the UK-EU summit will cut costs and red tape for businesses that import and export to the EU. This Government are committed to removing barriers to trade; it is a shame that the Conservative party is not.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I thank the Chief Secretary for meeting me to discuss the £20 million Pride in Place money awarded to Portsmouth. To boost and expand those funds in my city and make investment lasting, will the Chief Secretary tell me and my constituents more about his work with the new Office for the Impact Economy, collaborating with social investors and philanthropists so that we can boost funding and create much-needed change in local communities?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for the brilliant work that she is doing in her constituency with this historic money from Pride in Place, whereby local people get to decide how to spend money on their own communities. As she has alluded to, the Office for the Impact Economy will work with social investors, philanthropists and other organisations to match up funding in order to increase that money even further and have a longer-lasting impact on local communities.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I thank the Government for their work on cutting the cost of living. Can the Minister say how the Cabinet Office is supporting other Government Departments to continue this work?
Darren Jones
As part of the Growth and Living Standards Cabinet Committee, the Cabinet Office co-ordinates Ministers across Government to ensure that we are working as hard as possible to get inflation and costs down and make a real difference to the living standards of the public across the country.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Boots has stores in Castlepoint, Southbourne Grove and Boscombe high street in my constituency. I met Boots in Parliament to hear about what it is doing to tackle shoplifting. In London, it is working with the Metropolitan police, who plug into Boots’s own reporting system to avoid the need for duplicate reporting. I am calling for the same to come to Bournemouth, but plugging all businesses into all police forces will take a lot of work. Will the Government consider having a national police app that is opt-in, like the national health service app, so people do not have to go through the faff of reporting their demographic information and so they can get on with reporting crime faster? That would be a lot of help to Karl, the store manager at Aldi in Boscombe.
Darren Jones
That is a very good idea—I have had similar issues in my own constituency. I will make sure that that idea is passed on to the Home Secretary. Police reforms will be coming to the House shortly.
Business of the House
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The business for the week commencing 26 January will include:
Monday 26 January—Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill.
Tuesday 27 January—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill.
Wednesday 28 January—Opposition day (16th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition; subject to be announced.
Thursday 29 January—General debate on Holocaust Memorial Day. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 30 January—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 2 February will include:
Monday 2 February—If necessary, consideration of Lords message on the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill.
Tuesday 3 February—Second Reading of the Universal Credit (Removal Of Two Child Limit) Bill.
Wednesday 4 February—Opposition day (17th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition; subject to be announced.
Thursday 5 February—General debate on road safety, followed by a general debate on obligation to assess the risk of genocide under international law in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 6 February—The House will not be sitting.
Jesse Norman
I thank the Leader of the House for that update.
The House will know that I am obsessive about improving education, skills and life opportunities for young people; I know that the Leader of the House, with his own background, shares that passion. I cannot let this week pass without noting that on Tuesday our new specialist technology and engineering university in Hereford, the New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering, formally launched its new autonomous robotics degree, which is sponsored, designed and delivered in collaboration with the British Army. I thank the Defence ministerial team, and in particular the Minister for the Armed Forces, for coming up to Hereford and supporting that. I believe that it is the UK’s first undergraduate drones technologies degree. It starts in September 2026, which is light speed compared with the normal progression of these things in higher education. It will be of inestimable value not only to young people up and down the country, but to the defence of the realm and in a host of other sectors, including food and agriculture, infrastructure and energy.
Otherwise, what a week this has been! Rising international tensions, heated public disagreement, desperate attempts at diplomatic solutions—and that is just Brooklyn Beckham’s Instagram account. Talking of elites, we have had the amusing spectacle this week of that self-proclaimed friend of the people, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), hoovering up the free food and glugging down the champagne with the global bullshiterati in Davos.
Mr Speaker
I am going to speak first. I want temperate language, and I am sure you would love to withdraw that little message you had for us.
Jesse Norman
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to exercise my quadriceps on several occasions. Yes, of course I unhesitatingly withdraw that appalling term from the record.
All this, I should say, comes from the hon. Member for Clacton after a lifetime spent denouncing Davos as a hub of evil globalist elites where, in his words, there is
“no space for the little man”.
At least we know that that is not true any more. Oh, the irony of it all, Mr Speaker! A wildly anti-establishment figure and long-time member of the Reform club—no relation—now joining the globalist elites. Can it be long before he aspires to join the Garrick club, or indeed joins the Prime Minister in professing publicly that he prefers Davos to Westminster?
Amid all this nonsense, other, very serious changes are under way. Last week, the Government published the results of the latest auction for renewable energy, which set a floor price for renewables of £91 per kilowatt-hour. No one in this House disputes the importance of green energy, or the importance of renewables in the energy mix—[Interruption.] Few sane people dispute the value of green energy, but energy prices are already unfeasibly high for British businesses and, despite the Government’s promises, are set to go higher still, especially once the cost of new nuclear is added in. The effect of the policy will be to punish taxpayers, and of course bill payers, but it is also a form of corporate welfare, because the only benefits will come to the better-off.
Meanwhile, the Government have decided to ignore North sea oil and gas, gravely damage the north-east of Scotland, undermine the employment of thousands of skilled workers, in disagreement with their own unions, and import gas from overseas at greater cost, with more carbon and more carbon miles. In its own way, this is a repetition of the private finance initiative scandal of 30 years ago, in which the country paid tens of billions of pounds more than it should have for public infrastructure, and a lot of wealthy people in the City of London—now resident in overseas countries—made out like bandits.
In 1919, John Maynard Keynes wrote a little book called “The Economic Consequences of the Peace” about the disastrous effects of the treaty of Versailles and the demands that it made for payment from the other side in the first world war. I am not suggesting for a second that there is any comparison between these times and those, in Weimar Germany and the rest of it, but I will say that we are facing severe economic constraints as a result of energy prices. I therefore ask the Leader of the House whether we can have a debate on the economic consequences of the Energy Secretary.
Sir Alan Campbell
The shadow Leader of the House has clearly had his Weetabix this morning.
Through you, Mr Speaker, may I wish everyone well who is celebrating Burns night this coming Sunday? This weekend is also the annual Big Garden Birdwatch, when the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds asks people to observe their garden for an hour and count the number of birds they see. I understand, however, that Members on the official Opposition Benches have been warned not to take part by the Leader of the Opposition, who says that they should be spending less time watching the bird table and more time watching the shadow Cabinet table. There is clearly concern about more migration from her party to join the lesser spotted Member for Clacton, but surely there is a limit to the number of cuckoos that will fit into the Reform nest.
Before I get on to the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House, let me turn to some other things that have happened this week. We have announced a consultation on further measures to keep children safe online. It will consider the options of banning social media for children below a certain age and raising the digital age of consent. We are committed to keeping children and young people safe online, and colleagues from all parts of the House will have heard from their constituents on this matter, and the Government are listening to those concerns.
The Government also published the water White Paper, setting out a new vision for water and transforming the water system for good. It sets out clear powers for a new regulator, delivering tougher oversight and stronger accountability for water companies, which is consistently raised with me at business questions. We also published the warm homes plan, and we are doubling down on support for home upgrades. We have set out our plans to help households and support thousands through more clean energy jobs.
In response to the shadow Leader of the House, I certainly congratulate his constituency on the developments in higher education. He is a man who hides his light under a bushel—perhaps not quite so much this morning—because he has played a huge role in those developments in higher education in his constituency, and we should recognise that.
The shadow Leader of the House said that no one disputes the importance of green energy, but I think he is stretching the point a bit. It is not simply Members of Reform; there are still Members in his party who dispute the importance of green jobs. He talks about the benefit to the better off, but I remind him that every household will benefit from the £150 cut to energy bills, and it is not just households that will benefit. The other side of it is the thousands of green jobs, not least in my constituency and my region. Finally, I welcome his conversion, perhaps belatedly, to Keynesianism. It is perhaps another sign of his not quite fitting in with the mainstream of his party.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
For the past nine years, the church of St Chad and St Mark in my Wolverhampton West constituency has welcomed Iranian refugees into its congregation who have fled the persecution of the oppressive Iranian regime. Last week, we heard the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister speak about the total abhorrence of the killings, the violence and the repression to which protesters in Iran have recently been subjected. That has mainly been by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, who have also intimidated and harassed dissidents abroad. When will this Government proscribe and ban the IRGC as a terrorist organisation, as other countries have done already?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to raise this matter. As we have said before, we will not hesitate to use the most effective measures against the Iranian regime and the IRGC. We have already implemented 550 sanctions against Iranian-linked individuals and organisations, and we placed Iran on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. The Foreign Secretary made a statement this week, and my hon. Friend may wish to attend Foreign Office questions next week to make his point directly to Ministers.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Before I begin, I have to pull the Leader of the House up, because he did not respond to one of the critical points that the shadow Leader of the House made. I, for one, would like to hear what the Leader of the House has to say about the feud in the Beckham family.
St Helier hospital is older than the NHS itself, is sited in the heart of my constituency and is crumbling. It was placed within the new hospitals programme set up by the Conservative Government, but they totally failed to deliver on it. This Government put it on a new timetable, stretching out delivery over the coming decades. Last week, the National Audit Office published an assessment of how the Government have performed so far. There is some good news for the Government: the NAO said that they have put the programme on a firmer financial footing for the long term, but the NAO warns of potential further delays, particularly to those hospitals with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, which look set to miss their deadline in 2030.
I have also heard that some of the phase 1 schemes have not kept pace with the programme and not drawn down on all the capital allocated to them. That could present an opportunity for other trusts perhaps to do smaller projects in the interim, such as the extension of the emergency department that my local NHS trust is asking for, or possibly even to move our scheme from phase 2 into phase 1, if the trust can prove that it is ready to go.
It has been about a year since we have had a substantive update from the Government on the new hospitals programme. The National Audit Office report last week raises lots of questions, so will the Leader of the House ask the relevant Health Minister to come to the Dispatch Box to answer them?
Sir Alan Campbell
As the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, the RAAC replacement scheme has been folded into the new hospital programme—a major Government plan to rebuild and refurbish NHS hospitals. We believe that this will give a greater return on investment, enhance digital technology and improve emergency performance. Patients and staff deserve safe, modern hospitals and an NHS that they can rely on. As the hon. Gentleman has said, the reality is that plans were announced by the previous Government without the money ever being there to pay for them. I can offer him a meeting with Ministers to raise his constituency matters, if that is what he wishes, but I will also draw to the attention of Ministers his remarks about the recent NAO report. I am sure they will be willing to update the House.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Jono, Sam and the rest of the team at the GOAT sports bar in Nantwich have breathed new life into the town. Unfortunately, last month Jono’s stepdad suffered a cardiac arrest while in the bar and tragically passed away. The team at GOAT are now leading efforts to turn that tragedy into something positive by fundraising for defibrillators in the town, having already raised enough for six defibrillators and having had a further defibrillator directly donated. Will the Leader of the House join me in commending their efforts, and will he encourage people and services across Crewe and Nantwich to support this effort to save lives?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in commending the GOAT sports bar’s fundraising efforts following that tragic loss. Our community automated external defibrillators fund has recently delivered thousands of new AEDs to local communities, but as always, local communities are best placed to take the lead in providing them where they are most needed. I think this would be a very good topic for a Westminster Hall debate, because I am sure that colleagues from across the House share my hon. Friend’s concerns.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
As you will know, Mr Speaker, reform occasionally moves very slowly in this House, so I thank the Leader of the House for confirming that the experiment on dealing with estimates day debates, which started in 2018, will now be confirmed going forward. I would be grateful if he could give us early warning of when the estimates day debates will take place this year, so that we can begin the process of allocating the debates.
In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, there will be a Westminster Hall debate next Tuesday on UK bus manufacturing. On Thursday, there will be a debate on non-recognition of Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine, followed by a debate on protecting and restoring river habitats. On Tuesday 3 February, there will be a Westminster Hall debate on town and city centre safety. On Thursday 5 February, there will be a debate on secondary breast cancer and a further debate, which we will announce next week.
We now have a queue of debates for the Chamber, which will take us to the summer recess. We have a queue of Westminster Hall debates for Tuesdays, which will take us to the Whitsun recess, and we are processing those debates as fast as we can. We will fill any time that the Leader of the House can allocate to us.
It has been drawn to my attention this week that a company called Al-Masirah has been operating a TV channel in this country for 10 years. It is owned by the Houthis, a proscribed organisation in the United States, and there is a risk that these people are using the opportunity to avoid our visa system, to launder money and to encourage terrorist activities in this country. This is obviously a serious concern for national security. I ask the Leader of the House to encourage the Security Minister to come and give us a statement on what action will be taken to make sure that the company is in compliance with our rules and regulations. If it is not, it should be removed from the UK so that our country is made safe.
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his update and for the work of his Committee. I will confirm the estimates days as soon as I can, and I have heard his request for more time. As he knows, we endeavour to comply with such requests as best we can.
On the issue of the Al-Masirah TV channel, we keep all evidence and potential designations under close review. We will consider targets, guided by the objectives of the relevant sanctions regime and the evidence that is provided. We do not presently proscribe the Houthis as a terrorist organisation, but the situation remains under constant review, and we continue to use our full diplomatic toolkit, including sanctions, to constrain their activities. I will make sure that the relevant Minister hears the hon. Gentleman’s concern and that he gets a response.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras, Mr Speaker. In the 2021 census, despite the disturbing absence of a tick box, over 117,000 Cornish people registered their identity by having to click “Other” and then typing in “Cornish”. With the current consultation on the 2031 census due to close on 4 February, does the Leader of the House agree with me that this farce must end, and that the Office for National Statistics must add a Cornish identifier tick box to the 2031 census?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a stalwart campaigner for his Cornish heritage. He consistently raises the profile of the Cornish language in this House, and I commend him for that because it is an important part of the identity of his constituents. I support him in calling for those who wish to respond to the consultation to do so before it closes next month, and I am sure that those at the ONS will have heard his words this morning.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Like so many Members of this House, I am blessed with the amazing canals criss-crossing my constituency that are maintained by the Canal & River Trust. Sadly, two bridges in the villages of Brewood and Penkridge have collapsed, and local residents cannot use them or access them, which is causing a great deal of inconvenience. Could we have a debate in this House about the funding that the Canal & River Trust receives, because it quite simply does not go far enough to maintain these amazing heritage assets that are used every day?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join the right hon. Gentleman in praising the fantastic work of the Canal & River Trust. I am trying to work out exactly where its funding comes from, but when I have done that, I will raise this with the relevant Department. Because of the proud heritage of canals in our country, that sounds to me as if it would make an excellent topic for a debate—perhaps an Adjournment debate—so that other Members can contribute on this very important matter.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Replacing Oxford’s Kennington bridge would secure critical transport links and unblock the Oxford flood alleviation scheme. Having OFAS named in the Government’s infrastructure strategy would protect jobs, homes and people. How can we ensure that Departments work with each other, including on the forthcoming structures fund, to support such projects that have positive outcomes for a range of Government priorities, and can we have a debate on this subject in Government time?
Sir Alan Campbell
First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her award in the new year’s honours, which was extremely well received and very well deserved. I thank her for raising this matter, and I know she has been very vocal about the replacement of the Kennington rail bridge. She has already raised this matter with Ministers, but I would be happy to facilitate a meeting with them to allow her to continue to make her case for her constituents.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The matter of West Midlands police and the Maccabi Tel Aviv football match has rightly been raised in this place, but does the Leader of the House agree that when police conduct falls well below acceptable standards, as it did in the west midlands, elected police and crime commissioners really should take full responsibility and show leadership, and must be held to account for their actions?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Home Secretary has been absolutely clear about the failure of leadership that has harmed the reputation of and eroded public confidence in West Midlands police. The ultimate responsibility for the failure rests with the chief constable, but although we have given a commitment about their future, we would expect police and crime commissioners to step up to the mark as well. The Home Secretary has been very clear about seeking the power to intervene so that chief constables can be held directly to account.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Liberal Democrat-run Hertfordshire county council has been looking at closing several village schools in my constituency, with a decision due soon on Albury primary school. I will not ask the Leader of the House to comment on a particular cases, but from speaking to parents and local communities, it is absolutely clear that these schools not only provide a fantastic education, but are right at the heart of rural life. Can we have a debate on the importance of village schools and what more we can do nationally to support them?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. He is a very keen campaigner on behalf of his constituents. There is an opportunity to raise it directly with Ministers during question time on Monday or perhaps to seek an Adjournment debate on the matter. His local authority funding has increased by 8.1%, so it is important that local schools are prioritised. I will also ensure that the relevant Minister hears his concerns.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Changes to income tax reporting from April mean that childminders need to claim tax relief on specific purchases, rather than the current 10% wear and tear allowance. Deanne, one of my local childminders, points out that wear and tear is a daily reality for the few professionals who face very young children in the stages of potty training, sickness, and learning to eat with a spoon and fork and drink with an open cup. Those clients can put carpets and furniture through their paces! Could the Leader of the House speak to his Treasury colleagues about reinstating the wear and tear allowance or introducing an alternative mechanism to recognise the real costs of providing home- based childcare?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Lady raises a very important matter. I give her a commitment that I will speak to my colleagues in the Treasury to see what further support we can give to people working in that sector.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
My constituent Katie Brett’s little sister was brutally murdered when she was 16 years of age. Katie is campaigning for Sasha’s law to give victims’ families longer to apply to the unduly lenient sentence scheme. It is a duty of a Labour Government to make sure that the rights of victims and their families always come first. As the Victims and Courts Bill progresses through the other place, will the Leader of the House help to ensure that the Government listen to those who, like Katie, are fighting for justice for their loved ones?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an important case and I commend Katie’s campaign. The murder of Sasha Brett was a tragedy, and my thoughts are with Katie and the rest of the family. We have invested a record £550 million over three years into specialist services to support victims and witnesses, but we are also clear that a lot more needs to be done. My hon. Friend is right to say that the Victims and Courts Bill is making its way through the House of Lords, and I will make sure that the Ministers responsible for the Bill, and the Ministry of Justice, have heard her today.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Since the Budget, the hospitality industry has been very anxious. We have heard from the Treasury and the Chancellor that a package is coming forward. I spoke in the Budget debate asking when it will come forward, we have had urgent questions about it, and we have had an Opposition day debate. Even when debating the Finance (No. 2) Bill, we directly asked the Minister when the package is coming forward. We still need those answers for pubs, restaurants, cafés and hotels; they need to know who is in and who is out. Will the Leader of the House ask the Chancellor to come to the House next week to make a statement on exactly this subject in order to end the anxiety in the hospitality industry?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman will know the seriousness of this matter for every constituency. The Chancellor has made it clear that we are looking at this, and I shall put it this way: in the coming days, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get what he asks for.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
My constituent Mary plans to retire next week. Despite applying to resolve her civil service pension in early summer last year, it has still not been resolved. I wrote to Capita about this immediately, but currently there is little prospect of Mary’s pension being resolved before she plans to retire. We are seeing too many of these prolonged delays cropping up. Will the Leader of the House support me in calling on Capita to spell out clearly an urgent resolution to this and all other cases at serious risk of being prolonged?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is not the first Member to raise this important matter. I understand that Capita has recognised the scale of the issue and is recruiting additional staff to deal with it. Like my hon. Friend, I urge Capita to get on with it. I know that this will bring little comfort to Mary and many others, but I hope that there can be progress. Should my hon. Friend seek a meeting with a Minister to discuss these matters, I will arrange it for him.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
When I make inquiries on behalf of constituents about delays at the Child Maintenance Service, I, too, often face a long wait—a wait for a response—despite chasing. The longest delay is currently four months and 20 days. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on this issue, so the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions can hear about the harm this is doing?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Lady raises a concern that is felt by Members across the House. I will ensure the Secretary of State is aware of her concerns and, if necessary, brings forward an update on our plans for improvement.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week I visited the YMCA centre on Aylsham Road in Norwich, which is doing incredibly work to address youth homelessness. Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating 170 years of YMCA Norfolk this year, and make time for a debate on how best to support vulnerable young people to access safe, secure and affordable housing?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to champion the work of the YMCA centre in her constituency. I think we could echo that in every constituency where the YMCA has a presence; it does an absolutely fantastic job. We are committed to ending homelessness and have invested £3.5 billion over the next three years. I encourage her to apply for an Adjournment debate to highlight the important work the YMCA is doing, and the other measures necessary to support vulnerable young people to access safe, secure and affordable housing.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
The Leader of the House will remember that nearly a decade ago, on 17 November 2016, I asked a question on the subject of the resettlement and subsequent self-determination of the Chagos islanders. The then Minister, Sir Alan Duncan, shamefully said:
“we do not consider that the right of self-determination actually applies to the Chagossians.” —[Official Report, 17 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 386.]
Given that that position was taken by the previous Conservative Government, and that the current Labour Government have gone further still by surrendering their home without consent, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the right of self-determination for the Chagossian people, and end the bipartisan failure and injustice that has left an entire people without a voice for 60 years?
Sir Alan Campbell
I would gently point out that Alan Duncan was a Minister in the Government that the hon. Gentleman supported. On the Chagos deal and self-determination, the base is vital for our intelligence and defence. Our deal provides certainty going forward and is supported by allies. It is also going through this House, so there is a chance that it will come back for further discussion and debate, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be able to make his case when that happens.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
WASPI women are still waiting for justice and closure. The out of court agreement reached in December between campaigners and the Government saw the Department for Work and Pensions agree to a time-limited period to conduct a review. However, the parliamentary ombudsman investigation took six years alone before reaching its findings and recommendations on compensation. Given how many constituencies and constituents are affected, may we have a debate in Government time on the impact of this issue and urge the Government to come forward with a firm proposal?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Secretary of State has made it clear that he is looking at this matter as a matter of urgency and will bring forward his proposals at the earliest opportunity. My hon. Friend will have the opportunity to comment at that point.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The news has broken that overnight the first asylum seekers have been moved into Crowborough barracks in Sussex. The Minister for Border Security and Asylum stood at the Dispatch Box and told me that the Stanwell hotel in my constituency would not be kept open as an asylum hotel for a minute longer than necessary. Will the Leader of the House please use his good offices to encourage the Home Office to come here on Monday to make a statement, which I am sure would be of interest across the House, to find out where the asylum seekers that have been moved into Crowborough barracks have been drawn from?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will certainly draw the hon. Gentleman’s concerns to the attention of the relevant Minister. It is important that we make progress on this matter, and that does involve change, but it is also important that Members are kept up to date. I will get the hon. Gentleman an update.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
The House will be aware of the horrific case of sexual abuse that took place in one of my local nurseries. The parents involved, who have shown amazing resilience, feel very strongly that if the nursery had had CCTV, the perpetrator, Vincent Chan, would not have been able to get away with his horrific crimes for seven whole years. Will the Leader of the House help me to persuade the Government that we need mandatory CCTV in local nurseries, with secure local monitoring and restricted remote access for parents, in order to safeguard our children?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. She is doing an excellent job advocating for her constituents in this appalling case. The Secretary of State for Education will be appointing an expert panel to inform new guidance for the sector on the use of digital devices and CCTV in relation to safeguarding and to consider whether the use of CCTV should be mandatory. The Department will welcome Member engagement in that review.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Residents in Sutton and Cheam are seeing the very real impact of the cost of living crisis. It may sound like a cliché, but they are seeing the impact on their energy bills, their rent and particularly their food and grocery prices. Staples such as eggs, milk and butter have increased exponentially, as has the price of treats like chocolate—it is now 45p for a Freddo bar, which shows the scale of the crisis more than anything. Will the Government schedule a debate to discuss how we can tangibly bring about solutions to the cost of living crisis, including consideration of measures such as negotiating a bespoke customs union deal? I am sure the Leader of the House will tell me that is not in the Government’s mandate, but it is definitely in mine, having stood on a Liberal Democrat manifesto to push that matter if elected.
Sir Alan Campbell
Tackling the cost of living is a priority for this Government. It is not just a matter of picking out one particular aspect; it is about ensuring that every Department has a role to play in reducing the cost of living for our constituents, and that they get on and do that. As well as Freddos, the hon. Gentleman mentioned energy bills; I remind him that we have reduced energy bills by £150 for every household, including his constituents. The Government’s position on a deal with the EU is very clear; the Minister for the Cabinet Office spelt it out earlier today. There will be ample opportunity going forward to discuss the merits of that deal.
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
I recently visited Community Dental Services in my constituency, which is supporting the roll-out of our very welcome supervised toothbrushing in schools programme. As we know, dental decay is the leading cause of hospital admissions for young children. Despite that, a number of schools in my area are declining to take part. I therefore ask the Leader of the House to find Government time for a debate on how we can improve the uptake of this vital policy.
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an important issue and rightly points out that dental health is vital. We have provided £11 million of funding for local authorities to support toothbrushing programmes starting in April, along with a five-year partnership with the private sector. She raises the issue of schools’ involvement; it is ultimately a matter for the schools themselves, but I encourage them to make best use of that funding and to take part in the programme. It is so important to children’s health going forward. To add further detail, should my hon. Friend seek an Adjournment debate on these matters, I am sure other Members would join her in expressing their concern.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Has the fish supper had its chips? Fish and chips were so critical to morale during wartime that Churchill insisted they were never rationed, but now my constituent Romano Petrucci, the proprietor of the Central Café in my hometown of Stranraer, warns that this staple is becoming an unaffordable luxury. I appreciate that the Government do not set the price of fish and chips, but this is none the less a cross-cutting issue for Government, whether it be through fish quotas, energy prices or the cost of hiring. Having tried and failed to get either a Westminster Hall or an Adjournment debate on this matter, I ask for guidance on how we might air this issue here.
Sir Alan Campbell
As the Member of Parliament whose constituency has the best fish and chips in the country—[Interruption.] That is simply a matter of record, not a matter of dispute. It is obvious that the price of fish and chips has gone up in recent times, and there are many reasons for that, but everyone involved in that food chain deserves to be properly paid for the valuable work that they do. I would gently point out, as a Member of Parliament whose constituency has a fishing fleet, that the price of fish often reflects the very high price for fishermen, who go out and do what is still the most dangerous peacetime job, so let us not undersell the importance of fisheries.
The hon. Member says that the Government have things in their gift that they can do, and I am sure the Government will be looking at that, but should he seek a meeting with the Minister responsible for fisheries, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), to discuss these matters, I am sure I could arrange it.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
It is with concern that I raise the issue of FIFA deepening its commercial ties to the betting industry by letting gambling operators livestream world cup games this year. Will the Leader of the House ask the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Health Ministers to review this matter urgently, given that severe gambling harms directly affect at least 1.5 million adults across the UK?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an important matter; this is a worrying development, given the known link between marketing and gambling participation and the harms associated with online gambling. I will draw that to the attention of the Minister responsible for gambling in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and ensure that my hon. Friend gets a response.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
This week we have seen, at last, the Government’s national security assessment and its stark warning that global biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse threaten UK security and prosperity. Given those catastrophic risks, can the Leader of the House explain why the publication of the report was delayed from October? Can we have a debate about what the Government are doing to step up the vital preparedness for these risks and whether they are ensuring that the nature and climate emergency is treated as a major national security priority?
Sir Alan Campbell
Sometimes the delay of reports, which is regrettable but not uncommon, is due to the importance of the matter and the importance of our getting it right. If there has been a delay, it is, as I say, unfortunate, although the hon. Member rightly points out that the report is to be welcomed. Once the report has been considered, I will look to find time for Members to debate these matters, given their importance.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
Burnley’s local bus operator Transdev has increased the price of an under-19s bus ticket from £13 a week to £20 a week, which is a huge increase for kids, students and families. It has now been lowered to £18 a week, thanks to our campaign, but that is not enough. More than 1,000 people have backed my campaign to bring down fares and reintroduce a local Burnley bus ticket. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on the price of bus tickets in Burnley, and will he back my campaign?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is an assiduous campaigner for his constituents, for which I thank him. As he knows, we have capped bus fares at £3 until at least March 2027, but he mentions the reality of what is happening in local areas. I will raise his case with the Secretary of State and ensure that he gets a meeting if he wants one. If not, he will certainly get a response.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
North East Lincolnshire council has just received a planning application for 3,500 homes in the strategic gap between Laceby in my constituency and the west of Grimsby. When developments are proposed, the developer usually says that it will provide a new school and doctors surgery and so on, but that does not guarantee that the teachers or doctors will be available to work in them. Could the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister to explain to the House how this can be resolved, given the Government’s relaxation of local input into planning applications?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman raises an important matter. Planning matters are best resolved locally, but I agree that developers have a responsibility to the wider community. The Government are very keen to ensure that infrastructure is in place, including schools, and we are recruiting more teachers so that we have the people to teach in the schools that are built. I will raise his concerns with the relevant Minister, and if he wants a meeting to discuss these matters, I will help him get one.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Posties deliver our post and keep this country functioning. They do an absolutely tremendous job. It is an essential public service, and at the heart of it is the USO—the universal service obligation, which is a legal duty to ensure the delivery of mail to all UK addresses at the same price six days a week, with next-day delivery by first class. The Royal Mail is failing people in my patch on its USO, and in Blyth and Ashington people are raging at the late arrival of important medical documents about NHS appointments, financial documentation and other important correspondence. It is causing huge distress. The delays are apparently the result of a failure to address staff shortages and the prioritisation of parcels over post. Would my right hon. Friend arrange a debate in Government time to discuss the failings of the Royal Mail and the acute problems it is causing for some of our most vulnerable constituents?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in thanking all postal workers for their hard work over the busy Christmas period. I am disappointed to hear that some of his constituents are not receiving their mail in good time. Unfortunately, that is happening across many constituencies, including my own, and the public rightly expect a well-run postal service and their letters to arrive on time. I know that Royal Mail pays close attention to issues raised at business questions and at other occasions in this House, so I hope that it has heard the message, but I encourage my hon. Friend to apply for an Adjournment debate on this matter, because it is not just a matter for his constituents but for many other constituencies as well.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
My constituents’ 11-year-old son perforated his eardrum in July and was referred for paediatric ear, nose and throat treatment, but they were then informed that the waiting time for standard referrals was 12 to 14 months and given no indication of when treatment might start. Understandably, they are very worried that the delay will cause long-term damage to their son’s hearing. Surely the Leader of the House agrees that the issue is a real concern and that it is not the service that our constituents expect and deserve from our NHS. It is a workforce issue, so will he allow a debate in Government time on addressing waiting times for ENT treatment?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is a matter of concern not just to the hon. Gentleman but to the family and friends of the young man involved. Overall, waiting lists are coming down, but there are issues in parts of the service, and we are doing our best to tackle them. We are also doing our best to recruit specialists in those services. I will ensure that the Health Minister hears of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns to see what further can be done and that if the hon. Gentleman wishes to go into further detail, he is able to do so at a meeting with the Minister.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
This week, I met 19-year-old Jack Billingham, a third-year Derby Rolls-Royce apprentice who won gold at the national welding championships in November and who is representing the UK at the WorldSkills international competition in Japan. I had a go at virtual-reality welding, and I admit that Jack’s score was a little higher than mine. At a time when the UK faces a national shortage of welders and of those with other critical manufacturing skills, could we have a debate on how we can strengthen the skills pipeline and support apprenticeships for good, skilled British manufacturing jobs?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend and send my congratulations on behalf of the House to Jack Billingham on winning gold at the national welding championships. We are already making efforts to support young people, such as through investing £1.5 billion to deliver 50,000 more apprenticeships and 350,000 more new workplace opportunities, but a great deal more needs to be done, not least as we seek to improve and renew the infrastructure of our country. I encourage my hon. Friend to apply for an Adjournment debate to investigate further how we can promote highly skilled manufacturing jobs. Should she be unsuccessful in that, I will look to hold such a debate in Government time.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
The question to the Prime Minister yesterday from the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) rang a bell with me. Many of my constituents are waiting for their civil service pensions, which are administered by Capita. Sarah Elizabeth Rees had to retire due to ill health in February last year, but a year on, she still has not had her pension and has nothing to support her or pay her bills. We have written five letters to the relevant Department. We have had one reply, which asked for confirmation of name, address and national insurance number. That really is not good enough. I kindly ask whether the Leader of the House will allow for a debate in Government time to discuss fully the issues that have arisen for all our constituents.
Sir Alan Campbell
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) earlier, Capita has recognised the scale of the issue and is recruiting additional staff to deal with it. However, there are issues for particular departments as well. I will draw the case and her disappointment to the attention of Ministers. This would be a popular topic for an Adjournment debate, should the hon. Lady be successful in securing one, because we have already seen that it is an issue not just in her constituency but in many others too.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
My constituent Ahmad, a senior skilled worker at Queen’s hospital, has not seen his wife, Israa, for two years as she remains trapped in Gaza. Ahmad applied for a spousal visa, but Israa has been unable to enrol her biometrics because the Gaza visa application centre has been closed since 2024 and no safe route to an alternative centre exists. The original application has expired and the second one faces the same barrier with no access to a visa application centre. Israa’s home has been bombed, leaving her without shelter or basic necessities. Will the Leader of the House urge the Home Secretary to consider alternative arrangements, such as deferred biometrics, so that those lawfully working here can evacuate their spouses from Gaza?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an important case on behalf of his constituent. I understand that he has already written to the Home Office about the matter, but I am happy to follow up with that Department to ensure that he gets a response. Should he want a meeting with Ministers to see what further can be done, I will seek to facilitate that as well.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
A number of businesses, particularly care homes, in my constituency have approached me with concerns about the salary limit for migrants. Migrants already in this country, who have trained and qualified here, are finding it difficult to reach those standards to remain. Is it possible to have a meeting with a Minister from the Treasury team to discuss the impact that that is having not just on those sectors but on the economy?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will ensure that the hon. Lady gets a meeting with the relevant Minister so she can take the issue further.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Residents and developers in Portsmouth are facing repeated delays from the council planning department. Despite clear assurances from the council given to me about the long-promised green light for the Tipner East development, it has stalled again. Those delays are actively driving the growth of houses in multiple occupation, damaging Portsmouth’s reputation and holding back action on the housing crisis. Will the Leader of the House tell me what mechanisms are available to Members to hold Portsmouth city council to account, force transparency over the planning delays and secure faster, more effective decision making to build the much-needed homes in my city?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government, as my hon. Friend knows, are dedicated to ending the housing crisis. We have already delivered 231,000 new homes since the election and our reforms will lead to the highest level in over 40 years. However, that has to be delivered at a local level. I will reach out to the relevant Minister to ensure that my hon. Friend receives the information required on the specific issue that she raises and can discuss what further action can be taken.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Sadly, on Boxing day Leicester learned that it had lost one of its finest: Councillor Manjula Sood MBE. Manjula Sood had been a Labour councillor for 25 years, worked for countless charities and worked so hard for community cohesion. In 2008, she had the honour of becoming the UK’s first female Asian Lord Mayor, but for me, she will always be known as Mrs Sood, my junior school teacher. Will the Leader of the House commemorate Mrs Sood and also make time in this Chamber for an annual debate where we can commemorate all local champions who truly put the great in Great Britain?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to Councillor Sood for her invaluable work, not just for the local community, but in education. I will certainly take away his suggestion of an annual debate so we can mark the contribution of people like Councillor Sood. I will give it some thought.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Last Thursday, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) raised the unacceptable waits for audiology services in Doncaster, with some people waiting years for basic hearing tests and hearing aid support. That goes for my constituents, too, who face long waits, repeat appointments and being left without working hearing aids. It is not right, it is not good enough, and I will not accept it any more. Will the Leader of the House ask Ministers to set out how they are supporting the local trust to speed up assessments and hearing aid provision to prevent people being left without the basics?
Sir Alan Campbell
As I said in a previous answer, audiology is a vital part of healthcare. I will ensure that the relevant Minister is aware of my hon. Friend’s concerns and updates him on what plans the Government have to improve these services as fast as we possibly can.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I echo the Leader of the House’s Burns night greetings for Sunday. Will he join me, in my position as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on nuclear energy, in congratulating the Nuclear Industry Association and all those in the nuclear industry who ensured the success of the fifth Nuclear Week in Parliament this week, which has showcased all aspects of the industry, from new build and supply chain to decommissioning, and allowed numerous engagement opportunities for MPs? May we have a debate on the benefits that the nuclear industry brings to England and Wales in terms of jobs, economic growth and energy security, so that Scottish Members like myself can once again expose the shameful conduct of the Scottish Government in using their planning powers to block new nuclear development in Scotland to the detriment of my constituency and Scotland?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising the work of the Nuclear Industry Association and the success of the fifth Nuclear Week in Parliament. As he knows, the Government support the nuclear industry and have committed £17 billion for an ambitious nuclear programme. It is a pity that that ambition is not shared by the SNP, which on these matters seems to care little about the jobs and greater energy security that are associated with projects like these. There will be ample opportunity, as we set out the Government’s proposals on these matters, for him to raise his concerns.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
Melvin Hall community centre has served the community of Penge for over 50 years and was home to incredible community initiatives and charities, such as the Beckenham and Penge Gateway Club, which supports adults with learning disabilities and their families. Sadly, just before Christmas, Melvin Hall closed after Conservative-run Bromley council imposed unjust and unaffordable rent hikes. Along with the fantastic Labour councillors in Penge and over a thousand people from across our community who have signed my petition, I am fighting to save Melvin Hall and keep it in community hands. Will the Leader of the House join me in calling on Tory-run Bromley council to ensure that Melvin Hall remains a community space, and thanking everyone who has supported the campaign so far?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue and for his campaign to save Melvin Hall by keeping it in community hands. Its work supporting adults with learning disabilities and their families is admirable, and I congratulate it on that. It is a good opportunity to remind the House that I often criticise the lack of support from Reform councils for local communities, but we must not forget the often dreadful records of Conservative councils. Our new community right to buy, introduced through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, will give communities stronger powers to take ownership of their vital assets, but I wish my hon. Friend and his campaigners all the very best in his campaign.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
We hear an awful lot from the Government about building sovereign digital capabilities in the UK, and this morning we heard about Britain becoming Britain’s biggest customer, yet Government procurement contracts continue to go to giant American providers—in the Ministry of Defence, in the NHS and even in the Cabinet Office. Will the Leader of the House make available Government time in the Chamber for us to debate the meaning of a sovereign AI capability? How might we change Government procurement to enable British firms to bid for these intensely important elements of Government mechanisms?
Sir Alan Campbell
I encourage the hon. Gentleman to apply for an Adjournment debate, to hear from the Minister directly. I expect he would find that the Government share his ambition for contracts and work to go to British companies. That is at the heart of our industrial strategy.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) mentioned PFI contracts earlier—a particularly pertinent subject as many of them come to an end. That is impacting a number of schools in my constituency, where work is suddenly not being done and costs are going up. One school has carried out a survey that says it will cost £3.5 million to bring the school back up to a safe standard, but it is concerned that the company that should be doing the work will declare itself bankrupt, leaving the school and the local authority with the bill. I suspect that that is not an isolated case and that Members across the House will be aware of similar issues. Can we have a debate in Government time on PFI contracts and their impact on public services?
Sir Alan Campbell
As the hon. Gentleman has just heard, that concern is shared across the House. I invite him to apply for a Westminster Hall debate or an Adjournment debate, so that he and colleagues on both sides of the House can raise those concerns.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
From the Flying Horse to the Baum, from Vicolo del Vino to the Oxford, from the Spring Inn to the Moorcock, we are really lucky in Rochdale and Littleborough to have some fantastic pubs and bars, but many of them are worried about business rates. Will the Leader of the House give me some assurance that we will urgently get a Government package of support for our pubs and the pub industry, so that we can once again start saying in Rochdale, “Up the Dale and down the ale!”?
Sir Alan Campbell
I know that my hon. Friend is a staunch supporter of local pubs in his constituency—and has a remarkable knowledge of them. As he knows, the Budget included £4.3 billion of support over three years to help pubs, but we recognise that pubs are still worried, which is why the Chancellor is actively considering a pubs support package to ensure that the right support is in place. As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), I expect that that will be announced in the coming days.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Leader of the House for all his answers. I would like to turn the House’s attention to Mexico, where there have been recent reports of persecution and intimidation of Christians. There have been some 376 incidents of assault or abduction of Christians in Mexico in the last couple of years. That is quite worrying. The reports raise concerns about the protection of freedom of religion or belief. Will he please ask the Foreign Secretary to set out what representations the Government have made to the Mexican authorities regarding those reports and what steps have been taken to support freedom of religion or belief in Mexico?
Sir Alan Campbell
Our embassy in Mexico monitors the human rights situation very closely, and we continue to engage regularly on human rights matters, including the rights of religious minorities and related issues, with the Mexican authorities. As the hon. Gentleman knows, because we have had exchanges on this matter on a number of occasions, the UK is committed to defending freedom of religion or belief for all, and I will ensure that the Foreign Secretary hears of his concern.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Earlier this week, I met colleagues and friends in our sister party in Denmark to express our solidarity with them in the difficult context they face, and to learn from some of their successful social democratic policies that we could adopt here, including on immigration and the economy. One such policy is a change to their pensions context to ensure that those who have worked in manual labour roles are able to take voluntary early retirement schemes, while others have later retirement. Will the Government consider that and other policies that have been enacted so successfully in Denmark to ensure that we are looking after working-class people in working communities such as mine?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises a very interesting issue. The Government want to ensure that people can look forward to a comfortable retirement, and there is a strong history of learning from best practice in other countries, not least on old age and employment-related pensions. The Pension Schemes Bill is progressing through the Lords, and I will raise my hon. Friend’s concerns with Ministers, because he certainly makes interesting points.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
Yesterday, MPs heard from some of the international non-governmental organisations whose Israeli registration to operate in Palestine will be terminated and which from 1 March will no longer be able to provide critical aid. In Gaza, the suffering and the killings have not stopped. In bitter winter conditions, delays are preventing critical food, medical, hygiene and shelter supplies from entering Gaza. Many still face starvation. The birth rate has dropped by over 40% in the past year, and newborns are not surviving.
While Israel prevents the work of aid organisations, the UK continues its membership of the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre, which is meant to facilitate the flow of humanitarian assistance into Gaza—part of the state of Palestine, which the UK now recognises. Can we have a debate in Government time to explore the exposure of the UK to this restriction via the CMCC and what measures the UK can take, economic and otherwise, to ensure that UK public-funded agencies can continue to deliver aid and help bring this catastrophe in the state of Palestine to an end?
Sir Alan Campbell
We desperately need to get humanitarian aid into Gaza, as my hon. Friend has said not just on this occasion but on many others. I understand his frustration, because he cares deeply about these matters. We continue to press for the crossings to be reopened and for restrictions on aid to be lifted. We are members of various bodies that can be used to influence these matters. It is much more important that we are engaged in these organisations, so that we can work through the issues and ensure that aid flows as quickly as possible and in the quantities that are required. I will ensure that the relevant Minister has heard my hon. Friend’s point and that he gets an update on not only what we are doing, but what further plans we have.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
I am grateful for what my right hon. Friend has said today in response to a number of Members regarding Capita. Many retirees have not received payments, including my constituent Mrs Costello, a former civil servant who retired in April 2025. Despite submitting all paperwork on time and receiving approval, she has yet to receive any confirmation of her lump sum or her annual pension. Will the Leader of the House make time for a statement or debate on this matter, given the unacceptable delays and uncertainty affecting Mrs Costello and many others like her?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue; he is a doughty campaigner for his constituents. As I have said, Capita has recognised the scale of the issue and is recruiting additional staff to deal with it, but I hear the frustration from Members across the House. Although we can talk about making progress, that is of little comfort to Mrs Costello and others who are still waiting. I will arrange a meeting for my hon. Friend and other Members across the House if they seek one with the relevant Cabinet Office Minister, so they can further make the case.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
Earlier this week, students in year 11 at Felixstowe school were told that they would not be able to continue their studies at the school beyond year 11 because it is not continuing with sixth-form provision. As Members can imagine, this has caused huge worry for parents and students at Felixstowe school. I have written to the Secretary of State about this matter and the worries I have about the withdrawal of sixth-form education from our town. Will the Leader of the House help to ensure that I secure the meeting quickly, as time is clearly of the essence?
Sir Alan Campbell
May I express my sympathies to concerned parents and students? From time to time, similar issues have arisen in my constituency, and I appreciate the concern and uncertainty that they create. My hon. Friend knows that this Government are committed to opportunity for all, and education, which is of vital importance, is central to that. I will ensure that she gets a meeting with a Minister, so that she can follow up on this issue as a matter of urgency.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Councillors across Scotland are preparing budgets and considering options, put forward by officers, that will mean cuts to vital public services. In Grangemouth, local residents are rightly worried about proposals to end maintenance of the beautiful Zetland Park, and for the closure of Grangemouth sports complex, which would removing swimming and leisure facilities. The proposed cuts would be awful for Grangemouth residents of all ages. Will the Leader of the House join me in praising my constituents as they stand up for our communities, and agree that the only thing that should be cut in Grangemouth is the grass at Zetland Park?
Sir Alan Campbell
I praise the efforts of local people in Grangemouth. As my hon. Friend knows, council funding in Scotland is a devolved matter, but as I have said on a number of occasions, the UK Government delivered the largest spending review settlement in the history of the Scottish Parliament, so there is nowhere for local authorities, and indeed the Scottish Government, to hide on these matters. Residents in Grangemouth should expect that record funding to deliver the services that they need and enjoy, and I wish my hon. Friend and his campaigners luck in their efforts.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
I recently visited Hawthorn Housing Co-operative in my constituency. It has been a registered social landlord since 1987, and it provides homes and services to around 364 tenant members. Given the Government’s strong support for the co-operative movement, and the work that housing co-operatives such as Hawthorn do in communities like Possil in my constituency, will the Leader of the House consider dedicating time to a debate on the importance of support for the co-operative housing sector?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for championing the work of Hawthorn Housing Co-operative. As we have said, housing is about balance, and co-operative housing undoubtedly has an important role to play in that. We are considering opportunities to establish a formal framework for co-operative housing, and we have provided £20 million in support for community-led housing. If my hon. Friend seeks further detail, he could apply for an Adjournment debate on the matter. If he does, I hope that he will be successful.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Pilgrim Hearts Trust has been lifting homeless and vulnerable people in Bracknell Forest out of poverty, and supporting them in rebuilding their lives, for 25 years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that local charities and organisations like Pilgrim Hearts must be at the heart of our plan to tackle street homelessness, and will he set out what the Government are doing to cut rough sleeping and poverty?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Charities such as the Pilgrim Hearts Trust are the golden thread that runs through our communities, and I thank Elaine and everyone at Pilgrim Hearts for their 25 years of service to the local community. Homelessness is a moral stain on our society, and this Government will not stand idly by and allow it to continue. We are investing £1 billion to give homeless people the security of a roof over their head, to get them back on track, and to end homelessness for good.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
On Monday, Ilkeston’s No.1 tourist attraction, the NatWest hole, was cruelly divided in two by a metal pole, which was installed with no explanation. The hole is a beloved part of the fabric of our town, and its defacement caused significant distress to my community. Thankfully, the pole mysteriously vanished a few hours later, but I have written to NatWest to try to understand what happened. Will the Leader of the House consider scheduling a debate on the protected status of local heritage sites and quirky landmarks, so that we can discuss whether Historic England might grant the Ilkeston hole listed status?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this interesting matter to the House. The UK is full of incredible quirky history, and I will make sure that the relevant Minister has heard his point. I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate on the issue he raises, and I hope that NatWest has also heard his remarks.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Dunfermline is both Scotland’s ancient capital and its newest city, and we are starting to plan for what Dunfermline can become and how it can truly fulfil its potential. I have launched a survey to ensure that local people have a great say in that, and can give me their ideas about what the city should be. Will the Leader of the House visit Dunfermline to see for himself how fantastic it is? Will he allow a debate in Government time on the importance of our towns and smaller cities across Scotland and the UK?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for that tempting offer; I shall see what my diary allows. I join him in recognising the importance of city high streets, which are often at the heart of our local communities. High-street regeneration is a devolved matter, but the Scottish Affairs Committee is undertaking an inquiry on the future of Scotland’s high streets, which I am sure he is watching closely. I hope that the inquiry will come up with further measures to improve high streets, not just in his constituency but across Scotland.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
I recently met volunteers from the Yorkshire Air Ambulance charity, which provides a lifesaving emergency service to 5 million people across our region. Last year, it completed an average of five missions a day, which is an outstanding achievement. Will the Leader of the House join me in commending the charity on its valiant work, and can we have a debate in Government time on how we can secure the future of such services?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the wonderful work of the Yorkshire Air Ambulance to the attention of the House. Charities and their volunteers are fundamental to communities across the country, and none more so than air ambulances. I will ensure that the relevant Minister has heard my hon. Friend’s contribution and provides him with an update on what the Government plan to do to further support such services.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
In the last 20 minutes, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council’s planning committee has approved the Cherries’ plans to enable work to expand Vitality stadium. There is an agreement that there will be staff to marshal traffic and parking, and a council working group to abate the concerns of residents, which were voiced so eloquently by Councillor Sharon Carr-Brown at the planning meeting. Will the Leader of the House welcome this good news, and will he commit the Government to continuing to support football? There is already the £551 million going into Euro 2028, which England will co-host, and the Football Governance Act 2025.
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly welcome the news that my hon. Friend has delivered about the expansion at AFC Bournemouth. He knows, as do many Members across the House, the importance of football to this country, and the importance of football clubs in our towns and cities. It is important that football gets the support that it needs, and the Government are absolutely committed to that.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
A recent proposal, now dropped, for a merger between two multi-academy trusts in my constituency, the Pennine Alliance Learning Trust and the Trinity MAC, led to me getting over 100 letters, and over 2,000 people signing a petition in just a week. What can we do to ensure that parents’ voices are at the centre of such decisions in the future?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is important that the voices of parents and those impacted are heard. It is to the credit of my hon. Friend that he is using his voice this morning to raise their concerns. When trusts explore a voluntary transfer, they are expected to engage with parents and the wider community in an open and meaningful way. I hope that the trust has heard my hon. Friend’s remarks, and if he wishes to make his case further, I will ensure that he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.
Local Government Reorganisation
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
This Government were elected on a promise to repair the broken foundations of local government. In 2024, councils were on the brink financially, while a third of the country was left paying for wasteful duplication as a result of having two tiers of councils in their area. That cannot be acceptable. Years of underfunding has led to a crisis in social care, the decline of our town centres and rubbish piling up in our streets. That visible failure contributes to a decline in trust, and it was caused by Tory austerity and 14 years of economic mismanagement.
This Government will not stand by and let that decline continue. We cannot just snap our fingers and reverse the last 14 years overnight, but we can act now to secure a better future. To get there, we have already announced fairer funding that realigns resources with need, but we also need to eliminate the financial waste of two-tier councils, so that we can plough the savings back into the frontline services that local people care about the most. Today’s announcement is part of that.
We must move at pace to remove the confusion and waste of doubled-up bureaucracy. Local residents do not know which of their two councils is responsible for which services. No one would ever design a system in which one council collects rubbish and another gets rid of it. In many parts of the country, residents’ hard-earned council tax pays for two sets of councillors, two sets of chief executives, and two sets of financial directors. That is wasting tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money.
The previous Government sat back and ignored this problem, but this Government will not. We are committed to the most ambitious local government reorganisation in a generation. My priority is cutting out this waste, so that we can invest more in the frontline services that residents care about. That means moving as quickly as possible to the new, streamlined, single-tier councils that can make that happen. I have asked councils to tell me where holding elections this year to positions that will rapidly be abolished would slow down making these vital reforms, which will benefit local people, and I have listened to what councils told me.
In December, the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness wrote to 63 councils that were due to hold elections in May 2026, asking to hear their views. I have carefully assessed more than 350 representations from those councils that have elections scheduled for May, and from others interested in the outcome. I have carefully considered arguments made about capacity, reorganisation and democracy, and I am grateful to everyone who took the time to express their views.
I can now confirm my decisions to the House. I have decided to bring forward legislation to postpone 29 elections; I have deposited a list of those in the House of Commons Library. I received one further representation this morning, which I will consider; I will then report back to the House on my decision. In all other areas, council elections will go ahead as planned; many councils offered no evidence that elections would delay reorganisation in their area. That means that of the 136 local elections across England that were scheduled for May, the vast majority will go ahead as planned.
In areas where elections are postponed, councillors will have their terms extended for a short period. Once the new unitary councils are agreed, we will hold elections to them in 2027. I have written to councils confirming these decisions, and I will shortly lay the necessary legislation before both Houses.
I am not the first Secretary of State to seek to delay elections to speed up essential reorganisation. The shadow Secretary of State suggested on Tuesday that the previous Government had not done the same thing, but he has perhaps forgotten the postponements in Weymouth and Portland in 2018; in Aylesbury, Chiltern, South Buckinghamshire and Wycombe in 2019; or in Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset in 2021.
Mr Speaker
Order. I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), but I do not expect him to walk in and start mouthing off the moment he sits down. I am sure that he would like to catch my eye, and that is not the best way to do so.
Steve Reed
Indeed. It was the right hon. Member, the self-styled new sheriff in town—now, of course, a member of Reform UK Ltd—who made many of these decisions.
To those who say we have cancelled all the elections: we have not. To those who say it is all Labour councils: it is not. I have asked, I have listened and I have acted —no messing about, no playing politics, just getting on with the job of making local government work better for local people.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
“This Government have moved seamlessly from arrogance to incompetence, and now to cowardice. Some 3.7 million people are being denied the right to vote. It was the Government who rushed through a huge programme of local government reorganisation, imposing new structures and timetables, and it is the Government who are failing to deliver them. Rather than take responsibility for their own failure, the Secretary of State has chosen to dump the consequences of their incompetence on to the laps of local councils.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 57.]
That is what I said on Monday, when I dragged the Secretary of State’s Minister—the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern)—to the Dispatch Box. I say it again today, directly to him.
In his statement, the Secretary of State plays heavily on what he claims is a wasteful system. He has said publicly that he thinks these elections are “pointless”, so it is clear what he thinks and it is clear what he wants. He wants to cancel all these elections, so why does he not simply say so? Why does he not have the courage of his own convictions? Why did he write to councils asking them to ask him to cancel the elections? Why, when they did not give him the answer that he wanted, did he write to them again asking basically the same question? Why was his Department putting pressure on councils to ask for cancellations as late as last night?
I know why. He knows why. We all know why. It is because he wants to shift the blame. He wants to say, “I didn’t make them do it.” He wants a political gotcha. He is putting councils in an impossible position, squeezing them financially, imposing the costs and disruption of large-scale reorganisation on them, making promises about structures, timescales and funding, and then reneging on those promises. Then, to add insult to injury, he is trying to dump the consequences of his arrogance and incompetence on to the laps of the local councils.
It has always been the Conservative position that these elections should go ahead. The Secretary of State tried to claim in his statement that there were precedents, as his Minister did on Monday, but the scale and scope of these cancellations is totally unprecedented. I ask him directly: what was it about the Labour party’s collapse in the opinion polls that first attracted him to the cancellation of local elections? Is he as unsurprised as I am that the vast bulk of councils asking for their elections to be scrapped are Labour-run councils?
I give the Secretary of State notice that Conservative Members will vote against these proposals. Elections are the foundation stone of democracy, and when his Department puts intolerable pressure on councils, shifting the goalposts or pulling the rug from under them—whichever metaphor one chooses to use—he should have the courage to come to this House and say that it is his decision to cancel elections, rather than passing the buck to local government leaders.
Steve Reed
I have to say that the right hon. Gentleman’s case would be much stronger and would sound less self-righteous if he had not done exactly the same thing, for exactly the same reasons, when he was in government—only, unlike him when his party was in government, I have imposed nothing. This was a locally led approach. [Interruption.] He was a member of the Cabinet, and he is trying to claim that Cabinets do not take decisions collectively. He was in the Cabinet that took these decisions and he backed them to the hilt. Now, in opposition, he believes the opposite. He seems to think he has become a Lib Dem. He is supposed to have consistency in what he believes.
This is a locally led approach. I was guided by local councils, which came to me with their views. I respectfully suggest that his argument is with those Conservative councils and leaders who have requested postponement so that they can get on and deliver a reorganisation that will benefit their residents, but which he is now trying to block for party political reasons.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House with his statement. Although he has outlined that there is a clear precedent, from 2019 and 2021, for postponing local elections, he reassured my Select Committee back in November that these elections would go ahead. Residents in those areas will be disappointed that their elections are being postponed.
I want to challenge the Secretary of State on what he has outlined and on his talk about eliminating waste. I agree that we need to respond to local leaders, especially where they have valid concerns about the process of reorganisation. We all knew that this would be a resource-intensive process, and we are aware that all our councils are dealing with many demands—adult social care, children’s social care, temporary accommodation—but our councils should not have to face choosing between frontline services and elections. Democracy is not an inefficiency that should be cut out. Every council should have the resources to run local elections. Can he assure the House that councils that have applied for their elections to go ahead will still have the resources to manage frontline services?
I also want clarity from the Secretary of State on any potential legal challenge. I understand that the court has given a date on which it will consider a legal challenge. Is there any possibility that the elections will go ahead if the Government lose? That would leave little time for councils, councillors, political parties and the Electoral Commission to go ahead. Can he outline any contingency planning that has been done, should that happen?
Steve Reed
I thank the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for her questions. I reassure her that I have imposed nothing. I took representations and listened to local councils, and today I am merely responding to the representations that I heard. Most councils will go ahead. It is the councils themselves that have reassured me that they have the resources to go ahead with elections and deliver the reorganisation that is so important to improving frontline services for local people. I am acting on the information that they have given me; I am imposing nothing. She will, I hope, appreciate that it is not appropriate or possible for me to comment on legal proceedings.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement. I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Today’s announcement raises three questions about waste, incompetence and trust in democracy.
First, on waste, councils across the country have already committed significant public money in good faith to preparing for these elections, which the Government repeatedly assured them would go ahead. Cancelling them at this late stage is not cost-free. Will the Secretary of State commit today to reimbursing councils in full for every pound spent as a result of these cancellations, or are local taxpayers now expected to pick up the bill for ministerial indecision?
Secondly, on incompetence, will the Minister—who repeatedly told hon. Members, including at the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on 11 November and during oral questions in the Chamber on 24 November, that elections scheduled for May 2026 would go ahead—explain why a U-turn happened a few weeks later, in December? What new information came to light between November and December that prompted that change of heart?
Finally, on trust in democracy, councillors in West Sussex will serve for six instead of four years. That is not the “short period” stated by the Secretary of State. In 2021, the world was a very different place. We were at the peak of the Boris bounce. The electoral map and the world have changed dramatically since then. When public trust in politicians is low, it can never be right for those who are up for re-election to decide whether they want to face their electorate. Today’s decision undermines trust in elections and in democracy. Surely the Secretary of State can see that this plays into the hands of those who want to undermine our democratic institutions.
Steve Reed
I remind the hon. Lady that these postponements, which are at the request of councils, affect only those councils that will shortly be abolished anyway. They are happening so that we can more quickly have elections to the new councils that will replace them. I respectfully suggest to her, as I did to the shadow Secretary of State, that her argument is actually with those Liberal Democrat councils and Liberal Democrat council leaders who have requested postponement so that the reorganisation can go ahead on schedule. I have imposed nothing; I am merely responding to them. I suggest that she go away and perhaps have a cup of tea with some of them, so that they can explain to her how what they have requested does not damage democracy.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
I should make it clear that local elections will be going forward in full in Milton Keynes and that I look forward to continuing to work with my brilliant, hard-working Labour councillors locally. One of the reasons for delaying the elections is the time it is taking to go through the local government reorganisation process. That affects elections, but it also affects the creation of the new combined authorities, which is happening in parallel. Given the delays, will the Department look at the fast-track programme for the combined authorities, and at whether it is worth adding areas that do not face the reorganisation challenges, such as Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes?
Steve Reed
This is the biggest reorganisation in a generation, and it is very important that it be delivered with as much speed as we can muster, because of the benefits to local residents, who will see more money available to spend on things like fixing potholes and caring for older people—rather than paying for two sets of councillors, two sets of chief execs and two sets of finance directors, which the Conservative party was happy to see continue for all the 14 years it was in power. Of course, I will listen to my hon. Friend and others if they have suggestions about how we can further speed up the process and renew local democracy across the country.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s confirmation that elections in Essex are going ahead; indeed, they should have taken place a year ago. However, he will be aware that elections have also been proposed for new unitary authorities next year, although we in Essex do not even know what the unitary authorities will be. Will he say whether it is still his intention that we should have elections for the new authorities next year?
Steve Reed
As I said in my statement, it is my intention that the elections to the new unitaries will go ahead next year.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I have to say that I find the bleating from the Conservative party—which delayed elections in Northamptonshire, Buckinghamshire and Somerset, as well as in several other areas named by the Secretary of State—pretty astounding. As welcome as the reforms are, they are taking up considerable time and capacity for local authorities, including Oxfordshire county council. The council is prioritising, among other things, economic growth, which this Government have said is their No. 1 mission. I urge the Secretary of State and his team to look at picking up the pace of these reforms, as welcome as they are, so that local areas and the councils that emerge from them can get on with delivering for their local residents.
Steve Reed
I completely agree with the thrust of what my hon. Friend says. We want to go ahead with this reorganisation precisely so that we can improve public services and let councils get on with what they should be doing. Growing local economies and putting more money in the pockets of local people, including his constituents, is our priority.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
I was very interested to hear what the Secretary of State said. I represent a two-tier local authority area, and I live in a two-tier local authority area, yet I seem to pay considerably less council tax than people living in neighbouring local authority areas that are Labour-controlled and single-tier. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how?
Steve Reed
As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, his party fiddled funding to councils so that areas voting Labour were less likely to get funded. He does not have to take my word for it: the former Prime Minister was captured on video standing in a garden in Tunbridge Wells and boasting about how he was ripping money away from poorer communities to give it to wealthier communities. Perhaps it has something to do with that.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State knows, I am a very strong supporter of local government reform, especially for cities such as Exeter. It is not just about waste; it is about being held back within a two-tier system. It is also worth pointing out that all parties represented on Exeter city council are in favour of unitary status for Exeter. Can the Secretary of State confirm that we are moving full speed ahead with local government reform and that unitary status for places like Exeter will improve services, reduce waste and deliver the sustainable jobs and growth in living standards that we desperately want in our city?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are proceeding with this reorganisation in order to eliminate duplication and the cost of that waste, so that the money can be spent on frontline services instead. I have asked councils for their views on whether postponement would speed up their ability to carry out the reorganisation and get the new, streamlined councils off the ground, and I have responded to their representations.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Somerset underwent local government reorganisation during the last Parliament, with an independent report citing that the Conservative administration’s business case was marked by poor decision making, while its reckless decision to freeze council tax for six years has seen over £330 million in lost revenue. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that new unitary councils, such as Somerset, are put on a fair financial footing? Will he reconsider the decision to remove the remoteness uplift, which will force councils to consider cuts to vital services?
Steve Reed
The fair funding review that we have announced is intended to ensure that, unlike under the previous Government, funding follows need. We took on board the new indicators on deprivation, and funding is now much more closely aligned with them. That is as it should be, because those are the areas that need extra funding. The hon. Lady will find that rurality is still taken into account in funding for social care, and given the distance that people may need to travel, it is important that such services remain available to them.
Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)
The Secretary of State’s Department issued very clear guidance on 6 February last year, which said that
“we expect local leaders to engage their Members of Parliament, and to ensure there is wide engagement with local partners and stakeholders, residents, workforce and their representatives, and businesses on a proposal.”
My constituents are concerned that the proposal by Nottingham city council for reorganisation in Nottinghamshire fails to meet that test. Can the Secretary of State give me and my constituents in Gedling an assurance that his Department will firmly apply the guidance that he set on 6 February 2025?
Steve Reed
Yes, we will apply that guidance. Of course, we will listen to all representations about proposals for reorganisation, including my hon. Friend’s proposals for Nottinghamshire.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
A year ago, the then Deputy Prime Minister assured us and promised us that none of the delays would be for more than a year, yet five of the current 29 that are going to be delayed are from last year, and 21 of the 29 are Labour-controlled councils. The Secretary of State is aware that we have a judicial review that is due to be heard in February. I obviously do not want him to comment on the case, but can he confirm that, as this Government believe in the rules-based order, they will adhere to and comply with the rulings of the judge?
Steve Reed
The hon. Gentleman knows full well that I cannot comment on legal proceedings—it would be entirely inappropriate. I think the best response to his question is to quote the “new sheriff in town”, the right hon. Member for Newark, who is sitting directly in front of him and who took exactly the same decision in exactly the same circumstances. This is a direct quote from him:
“Elections in such circumstances risk confusing voters, and would be hard to justify when members could be elected to serve shortened terms.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 23WS-24WS.]
For once, he got it absolutely right.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I take issue with the absolute brass neck of the shadow Secretary of State, who talked about the Government putting pressure on local government finances and then devolving the blame. Nothing could better describe the destructive austerity policies of the last Government, who devastated local councils across the country.
On the matter in hand, I welcome the decision to go ahead with elections in Hampshire and Basingstoke. That was the will of local councillors, though I accept that different areas have different circumstances. Are we still on track for the local government reorganisation process in Hampshire and Basingstoke? Can I impress upon the Secretary of State the importance of reaching a decision that endorses the proposal from Basingstoke, Hart and Rushmoor councils for a north Hampshire authority?
Steve Reed
I am seeking to ensure that we remain on track by responding to the comments I have had from councils, and ensuring they have the resources so that the process goes ahead as everyone intends it to.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I support unitarisation and the efficiency savings it brings, but may I caution the Secretary of State a little on his language? A lot of the waste he is talking about is people’s jobs. Many hard-working council workers, who have huge uncertainty about what will happen to them over the next couple of years, will be concerned to hear that sort of language used as we discuss this in the Chamber. What support is he giving local authorities to help those council workers find new jobs once the LGR process is complete?
Steve Reed
The hon. Member makes a very important point, and he is right to be concerned about people working for councils. Of course, the overall increase in funding for local authorities means they have more resources to support their staff members, who may be concerned about their jobs in these circumstances, and I urge affected councils to focus on precisely the issues to which he has brought to our attention.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. As a former leader of Worthing borough council, I pay tribute to my councillor colleagues, who did not come to the decision they have made lightly. They were informed by the officers, and they have had 15 years of underfunding on the south coast. Pockets of deprivation in coastal towns have long been ignored, and I very much welcome the fairer funding formula, which now recognises that. As we are on the fast track in Sussex, could the Secretary of State please reassure us that unitary authority decisions will be announced as soon as possible, and that the boundary commission will make sure we have the right sized wards for our new unitary authorities at the earliest possible opportunity?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend is of course a very pugnacious champion for her constituents and her constituency. She has had conversations with me about this very issue, and made her point very clear. We intend to make those announcements as soon as we can so that there is certainty, and we can move ahead to the new structures.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Having served as both a district and a unitary councillor, I actually support the Government’s move towards unitary authorities. My Brigg and Immingham constituency is served by two unitary authorities—North Lincolnshire council and North East Lincolnshire council—both of which want to continue as they are, and that position is supported by the hon. Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin). When the Secretary of State reviews the two-tier Lincolnshire county council area, can he give an assurance that he will leave the two existing unitaries exactly as they are?
Steve Reed
Unfortunately, I cannot prejudge the outcome of a consultation process, but I can perhaps say that I have been very impressed by the work done by North East Lincolnshire council, with no prejudice to the decision that will follow.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
First, would the Secretary of State stop saying this is a locally led process. The power rests solely with him, and each of these delays is his decision and his decision alone.
Secondly, the real question here is: why are elections to be delayed for a second year? When I was the Secretary of State, the legal advice I received—including from Sir James Eadie, the Government’s chief legal adviser —was that it was not legally sustainable to delay for a second year, hence we did not. Even during covid, we kept the elections going and did not delay for two years. What the Secretary of State is doing is almost certainly illegal. If he is so confident of his position, will he publish his legal advice and publish the legal advice that I and the then Prime Minister received when we decided not to delay for a second year? Then we might be able to have faith in what he is saying.
Steve Reed
As I say, the right hon. Member was of course the Secretary of State who failed to act on eliminating the waste that came from duplication and allowed this two-tier system to continue, with millions and millions of pounds of council tax payers’ money wasted on duplicate councillors, duplicate chief executives and duplicate finance directors, instead of ploughing that money into frontline services. On those few occasions when he was brave enough to take a decision, he imposed; by contrast, I have asked and I have responded. However, the reasons he gave were the right ones. In his words:
“Elections in such circumstances risk confusing voters and would be hard to justify where members could be elected to serve shortened terms.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 23-24WS.]
He got it right for once. He should be proud of himself.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I do have concerns about the undermining of democracy, not least in that some Members of the House who have always insisted on by-elections after defections now appear to be running away from the electorate. Will the Secretary of State absolutely dissociate himself from the comments made by a Member of the governing party who could not confirm, when asked three times, that the general election would never be delayed?
Steve Reed
There is no question in ordinary circumstances of a general election being delayed. That has only ever happened in cases of national emergency, and that remains the case.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
I agree with the right hon. Member for Chorley (Sir Lindsay Hoyle), who has said that these elections should go ahead. Indeed, democracy delayed is democracy denied. In the past, when there has been a delay to local elections, I cannot remember it ever being for longer than one year. When Margaret Thatcher rightly abolished the Greater London Council, the term of the GLC was extended by one year only. Any delay has never been longer than one year, and one of two or three years is a complete denial of democracy. It is quite clearly a way of Labour avoiding humiliating defeats on 7 May. As they are going to be delayed, would the Secretary State please consider allowing the people of Havering to have a choice about our becoming part of Greater Essex instead of Greater London?
Steve Reed
I remind the hon. Member that his party did the same thing in the same circumstances—I should say his “former party”, because he walked out on it last week. Proposals about what happens in Essex are currently subject to consultation, and he is more than entitled to make his views known.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. He has outlined that the purpose is to save moneys, cut down on waste and improve efficiency. In Northern Ireland, we undertook the reorganisation of councils, reducing their number from 26 down to 11. Councils need only one chief executive, one head of each department and one council headquarters. Two or three councils together have greater buying power than one, so ultimately there are greater savings. However, seven years later, local people still feel disenfranchised from their local council. I am trying to be helpful in asking this question, but can he look at the Northern Ireland experience, and does he acknowledge that restructuring is a very delicate balance and must have public buy-in?
Steve Reed
I do agree with the hon. Member. I think it is very important that we get this right, which is why I was careful to listen to representations from councils due to undergo reorganisation to ensure that we do get it right. I want to see those savings made and to see council tax payers’ hard-earned money spent on frontline services, not wasteful duplication.
Energy Costs
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. Bill Esterson will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Chair of the Select Committee, not the relevant Minister. Front Benchers may take part in the questioning.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
With permission, I will make a statement on the Government response, which was published yesterday, to the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee report, “Tackling the energy cost crisis”, which we published in October.
This issue is very much at the heart of what families up and down the country are dealing with. I stood in the last election on a commitment to bring down energy bills, and I welcome the Government’s decision to reduce them by £150 from April. That £150 is a start on the road to the cut of £300 that was mentioned before the election in July 2024. We should be honest, however, because the solutions to high energy costs are often presented as easy—they are not—although the underlying truth is very simple indeed: bills are too high, which is in large part the legacy of years of under-investment in infrastructure and the lack of long-term planning.
The warm homes plan, which was also published yesterday and which the Government refer to in their response to the Select Committee report, gives encouragement that many people will see their bills fall through the adoption of clean technologies. Insulating homes delivers warmth and health co-benefits in addressing cold, damp and mould, offers security and is an effective way to lower bills. Perhaps the success of the gas safe model over many years provides an idea of how to ensure confidence in the insulation of homes, following the well-documented failures of the energy company obligation scheme. In the Government’s response to our report on retrofitting last year, they promised to update us once the warm homes plan was published. Hopefully, the Minister is preparing—or, probably more accurately, his colleagues are preparing—to do just that.
Our report, published yesterday, offered the Government recommendations on how energy costs for consumers and businesses might be reduced in the immediate term. The inquiry into the cost of energy continues, pressing for answers on why electricity prices in the UK remain stubbornly higher than in countries such as Germany and France, and what energy reforms are needed to help with industrial competitiveness. In our report, we made a number of recommendations about supporting those facing fuel poverty. We recommended that the warm home discount be targeted using a tiered approach, so that funding is allocated based on household need and energy usage, and that value of the rebate be linked to wholesale prices. We recommended that the cold weather payment be reformed so that the £10 payment is made to eligible households every day that the Met Office forecasts that the average temperature will be 0° or below the following day.
The key to helping those in real need is enabling energy companies to identify properly those customers who need support and relief. We called on the Government to work out how data might be used to target support to those who need it. The Government agreed with us on the importance of data sharing, but believed that their taskforce was already making progress in this area. Sadly, the Government rejected our call for better targeting of the warm home discount and for a social tariff, claiming that the warm home discount was already a social tariff—which is not the evidence that we heard. They also rejected our calls for a fairer approach to cold weather payments.
The level of consumer debt is alarmingly high and growing. We noted that the network companies have recently benefited from flaws in the price control system that overestimated the impact of inflation on their borrowing costs. We recommended that the Government recover the excess profits made and use it to clear much of the debt. We regret that the Government rejected our recommendation, not least as by doing so, they admit that consumer debt will continue to be added to everyone’s bills. According to one retailer we took evidence from, that figure is £160 a year. We called for Ofgem to limit the back billing period for customers with a smart meter to six months. The Government referred us to Ofgem and indicated some broad support. We heard that bills fall 3% when households have a smart meter that works, even before trying to maximise the benefits. I am pleased to say that we had agreement from the Government about the importance of a better, more ambitious smart meter roll-out.
We recommended that the ombudsman’s job would be more effective if it was placed on a statutory footing and better enabled to enforce its decisions. The Government agreed with us. We also recommended that the ombudsman should cover small and micro-sized businesses, with the ability to make awards up to £50,000. We thought that energy companies should not be able to pursue customer debts that were currently being considered by the ombudsman. The Government told us that they were content to rely on Ofgem rules that companies should only pursue debt in a proportionate manner. It was clear to us, from the evidence we heard, that a complaint before the ombudsman is sufficient to suggest that the retailer is not currently being proportionate in its actions.
Our main recommendation for businesses and industry follows a suggestion from Make UK to provide an opt-in scheme that would provide businesses with certainty about costs, as uncertainty is almost as damaging as the high prices themselves. I hope that the Government will act on these recommendations, which they say that they will keep under consideration. We also heard about businesses being put on to contracts where the costs might not be as transparent as they should be. We also think that businesses should be allowed to exit energy contracts up to 14 days after their first bill.
My Committee colleagues are under no illusions about the scale of the challenge that we face with energy bills. The Secretary of State spoke yesterday about the potential to use tariffs to cut bills. We identified other opportunities to cut bills. Over time, we will recommend more. I would just make a plea: that the Government take a look at the evidence behind the recommendations in our report and consider whether they might want to adopt more of what we suggested. It would not be the first time that a Government had rejected Select Committee recommendations only to adopt them quietly later.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
In their response to the report, the Government said that in the clean flexibility road map, they have committed
“to develop measures focussed on barriers to the participation of low-income and vulnerable consumers in using energy flexibly.”
Given what we heard yesterday about the importance of heat pumps and heat storage in participating in flexibility, does the Chair of the Select Committee agree that one important measure could be to make heat pumps and heat storage more affordable?
Bill Esterson
The hon. Lady is on to what we will report on in the second half of our inquiry; we took evidence along those lines in yesterday’s session. The House also heard yesterday from the Secretary of State, with the announcement of the warm homes plan, about the support that will be available for the technologies that the hon. Lady mentioned, so I hope that her question has been heard by those on the Treasury Bench.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
It is welcome that the Government agreed with the Select Committee that we should be more ambitious about smart meter roll-out, so that household customers can get the best tariffs for them. We also heard evidence that there was a lack of consumer confidence in smart meters. Does the Chair of the Select Committee think that there is more that the Government could do to rekindle that confidence for the benefit of consumers?
Bill Esterson
The low take-up of smart meters is one of the big challenges that faces the energy market. It is very much linked to some of the problems that customers have around the country. I mentioned in my statement that just having a smart meter cuts bills by 3%, before even investigating the access it gives to a range of tariffs. Anything that can be done to improve the roll-out must make a difference. We also heard evidence from Martin Lewis about the importance of this matter. Giving people more access to tariffs is part of what the Government want to do, and it is consistent with the evidence that we heard. How we increase the smart meter roll-out will be key; clearly, it has not gone well so far.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
At the time of the election, the Government promised that the rush to renewable energy would bring bills down by £300. They are now currently almost £200—some 12%—higher than back then. Now the Government are resorting to dipping into general taxation to try to con the British people by reducing bills by some £150; they will still be much higher than the Government’s promise. Could the Chair of the Committee confirm—perhaps the Committee has a view, perhaps it does not—when the renewable energy rush is going to bring the bills down as promised, or will the Government have to admit that they misled the British people?
Bill Esterson
That is really looking to the second part of our inquiry, but we have heard evidence on this already. The price cap at the start of 2024 was £1,928. It is now £1,758 and, according to the retailers, is due to come down further over the next few months. It is also important to compare like with like. We have to increase the capacity of generation in this country; comparing gas-fired power stations to renewables, renewables are 40% cheaper on a like-for-like comparison for new generation. Just in the last few days, we saw that Reform’s favourite leader, Putin, intervened again and we had an immediate spike in gas prices, so the evidence is very strong that the Government are on the right track. We have the immediate fall in the price cap—the figures I read out—and we have the Government agenda. The Committee will be looking, in the second part of its inquiry, at much of the detail and making further recommendations on how to cut bills in the short term.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
There are two particularly important conclusions in the Select Committee’s inquiry: first, that reducing energy costs for everyone should be the top priority; and secondly, that there is no shortage of money in the wider energy system. Does the Chair of the Select Committee agree with me that GB Energy is an important part of the answer? We need publicly owned generation that is about not producing electricity for maximum profit but producing electricity that can be sold at lower prices and drive down costs across the market.
Bill Esterson
As I said in my statement, the years and years of under-investment—the complete opposite of what was promised when the energy system was privatised in 1989—have led us to this place. That has been a very large contributor to the challenge with energy bills that we face now. The Committee heard evidence from E3G that as much as £500 in profit is made in the private sector from an average household bill. When we recommended that the debt be written off by using the excess profits made by the network companies, we were told that that would cause a chilling effect on future investment. Of course, that problem would not exist if we had not gone down the privatisation route in the way that we have. My hon. Friend makes a good point, but we are where we are, and we are going to have to find answers to the question of how we bring down bills further, in addition to the measures already taken by the Government.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Chair and the Select Committee for considering this massive issue. Around 40,000 older people in Northern Ireland—that is over 10% of older people there—live in poverty. Energy is perhaps one of their biggest outlays and it is critical. Did the Committee consider what can be done to protect our elderly against the worst energy crises, which really can be life or death?
Bill Esterson
That is a very important question. It was an important part of what we looked at in the first half of the inquiry. Our recommendations on the cold weather payments are relevant to what the hon. Gentleman asks, as are our recommendations on debt for those very many people who, because of the energy crisis, now face debt. We also made recommendations on the warm home discount, including extending it to all on benefits. The Government chose to stay with the current system, but these were very much recommendations that we supported for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman outlined. As I said when finishing my statement, I hope the Government will return some of the recommendations that they have so far not accepted.
Fishing Industry
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for the fishing industry.
I place on record my appreciation of the Backbench Business Committee for making time available for this debate and for bringing it back to its rightful place here in the main Chamber of the House.
The Prime Minister and his colleagues often tell us, rightly, that food security is national security. The focus of our discussions about food security is often what we farm on land, but we should never lose sight of the fact that we are an island nation and we are surrounded by seas which, if managed properly, can provide us with a source of good quality protein that can be harvested in a carbon-efficient way.
The people who work in our fishing industries often do so in difficult and dangerous circumstances. Still too many of them lose their lives in pursuit of our food and we should record our appreciation for what they do to keep us fed. I say “fishing industries” for a reason. Too often, we talk about fishing as if it were a single homogeneous industry, when the truth is very different. Even in my constituency, the issues facing inshore crab boats are very different from those facing the larger white- fish boats, which are in turn different from the issues facing the pelagic boats. Layer on top of that the interests of aquaculture, and we begin to get a sense of the complexity of seafood harvesting and production.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
As many Members may know, warmer sea temperatures brought unexpected numbers of octopus to the waters around South Devon last year, and my crab and lobster fishermen have seen their catch decimated. They have lost up to 80%, hauling empty pots for weeks on end. That means fleet members are now cancelling maintenance work and having to lay off crew. Our fishing communities desperately need support, whether to enable them to stay in the industry or to help them decommission and leave. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that support is desperately needed from the Government?
Mr Carmichael
It is critically important. I heard that for myself from my hon. Friend’s constituents when I visited Brixham not once but twice in the run-up to Christmas. It remains to be seen whether the invasion of octopus will be permanent because of changing water temperature, or whether it is just another of those blips that I think last happened in the 1950s. Whatever the truth of the matter, something has to be done for the industry that is there at the moment when the truth is finally established.
We speak about aquaculture as being all about finfish, but in my constituency and elsewhere the role of shellfish aquaculture is enormously important and deserves more attention, especially as we anticipate the conclusion of a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the European Union.
Fishing is still a predominantly community-based and family-run industry. It may not shift the dial massively in terms of UK-wide GDP, but in those areas where it matters it is nearly always essential. In Shetland, caught and farmed fish account for approximately one third of our local economic product. We have benefited over the years from the presence of oil and gas, and now from a growing visitor economy, but they do not define our community in the way that fishing does. I labour that point because it matters. People would be forgiven for thinking that this is an industry determined to plunder the seas and extract every last living organism from it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Fishing is predominantly a family business, and the people working in it want to hand on their business to the next generation. They have more of an interest in ensuring that there is a business to be handed on.
Fishing is an area of Government policy where good co-operation between our Governments makes a difference. That is what the industry needs and expects of us. Sadly, it does not always get it. The recent controversy around the fishing and coastal growth fund illustrates how it is fishers who lose out when that goes wrong. Let us remember that the roots of that fund lie in the decision of the Prime Minister to sign up for a 12-year extension of the catastrophically bad deal that Boris Johnson got us in the trade and co-operation agreement in 2020. Given that the EU was looking only for a five-year extension, it is quite an achievement to have managed to negotiate it up to 12 years. Let us also not forget that the loss of fishing effort traded away by the Prime Minister is worth about £6 billion over the 12-year period at today’s prices. If we were able to get half or even a quarter of that, the fund would never have been necessary.
To my mind, it makes perfect sense for the fund to be administered on a UK-wide basis, as was the case with the previous fund delivered by the last Government. That would, in fact, have been an opportunity for Scotland’s two Governments to work together collaboratively on the delivery, and might have been more reflective of the fact that Scotland’s fleet accounts for more than 60% of the UK fishing effort.
Instead, the Government in Whitehall acquiesced to demands from the SNP Government in Edinburgh to devolve the administration. With devolution, there inevitably followed the application of the Barnett formula, and, as a result, we receive only 8.3% of the fund. Madam Deputy Speaker, I could weep. On one of the rare occasions when they do manage to agree on something, they still manage to do it in a way that works to the detriment of the fishermen in my constituency.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a matter of considerable regret that the Scottish Government asked for the fishing and coastal growth fund to be devolved without first agreeing the mechanism outside the Barnett formula that would reflect the fact that Scotland has a larger share of the fishing industry?
Mr Carmichael
That would have been perfect sense. It was certainly also regrettable that it was said that the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation had asked for this, when they obviously had not. A good, mature working relationship between the two Governments is required, and unfortunately we are just not there at the moment. That may change after May—who knows?
The irony of the fuss created by SNP Ministers about the allocation of the fishing and coastal growth fund was not lost on fishermen in Shetland. As The Shetland Times pointed out, Shetland received only 5% of the Scottish Government’s marine fund, despite the fact that we account for 20% of Scotland’s fishing product. We were assured by local SNP politicians that this was entirely different, as their scheme was “merit based”, which presumably means that we got our quota share only because we were not good enough to get the rest.
The relationship between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations is one thing; more important still is the relationship between all Governments and the industry as a whole. When any Government think they know better than the industry, we know that bad outcomes are just around the corner. Never has that been seen more clearly than when the SNP in Edinburgh, along with their coalition partners the Greens, sought to close down vast areas of fishing grounds by designating them as highly protected marine areas, which was stopped only by the most colossal campaign by industry and community organisations around the coast. It should never have been so difficult to make our own Government back down on measures that were so obviously an existential threat to coastal and island communities.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
My colleague is making some very good points about where Governments are misjudging these matters. Charter fishermen in Torbay are extremely worried that the three-bag limit on pollack could devastate their industry. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government need to monitor this extremely closely to see whether it does have this massive impact on the industry?
Mr Carmichael
My hon. Friend makes a relevant point, which goes to the heart of how decisions are made. It is critical that Government are able to take on the infinite nuance and complexity in fisheries management, and that is done by being in the ports and on the quayside, talking to fishermen, processors, auction houses, transporters and all the rest of it.
The signs remain, however, that the same attitude persists in the Scottish Government. Members will have heard me speak before about the difficult situation facing our pelagic fleet as a result of the quota cuts, which are yet to be finalised, from the year-end negotiations. These cuts will put our pelagic fleet under serious pressure. At times like this, it is more important than ever that boats are able to land fish where they will get the best possible price, so the increase in the requirement for pelagic boats to land in Scotland limits unnecessarily their scope to maximise their restricted opportunities. Again, it has not gone unnoticed that nationalist voices in The Shetland Times condemn the change, while in the pages of Fishing News, Gillian Martin MSP stridently supports her ministerial colleagues.
It does not have to be like this. Our fishing fleets around the coast and in our island communities ask only to be listened to and heard by Government. They do a difficult and often dangerous job, and they should not have to contend with it being made even more difficult —and yes, occasionally more dangerous—by the people we elect to serve here and in other UK legislatures.
Torcuil Crichton
The right hon. Gentleman speaks about the fishing industry being heard. I hear reports of the SNP saying that Shetland would be listened to if it had a seat at the SNP table. I have a message for Shetland: we in the Western Isles have an SNP MSP, and we have not been listened to for 18 years.
Mr Carmichael
I am sure that message that will indeed be heard with some interest in the Northern Isles. We island communities need to learn from the experience of each other.
There are lessons to be learned from the management of fisheries in different parts of the country. Before Christmas, I visited Brixham with the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee as part of our ongoing inquiry into fishing and the marine environment, and much of what I heard there was similar to what I hear back in Shetland. In fact, speaking to fishermen around the country, the same issue rears its head time and again: spatial squeeze. The salami slicing of access to traditional fishing grounds as a result of other marine and maritime activities now poses a clear and present danger to the viability of our fishing industries as a whole.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the obstructive nature of some authorities. Does he share my concern about some of the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities? The Eastern IFCA, for instance, has caused grave concern to my fishing constituents in Boston, who are furious about the increasing interference and regulations. It is almost as though they want to stop the whole fishing industry as opposed to enhancing it.
Mr Carmichael
I do not know the specifics around the Eastern IFCA, but if the hon. Gentleman writes to me about it, I will see if I can help him out in any way, shape or form. It comes back to my earlier point: authorities have to listen to and be informed by the fishing industry, whatever their locus. By the same token, the fishing industry has to accept that it is not always going to get everything it wants either.
On spatial squeeze, no single demand is unreasonable: the development of offshore renewable energy, aquaculture, marine protected areas, the laying of cables and pipelines, the use of the sea for leisure and doubtless other purposes —the list goes on. At every turn of the wheel, it is fishing effort that is reduced to accommodate something else. The root cause of the problem is that no one holds the ring to look at the whole picture of how our seas are being used. The policy of compensatory MPAs for damage caused to the seas by development done elsewhere feels particularly unjust and illogical.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Does my co-chair on the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries not think that the marine spatial prioritisation programme, which was introduced last summer, will do exactly the job he is hoping to see delivered?
Mr Carmichael
Well, I hope it will. It remains to be seen. As the hon. Lady knows from working with me as co-chair of the APPG on fisheries, along with our independent co-chair the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), to come up with a fisheries strategy for the whole country—it is that lack of strategy that needs to be addressed—the Government have a bit of a backlog on strategies, and the one she mentions has not even joined the queue yet. That is why we are doing this job: I think any initiative without a strategy is always going to struggle. I thank the hon. Lady for allowing me to junk a couple of pages of my speech there.
The House should be in no doubt that if the spatial squeeze on our fishing industry is allowed to continue, we shall soon risk losing its critical mass as a productive industry—that is true in all four parts of the United Kingdom. Once that critical mass is lost, we may never recover it. For the families and communities affected, that would be catastrophic. Fishing families are hard-working and economically productive people. Take away their ability to earn a living at sea, and they will not just sit idle; they will doubtless move with heavy hearts to do something else, somewhere else. That will forever change the nature and character of our coastal and island communities, and not in a good way. I hope that the Government will hear the warning and act before it is too late.
Finally, I wish to raise a concern that is very specific to my constituency: Norwegian access to our local waters. There are, as I speak, big, powerful vessels appearing around Shetland that were not there in the past. We often speak about the North sea fishing area, but in reality, so much of the international fishing effort has become concentrated around Shetland. Shetland fishermen have called on the UK Government to reduce the reciprocal catch limits in the UK-Norway annual bilateral fisheries agreement, but that appeal has not been heard. This is effectively the one major fishing effort in our waters over which we can still have some annual control.
The official preliminary figures show that the Norwegians caught over 22,000 tonnes of demersal fish in UK waters, while the UK caught just short of 9,500 tonnes in Norwegian waters. That is not a fair or balanced deal. We have long held the view that Norwegian access is a good thing for the Shetland fleet, not because there are many Shetland vessels going into Norwegian waters, but because several larger Scottish vessels go, which takes them and their catches away from our waters. That illustrates well the subtleties and complexity of managing effort in shared waters.
A degree of Norwegian access is welcome, but the current agreement and catch limits clearly favour Norwegians at the cost of our fleet. The stats show that Norwegians’ saithe catches in UK waters doubled from 8,000 tonnes to 16,000 tonnes between 2024 and 2025. Saithe, let us not forget, is one of the stocks under pressure. Things are tough enough without a doubling of Norwegian effort on a key stock that is concentrated mainly around Shetland. By contrast, the highest UK demersal catch in Norwegian waters this year has been about 4,000 tonnes of haddock. That is a bit of a disparity, so can I can ask the Minister to give urgent attention to the lowering of the reciprocal cap from 30,000 tonnes a year to 20,000 tonnes a year?
There is a commitment in the agreement to reviewing the cap throughout the year. That is something that fishing industry representatives in Shetland have called for, but now it needs to be tackled as a matter of urgency. In this, I am merely the interlocutor. If the Minister wishes to discuss this with the real experts, she will find them in Shetland. I hope that once the days lengthen a little bit, we may see her there.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing the debate.
I start by thanking all those who support our fleets when things go wrong. Having previously worked for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, I have seen how devoted and brave its volunteers are. Many of them are fishermen themselves, and would rush to help others. I pay particular tribute to the men and women of the Looe station, whom I had the pleasure of visiting recently. They really are the best of us. I also pay tribute to the coastguard stations and search and rescue crews.
I thank the many charities who do so much to support our communities and fishing families, including Seafarers UK, Fishermen’s Mission and Fishmongers Hall, to name just a few. I also thank Seafood Cornwall Training, which does so much to help new entrants across our region—something I am very passionate about—and runs safety courses for our fishermen. We cannot overstate how important that work is, and how vital continued Government support is if we are to prevent money from being a barrier to safety.
We are very lucky to have Clive Palfrey in our patch—a born-and-raised Looe lad, former fisherman, lifeboat launch manager and senior coxswain. He has dedicated his life to fishermen’s safety, and has led many initiatives, including the first roll-out of life jackets with personal locator beacons. Can I ask the Minister to meet Clive and others, so that there is a better understanding that we still face so many tragic losses in this industry—it is the most dangerous peacetime occupation—and to discuss what can be done to prevent further deaths?
The fishing communities of Looe and Polperro are iconic. They are woven into the fabric of the town’s heritage and history, but Members should be under no illusion about how diminished they are from their former glory. That is not just because of the greatly reduced number of vessels, but because of how hard it is for them to make a living, and to support their families and communities like mine. Last year’s Great British inshore fishing survey made for grim reading.
If we are serious about the future of fishing, we must make it accessible to the next generation. Young people cannot step aboard a fishing vessel until the age of 16, even though that is the prime age for learning practical skills. We also lack structured support and mentoring, which allows traditional knowledge, safety guidelines and best practice to pass between generations. A properly funded mentoring and training pathway, alongside help-to-buy schemes for boats, licences and quota, would make fishing a realistic career again, rather than a closed shop.
As bass stocks rebuild, 2026 fishing opportunities are limited to those already permitted to catch bass, which closes the door to new entrants developing skills and landing bass lawfully. This risks locking the next generation out of the industry at the very moment that recovery should be creating new opportunity.
Cornwall’s fishing industries and communities have a long and proven history of managing a successful industry, and that record should be recognised. I support the call from the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation for a ring-fenced allocation from the fishing and coastal growth fund to deliver a Cornish pilot fishing strategy. We could then take our fishing and seafood sector forward in a stable, confident way as we reset our relationship with the EU. Can the Minister set out when applications to that fishing and coastal communities growth fund will open, the timeline for it, and how funding priorities will be structured—for example, whether allocations will be categorised by science, management, skills or fleet support —so that coastal communities like mine can prepare credible and well-targeted bids?
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is speaking with real expertise and personal experience. As the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee mentioned, we had the chance to visit Brixham, where we heard at first hand that Government funding for fleets has often been focused on keeping old vessels in service, some of which are 60 years old. They may have upgraded equipment that can boost catch values, but then the crew are stuck with outdated and substandard living quarters. Those we met are calling for the growth fund to pay towards new vessels that could massively improve both profitability and quality of life for crews. Cannock Chase is about as far from the sea as a constituency can be, but even I can see the logic of that. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be far more efficient and impactful for us to use the funding in that way?
Anna Gelderd
My hon. Friend raises a really important point, and I am grateful to him for referencing my part of the world.
Dr Simon Thomas and Dr Bryce Stewart are doing brilliant work locally with fishermen. Their latest report was published just this morning. I will happily share it with Members here, and with the Minister, and I can support a meeting with them, at which Members can learn more about this work and the leading research coming out of south-east Cornwall and the south-west, particularly on pollack fishing.
One challenge that our most sustainable fishermen face is the allocation of pollack quota. Rod-and-line fishermen, many of them in boats that are under 10 metres, use one of the most selective and low-impact methods available, yet they are restricted to around 200 kilos a month. That does not even cover genuine bycatch once the bass season opens. Without access to an additional pollock quota, these fishermen are left with no viable options unless they are fortunate enough to secure a tuna licence. A fair rebalancing of pollack quota towards this fleet would support sustainability, reduce waste and keep our small boats working—something that the Minister is particularly passionate about.
The last Labour Government left the previous Conservative Government with the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and a clear map for developing the healthy seas and sustainable stocks that we need. The fisheries Minister, hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), has inherited 14 years of poorly managed stocks, which have led to closures; reduced fishing of key species, such as pollack and bass; and an industry that has been restricted by home-grown red tape. That has left our inshore fleet more burdened, less viable, and in a more vulnerable state than ever before. I welcome the work being done to negotiate a new bespoke sanitary and phytosanitary deal that will remove mountains of that red tape, and allow our seafood industry to grow as trading becomes easier.
Fishermen in the south-west are also dealing with the unprecedented octopus bloom, which has had a devastating impact locally on crab, lobster and scallop fisheries. For many boats, this has translated into lost income, financial strain, and real concern for their wellbeing. Even if the bloom subsides, there is a serious risk that shellfish stocks will not recover quickly enough to support the potting fleet for many years. I welcome the work that local scientists and fishermen are doing together on this, including the report I mentioned. This is exactly why investment in industry-led science matters; it reflects real conditions on the water, and gives us advice grounded in lived experience.
As an independent coastal state, the UK has both the opportunity and responsibility to manage our own waters sustainably. Stronger protection of inshore grounds, including an engine power limit of 221 kW in the 6 to 12-mile zone, applied equally to UK and EU vessels, would safeguard smaller boats and reduce conflict. A clear limit on vessel size inside the 12-mile zone would reflect a well-established standard used by other nations, align with inshore fisheries and conservation authority practice, and give real protection to the smaller inshore boats active in areas like mine.
It is vital for our Government to turn this tide and make meaningful change, sort out the inherited mess, and make the most of our valuable national resources of fish and shellfish stocks. To that end, I wish to highlight six points. First, will the Government commission work on a fairer regime—one that moves away from a system where those able to buy and lease quota succeed, while smaller-scale fleets struggle? The regime needs to fund science, data collection, monitoring and enforcement, and to recognise the central role of our small boats in coastal communities. That would support a just transition by prioritising low-impact fishing, social value and the long-term stewardship of our seas, while aligning fishing activity with marine protected areas.
Secondly, will the Minister do all she can to get to the bottom of the inshore vessel monitoring and catch app failures that occurred due to the last Government’s red tape? The industry warned that the inshore vessel monitoring system was not robust, and that the kit was not fit for purpose. Years later, one device is still not working as it should. While the monitoring kit and the catch app continue to fail, the stress and frustration for fishermen grows. At the very least, we need a clear plan for those systems, and a timetable for fixing them. I would be very grateful if the Minister could set that out.
Too much of our commercial stock is data-deficient. That has created uncertainty, which hits small-scale fishermen the hardest. We already expect our fishermen to provide extensive data on location, catch, size and value, but that information is not being fully used. The consequences of overfishing, illegal discarding and pressure from exceeded quota limits damage the marine environment and undermine responsible fishermen. That is why data and science, though perhaps not the most exciting part of our debate, really matter. I urge the Minister to look seriously at how artificial intelligence can be used to unlock the value of the data that we already collect. I raised that point in a written question about fishing in areas such as the Cornish 6 to 12-mile zone, which local fishermen are worried about.
Fourthly, the pollack fisheries industry science partnership, led by Doctor Simon Thomas, is working with the Looe fishermen I mentioned earlier. It delivers robust evidence at a fraction of the cost of conventional studies, and has directly informed this year’s total allowable catch for pollack. By contrast, the previous Government spent about £450,000 on a close-kin DNA study that remains unpublished. Fisheries science partnerships, such as the pollack FISP, show that when fishermen are treated as partners, it is possible to get real-time data, trust, and importantly, value for money. I strongly support the use of the fishing and coastal growth fund for industry-led science projects like that, so that benefits stay in our ports, such as Looe, rather than being lost to leasing and speculation.
Fifthly, I congratulate Brixham and Newlyn fish markets on a successful year, and particularly thank them for accommodating the sale of landings from our fleets in Looe and Polperro. With the closure of Looe and then Plymouth fish markets, our fishermen face long and costly journeys across Cornwall or into Devon simply to sell their catch. At the tidal ports of Looe and Polperro, where return times shift daily, that creates real logistical pressure. I asked the Minister, when considering the fishing and coastal growth fund, to look at long-term support for securing routes to market for isolated ports. We have discussed that, and I thank her for her engagement.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting so many key issues, as well as developments and successes, in our fishing industry. With between 30 and 40 vessels, Portsmouth has a smaller fishing industry than it once did, although the industry still supplies many small businesses. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in order to sustain our fishing industry in the United Kingdom, we must make sure that there are training routes for our young people?
Anna Gelderd
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I completely agree that young people in our coastal communities are the future of the industry and the heart of our communities, and we must do all we can to work with them to ensure that they have an industry that is sustainable for the future.
Sixthly, I welcome the Government’s commitment to the fishing and coastal growth fund and the fisheries and seafood scheme. I ask the Minister to ensure that the schemes work for small-scale, owner-operator fishermen. Larger businesses have the capacity to prepare their bids and projects, while those with small boats often miss out simply because they lack the administrative time or support. In previous years, we have seen schemes close before many fishermen could even submit an application, something that I know causes real concern and frustration in my community. The last Labour Government addressed that by funding regional support officers to help small fishing businesses develop their plans, gather quotes and complete bids. I urge the Minister to consider restoring those roles, or introducing a similar support system, and basing that support in areas like mine, where small-scale fleets are concentrated, so that help and funding reaches the intended fleets.
Finally, we import and eat almost double what we catch and export in seafood. Although we may be a nation of fish and chip lovers, we consume only 20% of what we catch. Given that some of the best seafood in the world comes from our waters, particularly those of South East Cornwall, we can all play a part by choosing locally caught fish at the tills and the checkouts, and by backing our local fishermen, not just with words but with our demand. I recognise those unsung heroes of our fishing industry: the families and loved ones who support the brave fishermen. The unsociable hours and the uncertain work schedules mean that the support of loved ones and families is vital to fishermen; their families keep the home fires burning, and we should pay tribute to all that they do.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That has made me feel hungry. I call Andrew George.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Meur ras, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd), a Cornish colleague who is a very strong advocate for Looe and the fishing communities around her constituency’s coast. I want to emphasise a point that she made about the fishing and coastal growth fund.
As the Minister will be aware, the fishing industry is seeking not only engagement and consultation from the Government prior to the announcement, which we expect in April or May—perhaps she will tell us—but full consultation on the proposals. She knows that Cornish colleagues have endorsed and reinforced the case that the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation has made for a delegated fund of £10 million for small projects. We believe that that is a very good way of ensuring that funding gets to the places it might not reach if it were simply held and managed centrally.
I have been to quite a few debates like this one, including during my previous life in the House. I have been reflecting, particularly as the Government have published the animal welfare strategy, on my early days in the fishing industry. My family had a boat down in Mullion harbour. In the summer months, we used crab and lobster pots and did a bit of mackerel handlining to supplement the farm income. I remember that on the few occasions on which we were able to keep a lobster for ourselves rather than having to sell it, my parents debated the best way of killing it. Should we use the shock of putting it straight into boiling water—we are talking about the ’60s and ’70s, when we did not have the science behind us—or was it more humane to warm the water gently? I was only a child at the time, but I am sure that with the acute hearing of a child I sensed the lobsters screaming. At least we now have the science to tell us that lobsters are sentient beings.
I am pleased that the animal welfare strategy acknowledges that we need to move things forward. I welcome its commitment to publish guidance clarifying whether live boiling is an acceptable killing method and whether any legislative arrangements or amendments are needed in respect of the supply chain review. That is relevant to the industry, as an adjunct to this debate: it would be helpful to inform fishermen about how the supply chain will work.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) referred to the negotiations. At the end of last year, we were somewhat shocked that the Government accepted rules from the EU that will govern how British fishermen can work in British waters, and that it seems they were changed at short notice and without any consultation. These were technical measures that will affect British fishermen in their own waters.
Surely that runs contrary to everything that we were assured Brexit would give the UK—the sunlit uplands in which we would be able to decide for ourselves how we manage our stocks and manage our industry. Will the Minister explain how that happened? Why was the industry not consulted about those changes? Why did they happen at such short notice? Is it because we are outside the pre-negotiations that happen within the EU, during which proposals can be fine-tuned? Were we simply caught out at the last minute?
The hon. Member for South East Cornwall referred to the difficulties within the 6 to 12-mile zone and the fact that, in spite of everything, the Government have acceded by permitting foreign vessels with historical entitlement to continue fishing within the zone for another 12 years. She will know that the industry is arguing strongly, certainly in Cornwall and on the Isles of Scilly. Why we do not apply to those waters the same 221 kW engine power limit that applies within the 6-mile limit? Why was that not proposed as a countermeasure to what was thrown on the table by the EU at the last minute? Doing so would have given the British Government a bargaining chip at that stage.
As we missed that opportunity, will the Minister assure us that she agrees that that would be a sensible method of going forward? After all, it protects the inshore fishing grounds; it safeguards, or helps to safeguard, the marine environment; it supports a viable inshore fishing industry; it reduces the impacts from larger vessels coming into the 6 to 12-mile zone; and it provides an enforceable management tool, because it is already established. If she or the Government failed to take the opportunity of introducing it then, does she now accept that it would be a good management tool? Will she ensure that she presses for it?
On the so-called benefits of the EU-UK trade negotiations, we were assured that the export of fish from this country would be made smoother, more transparent and easier, and that the administrative regulations applying to it would be less burdensome. When I have spoken in recent weeks to exporters in my constituency, they have told me the opposite: it has now become more burdensome. In the interests of time, I will write to the Minister rather than going through the technical detail now, but it is important that the sanitary and phytosanitary changes that have been brought in be properly understood. They seem to have created new impediments rather than resolving things.
The hon. Member for South East Cornwall referred to the importance of the next generation of fishermen. I have been a strong supporter of the Young Fishermen Network, which is based in Cornwall, since it was established. Matilda Phillips from my constituency has been pressing its case very strongly. I hope that the Minister will look at its manifesto.
There is a degree of absurdity here: we are recruiting new fishermen into the industry, but they are not allowed to go to sea under the age of 16. In the past, that was one way in which they could experience fishing. It can be done safely: one can regulate and put in the safeguards to ensure that it is done safely. I certainly went to sea well before I was 16. I did not go into the fishing industry, but I know many others who did. It encouraged them and provided them with a strong base. It also gave them ways to buy into the industry by getting in at the smaller, artisanal stage. Many of them, certainly from my area and my generation, became well-established members of the fishing community, from a very small base. I hope that that opportunity will still arise.
Finally, I hope that the Minister will consider how ultra low-impact fishing can be further incentivised and supported. I know one fisherman on St Agnes, one of the Isles of Scilly, who uses a sail—no engine and no plastic. He is doing his best to tick all the boxes and use a low-impact fishing method. Because he fishes for lobster, he has had a really difficult year as a result of the octopus bloom. He tells me that in spite of trying to do what society is encouraging fishermen to do, going the extra mile and being as sustainable as possible, he finds that he is over-regulated and that there are no incentives for him. I hope the Minister will be prepared to look at the case of Jof Hicks and others who are trying to do the right thing.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for making time for this debate and for restoring it to the main Chamber, as we have been asking for many years. I congratulate the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee—the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who co-chairs with me the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries—on securing the debate.
The Government have taken steps to bring greater stability and long-term thinking to the sector, but it has not been without controversy. They are continuing to allow EU vessels into UK waters for another decade-plus, with no protection for non-quota stocks. The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) made a good point about the speed of the negotiations, which arrived upon us with next to no engagement, either with the sector or with this House. In future negotiations it would be preferable, to say the least, if efforts were made to keep this House informed and if those who have an interest on behalf of their constituents were able to engage directly with those who are negotiating.
The agreement reached with the EU last year has provided at least some parameters of operation. There is an understanding of where the industry will stand until 2038. The new SPS agreement also has the potential to significantly reduce red tape for seafood exporters. Given that more than 60% of UK seafood by value is exported to the EU, that matters enormously to processors and exporters in places like Grimsby.
The UK seafood processing sector supports more than 17,000 full-time jobs, including over 5,500 in the Grimsby cluster alone. It is a modern, innovative industry that enables British-landed fish to reach domestic and international markets. We produce about 10 million fish fingers per week. We were on “Inside the Factory” on the BBC, and were very proud to see that. I will say a little more about the importance of fish fingers when I talk about the subject of British procurement, which was raised at Cabinet Office questions this morning.
Continued investment in modernisation, innovation, marketing and workforce skills will be essential. I welcome the leadership shown by the UK Seafood Federation, which is headquartered in my constituency, and particularly its focus on skills and careers as a priority for the coming years. In the circumstances, given all that has happened for the sector in recent years, I welcome the £360 million fishing and coastal growth fund. It has to focus, as I think it does, on fishing communities to boost skills, support business security and business expansion, and promote fishing as a career. That is exactly what is needed to strengthen local economies, and I will of course be doing all that I can to ensure that Great Grimsby sees some benefit from that funding. I would welcome any update from the Minister on the details of that fund, such as who can apply, how they apply, what the criteria are and when we can expect to see all that detail.
There is still work to do in ensuring that fishing and seafood are fully recognised in wider Government thinking. Too often the sector is treated narrowly as a regulatory challenge rather than as part of the solution on food security, which I know is an important factor for the Government, and on regional growth and resilience. This week, the Government’s assessment of global biodiversity loss and national security rightly highlighted risks to food systems, but it did not reference fish or seafood at all. As an island nation, we should be more confident in recognising the necessity of properly managed fisheries to a resilient food system.
As a believer in the importance that offshore wind plays as a critical part of our energy system, and as well as being a representative of a historic fishing town, I am at the heart of the challenge when it comes to considering spatial squeeze. Steps have been taken to address conflicting industry interests. As I mentioned in my intervention earlier, the marine spatial prioritisation programme, introduced last summer, set out clear location-specific priorities for fisheries, nature and other uses of our seas, but fishers are still worried. They must be engaged with and listened to. They do not have the same power as those big wind development companies or those big communications companies that are laying cables. They often feel, and these feelings have been compounded over the years, that their needs are last on the list. The Minister has to focus her support on the needs of fishermen and on ensuring that their voices are heard against some of those other organisations, so they feel confident in the representation they have from this Government.
I said I would come back to fishfingers. We are gradually becoming a much more health-conscious nation, judging by the number of Members—not those in the Chamber today—who are on various weight-loss jabs. Health is much more at the front of people’s minds. Eating fish could help with the nation’s health. It is high in omega-3 and an excellent source of protein. How can we bring this into the UK economy through our public institutions? There is a good opportunity to build a healthier nation by integrating increased amounts of fish into our schools, the NHS and the Prison Service. That would help not only boost UK industry, but improve the brainpower and concentration of our young people and those who are unwell and need to heal quickly. We need to ensure that fish and fish products from around this country are included in the national food strategy.
I want to underline the importance of the work being led by the fisheries APPG on a national fisheries action plan, which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned. Since leaving the EU, action has been taken to look at stock management, but there is no single and coherent strategy for the fishing and seafood sector as a whole. Responsibility seems to be spread across lots of Departments, making the system complex and fragmented. A clear, forward-looking plan could bring together issues of space, labour, skills and sustainability, providing the long-term direction that the industry needs, and I certainly look forward to engaging with the Minister on this as a cross-party group.
Fishing has a strong and important legacy and will always have a future in the UK. The foundations are being put in place, but increased ambition and enthusiastic partnership with coastal communities will be crucial in ensuring that these future opportunities do not slip through the net.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) raised the question of the correct method of dispatch for lobster. May I counsel him against the method that I tried, which was to pop them in the freezer? By the time I opened the door, they had eaten all my ice cream and three of my Fab lollies.
Even as we speak, chic Parisians are enjoying langoustines and coquille Saint-Jacques, perhaps with a crisp glass of Chablis—lucky them. That seafood almost certainly comes from the pristine waters of Scotland, but one of the difficulties we face in getting that seafood into France via Boulogne is red tape, and this is where the Government should step in. That red tape is blamed on Brexit. In fact, it comes from the far side of the short strait. This is a difficulty created by the French—perhaps because of protectionist ideas, who knows?—but it should not take an entire renegotiation of the SPS agreement to get this sorted out. We could have this changed and changed quickly.
The other danger with the renegotiation of an SPS deal is that it may have an impact on the free trade agreements we are doing around the world. We have recently signed one with India, for instance. The comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, the CPTPP—which is easy for me to say; we need a better name for this—could be imperilled by effectively reducing ourselves to rule-takers rather than rule-makers with a new SPS deal.
The other issue that many of our fragile coastal communities face is that they have full employment. Going to sea is not forever. I speak as the son of a marine engineer—I, meanwhile, get seasick in the bath, so I would certainly not want to go aboard a fishing boat. As we have heard, it is an exceptionally dangerous occupation and, even at the best of times, is difficult and hard work. The Home Office has a role here because it is exceptionally difficult to fulfil the requirements to bring in from elsewhere the workers who are crucial to this industry. I wonder if the Minister might touch on this—I appreciate it is a different Department—because we need some simplification of the rules and a realisation that they are making things exceptionally difficult for sometimes long-established businesses that should have a great future.
Again, touching on that red tape issue, one of the seafood producers in my constituency, West Coast Sea Products from Kirkcudbright, is facing difficulty even now with getting scallops into France—not because the quality of its product is anything less than exemplary, but, again, because of the rules and the difficulties being placed in its way, not by Brexit, as I say, but by the French themselves. Perhaps we could hear something on that, and perhaps we might be able to unblock this logjam.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and the Backbench Business Committee for bringing this important debate to the Chamber. I pay tribute to all those who have cast a net, hauled a creel or pulled on a mussel rope to sustain us from the seas.
We have been fishing the waters around our islands for millennia. Just like the right hon. Member’s constituency, island life in the Western Isles is still shaped by the rhythms of the sea. The fishing fleet in the islands, while a shadow of the fleet that sustained the international herring industry in the early 20th century, is still a mainstay of the economy. Less than two years ago, these small fishing communities saw off an existential threat from the SNP and Green Scottish Government, which would have effectively wiped out the industry.
The hated highly protected marine area proposals, which would have closed 10% of Scottish waters, were seen off by protests and songs by Skipinnish and Vatersay fisherman Donald Francis MacNeil, but there is a lingering suspicion that the agenda has not gone away. Since the collapse of HPMAs, there have been fears that the existing marine protected areas and other designations will become pegs on which further restrictions could be hung. The rebranding of HPMAs, without the colourful measures of banning canoeing and paddleboarding, could be a danger. It is understood that the Scottish Government will be consulting on 173 sites. Although the Outer Hebrides sites have not been confirmed, it is expected that up to 20% of those total sites may be in Hebridean waters.
There are a couple of lessons to be learned from the HPMA debacle. The first, for anyone across the UK tempted to back the Greens today, tomorrow or next May, is that the combination of Greens and SNP in Scotland has set back marine conservation by a decade and a half at least. The other is that, if we are to sustain the fishing industry in communities such as mine, we need to end uncertainty. To ensure conservation, we need conversation. We need talks about sustainable management with the fishing industry and fishing communities—the experts on sustainability—on what is essentially their self-interest. Nobody knows how to responsibly steward our waters better than the fishermen themselves.
There is powerful evidence from my constituency that self-imposed controls by the community itself increase the value of landings. In the last year, the value of landings in the Western Isles has gone up to £16 million—a 4% rise—and that increase in value is the result of pot limitation efforts and various other measures, including banning larger vivier crab vessels from operating within six miles. Those statistics demonstrate what folly there was in trying to impose top-down conservation measures. When the local fishing fleet provides the conservation measures, the dividends are obvious.
The majority of income generated by Western Isles boats comes from the prawn sector, at £9 million. Scallops catches were down 14%, but nephrop landings were up by 25%, mostly due to the presence of processing in the islands. The Macduff Shellfish factory in Stornoway, which has attracted more boats, and there are other processors in the islands, but they face massive logistical barriers not just in getting to the continent, but in getting to the mainland in the first place, thanks again to the ferry debacle that the SNP presided over.
As well as successes, there are major challenges. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) hinted at the problems of recruitment to the sector; in an area such as mine, where depopulation and demographics leave a “doughnut hole” where the working-age population should be, that is a huge challenge. The proposals by the Migration Advisory Committee on skilled worker visa changes would have a profound effect on recruitment to the industry. If overseas hiring for fishing roles ends in December 2026, parts of the country—including mine—would be significantly impacted. While that is not this Minister’s Department, her support and the Government’s support in flexing those requirements would be appreciated.
The effect on the sector is quite obvious. A skipper from the Western Isles has been in touch with me recently to say that seven years ago he had a local crew of seven, but he is now forced to employ three crewmembers from Ghana. He and his son now skipper the vessel back to back in order to fish at every opportunity and ensure that they pay their foreign crews the right wages—considerably more than he or his son take home themselves. That is a challenge facing the local fishing fleet, but it is not the only one; others include high fuel costs, access to markets and sometimes red tape from Whitehall itself.
Again, this is not the Minister’s Department, but the Western Isles council, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, and, I suspect, other local authorities across our coastal communities, have faced a recent challenge from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, about which I have written to the Treasury. The council may lose its authority as a registered dealer of controlled oils, supplying 14 fishery piers across the 10-island chain that makes up the Western Isles. Those sites are in remote location, which, combined with the physical geography and the need to have fuel supplies available out of normal hours, means that the sites cannot possibly be physically or remotely monitored, as HMRC says they have to be. The council has been informed that, unless the sites are monitored and HMRC is satisfied that all sales are for legitimate licensed use, the sites and the licences may not be approved.
We see there, as we saw with conservation measures, the disconnect that often exists between bureaucracy and the reality of island and fishing communities. I welcome the Government’s £360 million fishing and coastal growth fund and regret, as I said in an intervention earlier, that a direct proportion is not going where it should be—to Scotland, where a large part of the UK’s fishing effort is—because the Scottish Government demanded control of the fund without agreeing a mechanism beyond the Barnett formula.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd), who is no longer in her place, that that fishing and coastal growth fund should be directed towards the recruitment of new entrants and young people into the industry. There are commendable efforts in the Western Isles to get young people into the industry, with some success, but our populations are so small that they can only go so far. That fund should be directed towards small, inshore coastal communities, to help to revive them and those coastal economies, rather than being handed out to the mackerel millionaires or the quota barons who currently rule the oceans.
Fishing quotas themselves, which could be the subject of a whole other debate, should serve the public good, not narrow interests. If we are serious about the future of the seas and our coastal communities, quotas must be looked at again. They should have a social value and be aimed at the long-term benefit and sustainability of our coastal communities.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for applying for this debate, those hon. Members who supported his application, and the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time on this important subject. However, I regret that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) used so much of their time to attack the SNP Scottish Government. The plain fact of the matter is that I am elected, as are they, to deal with matters in this place. My advice to them is: if you are so concerned about Scottish matters in Holyrood, please stand for election there.
I want to give some context before I deal with those matters that are relevant to Westminster.
Seamus Logan
No, not yet. I may allow interventions later, but I want to get to the second paragraph of my speech first.
Fishing is an incredibly important livelihood for many of my constituents. Fraserburgh and Peterhead ports are among the largest fishing ports in Europe in terms of the tonnage and value they consistently bring in. Across Scotland, the Scottish Government’s Scottish sea fisheries statistics show that the value of the Scottish fishing industry in 2024 was £756 million—the highest in the past 10 years. Scotland’s sea area is six times larger than our land area and accounts for 63% of the UK’s exclusive economic zone. It is therefore no surprise that Scotland accounts for the largest part of the UK’s fishing industry, generally representing around 60% of total UK landings by both tonnage and value.
The industry is obviously important to Scotland’s rural and coastal communities; it is a key part of Scotland’s food economy and provides employment all around our coast. The issue of this debate is crucial to my constituents—but, regrettably, the decisions taken by the Westminster Government regarding the Scottish fishing industry are regarded by those constituents as treacherous. First, we had the EU-UK agreement, announced last year, which saw fishing access arrangements extended for 12 years, rather than the preferred annual renegotiation that would have ensured better leverage for fishers. The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation described this decision as “disastrous” for Scottish farming and described the UK Government’s view as being that the fishing industry is “expendable”. The Prime Minister said that this UK-EU deal was a “win-win”, but that characterisation is risible.
Then, as if to pour salt in the wound, the £360 million fishing and coastal growth fund allocations saw Scotland receiving just £28 million over 12 years, or just over £2.3 million a year—7.8% of the fund. How on earth is that approach sustainable? It is an unmitigated disaster for Scottish fishers. Trading away access to Scottish waters and refusing to mitigate that policy through the coastal growth fund is simply creating the conditions for the Scottish fishing industry to fail. A sector worth £756 million to the Scottish economy faces changed conditions with no consultation, as Members have acknowledged, mitigated by a pitiful amount from this UK Government.
The Scottish Government were sidelined in the allocation of the coastal growth fund, with the pathetic excuse that they had requested a devolved approach. Now we learn from the Fishing News that the application of the Barnett formula was because of a decision by the Treasury to baseline the marine allocation for 2024-25, rather than ringfencing it. To clear this up for Members who commented on it, at no point did the Scottish Government say that the allocation should be Barnettised; they simply asked for the devolution of the decision making on that fund to Scotland.
Mr Carmichael
Well, what on earth did they expect? They asked for devolution. With devolution comes Barnettisation. Is the hon. Member going to stand there and tell us that the SNP Government did ask for the rebasing that we have seen previously? I have certainly never heard that suggested, and we have taken evidence on this in the Select Committee.
Seamus Logan
I want to address that now. Under the European maritime and fisheries fund, when we were part of the European Union, the UK received approximately £207 million over six years, of which Scotland received 46%—46%, not 7.8%. That is why Scotland wanted that matter devolved: so that we could properly support the Scottish fishing industry, in the same way that the European Union and the UK did in the past. Why change the approach?
Torcuil Crichton
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and politely decline his offer to stand for the Scottish Parliament, because Na h-Eileanan an Iar has an excellent candidate in Donald MacKinnon. Next May he will wipe out the SNP and give us a real voice for the islands, which have not been listened to in 18 years.
We have much to agree on when it comes to the share of the fishing and coastal growth fund, and I remind the hon. Member that the fund will be there for a decade. What is past is past, and without rancour, we could work together through the fisheries APPG and other organisations to ensure that more of this fund goes to our coastal communities, and particularly our fragile inshore coastal communities that need support—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Interventions should not be that long.
Seamus Logan
The hon. Member will know that, in reality, we do work very well together in the APPG under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn). I accept the point about the fishing and coastal growth fund. I think he agrees with me that we need a review of that decision, but I will come back to that later.
Why did the Westminster Government change the approach and Barnettise the formula? Many of my constituents think it is because there are no votes for Labour and there is no prospect of ever winning another seat north of the Tay, alongside perhaps the seat of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar. I can tell the Minister that that is not going to change any time soon with this approach, because this Government are stealing our money to prop up their failing support in coastal communities in England.
A recent freedom of information request revealed that the Secretary of State for Scotland had made no effort—zero effort—to lobby the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to discuss a fairer and proportionate allocation, given Scotland’s massive contribution to our food sector. What is the point of the UK Government’s Scotland Office if it does not stand up for Scotland?
Finally, as if the above were not enough, visa restrictions by the Home Office have been suffocating the growth of fishing in Scotland. Key sector stakeholders have raised concerns about the changes to visas coming into force at the end of this year and the impact this will have, particularly on processing. Their concerns about visa provision extend to hiring workers for operations within the 12 nautical mile limit, given the overlap in fishing grounds. I appreciate that this is not within the Minister’s brief, but I would be grateful for clarity from her, or at least for her to tell us that she is lobbying the Home Office on this point, so that people and industries in my constituency can thrive and contribute to our growing economy. But please do not try to tell us that we need to hire local people. This mythical workforce sitting at home twiddling their thumbs simply does not exist. We are at full employment in my constituency, and efforts to recruit young people into this industry are simply not working—just ask Mike Park at the Scottish White Fish Producers Association.
The future of fishing in Scotland is at a precarious stage, and I want to use this opportunity to plead with the UK Government: please listen to the Scottish Government, to the Scottish fishing industry and to fishermen and women to get this right. One more U-turn will not make much difference to this Government, considering the number they have already made, but it will make the world of difference to fishing and coastal communities in Scotland. It is not too late to give Scotland a fair deal.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for applying for today’s very important debate. I would like to start by paying tribute to the fishermen and women of Bridlington and Hornsea in my constituency and to the RNLI and inshore rescue teams who keep our fishermen safe right across the UK.
The House will be well aware that Bridlington is the lobster capital of Europe, landing over 300 tonnes every year, and the largest shellfish landing port in the UK. I hope that next time the Minister is back in Brid, she has the opportunity to sample some of our fine fresh seafood at Salt on the Harbour or the Old Lifeboat Station opposite the Spa.
I welcome the fishing and coastal growth fund, but I caution that it is £360 million over 12 years, which is £30 million a year. In a harbour like Bridlington, the cost of a major upgrade, or in fact just normal maintenance to harbour walls, often runs into millions of pounds. I fear that we could quickly run out of money for major capital projects, but I hope that those capital projects can apply to this fund and that Bridlington will be able to benefit from it. I also hope that we will be able to address the skills issues, which are key for the fishing industry. We need to attract school leavers into the industry and ensure we have the next generation of people out there at sea; this is a real problem up and down the country at the moment.
Another issue I would like to talk about is spatial squeeze. The Government are consulting on a land use framework, which is welcome, but we need something similar for the marine environment. We have heard from Members today about the challenges of juggling space for renewable energy, and there are very large offshore wind farms in Hornsea.
John Cooper
Is my hon. Friend surprised to hear that the SNP denies the existence of spatial squeeze, and advisers told senior figures in the Government not to talk about spatial squeeze? Spatial squeeze is real. I return to his point about Bridlington being the lobster capital of Europe. We do not have to divide on this, but I think he will find that it is, in fact, Port William.
Charlie Dewhirst
On that second point, we will have to agree to disagree, but my hon. Friend is right in terms of spatial squeeze. If it is not an issue, I do not understand why it takes up so much of the briefing from the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations; they, I suspect, are the real experts in this area.
I turn to the EU deal and the frustration that our fishing industry has been sold out for the next 12 years in return for an SPS deal that has yet to be negotiated. I fear that things have got worse since that announcement was made. In fact, the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has contacted MPs to say:
“In last year’s annual negotiations between the UK and the EU that concluded last December, something new happened that has deeply alarmed UK fishermen. As well as deciding fish quotas for 2026 as expected, the two sides also agreed new technical fisheries management rules for their respective national waters. We are told that the EU proposed these measures and that the UK negotiating team was blindsided by their inclusion in the talks. Nevertheless, they agreed to them. Rules that govern how British fishermen can work in British waters were changed, at short notice and without consultation, at the request of the EU. This is unprecedented.”
It went on to say:
“It was startling to learn… that the collaborative, evidence-based process that we all thought we were working within had been set aside in favour of a bargain struck between civil servants over a few days in London and Brussels. More troubling still, the rules will be more lenient in EU waters.”
That says to me, “sell out again”, and it sets a direction of travel as we negotiate an SPS deal with the European Union. It is clear that we are negotiating from a very weak position, and are willing to do whatever the EU pleases to have a deal done by the end of this year. This Government could perhaps learn lessons from the previous one about setting false deadlines for trade negotiations. I am happy to admit that we made mistakes in the early days post Brexit, and I caution against doing the same now.
It would be remiss of me not to touch on bottom-trawling. The issue has become a focus for anti-fishing groups, but if it were to be banned across our marine protected areas, that would destroy the industry overnight and decimate certain coastal communities. Much of the campaign against it misrepresents the industry; it is not as damaging as some organisations say it is. I hope that the Minister will take up the issue with the industry, and will ensure that bottom-trawling is properly represented in any negotiations about the use of that technique.
In conclusion, I am proud to represent such a successful fishing industry. I know that Bridlington is close to the Minister’s heart, and I would love the opportunity to meet her, perhaps even in Bridlington, and local fishermen to discuss the future of the industry, so that we do what we can, together, to support the lobster capital of Europe.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for setting the scene so incredibly well. I envy his knowledge of fishing, and I am always pleased to support him in a secondary role in such debates. I represent Strangford in Northern Ireland. It has a strong fishing community, particularly in Portavogie, and I wish to relay a number of issues that have been raised with me. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place—she will know that—and I hope that when I ask her a question, she will be kind and will accede to that request; it is perhaps similar to questions that others have asked. I give special thanks to Dr Lynn Gilmore, who is in charge of the Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation. She is doing extremely well. I am reminded of Margaret Thatcher’s saying:
“if you want anything said, ask a man. If you want anything done, ask a woman.”
We have a woman chief executive of the Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation, and I look forward to deliberating with her, and with the Minister.
As the House will be aware, the seafood industry in Northern Ireland plays a vital role in supporting the economies of our coastal communities. In 2023, the fishing fleet comprised 211 registered vessels, and employed 445 people. The majority of its vessels fish in the Irish sea, and operate from the three main ports: Portavogie in my constituency; Ardglass; and Kilkeel. The Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation represents those three ports, as well as other places. Trawlers of over 10 metres, mainly targeting nephrops, account for around half the fleet, and today at least 70% of the nephrops fleet is reliant on a non-EU migrant crew. That is one of the highest rates in the United Kingdom fishing industry. Those crews form an important part of the workforce. Recent data shows that approximately 50,500 tonnes of fish and shellfish were landed by the Northern Irish fleet, worth £80 million. Nephrops accounted for 46% of landings by value. I want to put those stats on record, because it is important to understand the value of the fishing sector in Northern Ireland, particularly to my constituents.
The Northern Ireland fishing sector also supports 18 seafood processing operators, which generated a further £62 million in 2023 and support 570 full-time jobs. However, those numbers belie the true value of the industry, which is in its cultural and historic importance—others have referred to that—and the skills handed down through generations, because the pride that our communities take in the fishing industry is immeasurable. Sadly, all that is being threatened by issues outside the control of the men and women who risk their lives to put delicious local seafood on our plates. The Northern Irish fishing industry, so valuable to our economy and our coastal communities, is facing unprecedented challenges. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) outlined the issues facing crew, as did the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. I suspect other Members will raise that issue, as it is a key point to underline.
Foremost among those issues are matters relating to visas for overseas crew. In a recent letter to the Minister for migration and citizenship, the hon. Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp), Northern Ireland industry leaders described the cliff edge that they face when it comes to skilled worker visas. Those will become unavailable to the fishing industry beyond 2026—that is really worrying—except for during a limited period of time in which the visas of crew already working in the industry can be renewed. Industry leaders also highlighted escalating salary thresholds—again, those have been a bugbear for some time—and the English language requirements in the industry, and they requested an urgent meeting with the Minister to discuss those issues. If such issues are not addressed, that could result in a loss of up to 70% of crew on Northern Ireland vessels, potentially tying up almost 100% of the Northern Ireland nephrops fleet within a few short years. We are in the last chance saloon, and there will be cascading impacts on processing businesses and fishing communities, and the potential for a loss of workforce continuity and traditional, generational knowledge.
The industry has repeatedly requested a bespoke visa for fishing, as it ramps up efforts to recruit more local workers into the industry. At the time, the Minister’s response offered nothing to industry. It was in part contradictory, and it ended with that Minister declining to meet Northern Ireland industry leaders to hear their concerns. The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs and I have had many discussions, and have worked together on many things, and she has always been responsive. I ask her and the Government to please have a heart when it comes to the fishing industry. Could I meet her and the Home Secretary, to go into the detail of what is needed to save the fishing industry? I request that meeting urgently; that is my major request to the Minister, as this issue is really important to the Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation and the fishing fleet.
Those in fishing occupations will no longer be eligible for the skilled worker visa, and post 2026, no visa route will exist for recruiting foreign deckhands. That eliminates the only legal pathway for vessels to get the crew needed to operate inside the 12 nautical mile zone. The importance of this cannot be underlined enough. The fishing industry needs a dedicated immigration route for fishing crew post 2026, preferably in the form of a bespoke visa. That would protect British businesses while a recruitment drive sought to source more domestic labour for the fishing industry in the long term.
I remember a few years ago an advert was put in a European fishing magazine. It sought to recruit people from Europe to the fishing industry. One hundred people replied to that advert; 10 people expressed a further interest; and only one turned up for the interview. I make that point because sometimes, when we looked around the United Kingdom, and across the EU at the time, we saw a potential workforce, but it just was not there. Northern Ireland industry wants an opportunity to brief the Minister and highlight industry concerns that if nothing is done in the short to medium term, British businesses will fail. It is that straightforward.
The Northern Ireland fishing industry is facing an unsustainable decrease in the Irish sea’s available fishing grounds through expanding offshore marine protected areas, proposed bans on bottom-towed gear, and rapid offshore renewable development. Unlike in agriculture, fishermen do not hold property rights to their areas of food production—that is a fact; it is not like farming—so fishing is an easy target for displacement. Additionally, fishing areas have no statutory basis for protection, unlike marine protected areas, or offshore renewable developments. The combined effect of the spatial restrictions already in place or under development will be to threaten the operational and financial viability of the Northern Ireland fleet.
The industry has lost 4,728 km of fishing grounds in the Irish sea over the past couple of decades—that is around three times the size of London. The implementation of management measures in MPAs in the Northern Ireland offshore area, and additional offshore renewable energy zones in the same constrained Irish sea region, threaten a further reduction in fishing grounds—and there could be more. We need to see evidence-based decision making, and site-specific management on the principle of sustainable use, rather than blanket spatial bans for unknown or uncertain environmental benefits.
Core to that must be the designation of Northern Ireland fishing organisations as statutory consultees in marine planning. That brings me to my second ask: can the Northern Ireland fishing organisations be allowed to play their part, and be involved in the discussion about marine planning? There should be statutory consideration given to the impacts of displacement of fishing effort before any area becomes unavailable for fishing. That would enable the Northern Ireland fishing sector to have an impact.
To sum up, the Northern Ireland fishing industry seeks Government support for a balanced planning system that protects fishing as a legitimate, food-producing industry that is vital to the UK’s people, economy and national food security. Having already faced decades of disruption, reduced fishing grounds, lack of local labour and increasingly unpredictable quotas, fishing communities in Northern Ireland now face a series of simultaneous pressures that threaten their long-term viability.
Confronted with such changes, fishermen are left with profound uncertainties that accentuate financial stress, as well as mental health issues, for them and their families. In every aspect of policy, from quotas and immigration to marine protected areas and offshore wind developments, fishermen are under pressure. The fishing industry has shown over many years that it is prepared to work constructively with government, and it is doing so. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland set that point down as a marker. The fishing sector wants to work with the Government. It wants to protect the seas that it is fishing in, because they have to be sustainable. That is what the sector is about, and I hope that the Government wish to work with the sector.
The sector has responded positively to scientific recommendations, increased levels of gear selectivity to reduce impacts on the environment, and operates within one of the most heavily regulated fishing regimes in the world. Before anything else in the Irish sea, at the beginning of time, there was fishing. When God created the world, he created the Irish sea and he created fishing—that was before everything else happened. Our communities, who are ever mindful of that, were the original stakeholders. I think I quote the Bible accurately when I say, “In the beginning, God created heaven and earth, and he created the sea.”
Food security, as well as economic security, will depend on being able to maintain a sustainable fishing industry in Northern Ireland. With the right foresight and committed cross-government policy, the industry will be able to sustain itself, remain productive and remain the cornerstone of communities that live along our coast, as it has been since the beginning of time. If we ignore the concerns of Northern Ireland’s fishing communities, a rich heritage could be lost that would be irreplaceable.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am an unpaid director of the Newhaven Fishing community interest company. As such, I see at first hand what is happening to our local fishing industry, and I rise to talk specifically about the impact on our town.
In Newhaven, we have a small but long-standing fleet, and our fishing heritage is under threat. We have between 15 and 20 active vessels working out of Newhaven, catching sole, plaice, brill, turbot and other bits and pieces off our Sussex coast. Much of that fish goes elsewhere for processing, to all corners of the UK and beyond, before it ends up coming back to our plates. We are exporting those jobs, increasing emissions and missing the chance to build our local economy and invest in a small part of the Government’s growth agenda. I believe that has to change.
We want our fish processed locally, and jobs created in coastal communities, rather than fish being shipped abroad and coming back again—and sometimes then going back abroad and back here once more. The recent plans to bring processing back to Newhaven are exactly what we should be doing nationwide, but that needs long-term commitment from the Government, if it is to stick.
In the meantime, we are losing our fishing community. The charter boat fleet that historically brought customers to Newhaven’s tackle shops, pubs and restaurants all year around has almost completely disappeared. A constituent of mine runs the last charter company in Newhaven. During recent works at the port, he was forced to relocate temporarily, but was promised that he could return. Now he has been told that he cannot come back, despite Government funding for a new pontoon, supposedly for the fishing fleet. That is the kind of bureaucratic nonsense that puts marginal businesses into receivership and brings generational businesses, like his and many others in our town, to an end, in some cases after decades or even hundreds of years of operation. When we invest in coastal infrastructure, it should support the entire fishing community, including commercial vessels and charter boats that bring economic activity to our towns. Both are vital to a thriving coastal economy.
We have been successful in attracting Government investment to support the local fishing industry in Newhaven, with some £12 million for new landing stages, and for processing and other facilities in the town. My thanks go to Lewes district council and my predecessor, Maria Caulfield, who supported the bid for that funding, which has been essential to giving our fishing industry in Newhaven a chance—just a chance—of surviving and thriving in the future. However, we need to do far more to support our fishing businesses if they are to be sustainable in the long term.
Here is what is really at stake. Without new people entering the industry, small independent businesses will disappear. They will be replaced by massive multinational companies and EU mega-trawlers that disrupt our wildlife, deplete our fish stocks and send their catches to distant markets. In our case, many are flagged to the Netherlands. We will lose local jobs and an industry on which communities like ours depend.
Our local fishing businesses are largely family affairs, with one generation taking on the business from another. It is a tough and sometimes very dangerous job. In November 2020, our community was shocked to wake up to the news that the Joanna C trawler had sunk off Newhaven, tragically taking the lives of two fishermen. It was a reminder of the risks that our fishing boats taking every day in unpredictable seas. I should take a moment to pay tribute to our local Royal National Lifeboat Institution crews, based out of Newhaven, and the volunteers at our local Coastwatch who do incredible work trying to keep our fishermen and other sailors safe.
The Government must acknowledge that support for small fishing businesses to encourage more young people to see fishing as an attractive career choice is essential for the future vibrancy of the industry. There is a real danger that we will continue to fund an industry that simply does not have the people to continue it, and it will end up withering on the vine.
We want a different future for the industry. We need to slash the red tape that is strangling our fishing industry and invest in coastal infrastructure—not just by building pontoons, although that is important for our town, but by ensuring that our infrastructure serves the communities that it is meant to support. We need to give coastal towns the power and resources to develop their fishing economies and attract young workers, working in concert with local schools and colleges to build a skills base for the future, not just for our fishing industry but in many of our deprived coastal communities, where a skills base is lacking. They could take advantage of some of the opportunities being created by investments in our local fishing industry and others.
We must put sustainability at the heart of everything we do. We need to work hand in glove with the fishing industry to look carefully at the impact on marine protected areas and ensure that protections for sustainability do not cause catastrophic harm for the businesses that we seek to support.
We must rebuild depleted fish stocks. In the distance, we can often see massive Dutch trawlers operating off our coast. They hoover fish out of the sea and deplete stocks, meaning that our own fishermen—predominantly line-and-pole fishermen—cannot catch anything when they go out to fish. That is soul-destroying for people who are already in a very challenging industry.
We must ensure that fishing stock negotiations after 2026 get proper democratic scrutiny, as several hon. Members have mentioned. That is because the Conservatives’ Brexit threw our industry into chaos. Unfortunately, the Government let that happen again when they extended fishing rights to the EU for 10 more years—and for what? Nothing but some general commitments to negotiate further down the line.
Newhaven has fished its waters since the 1580s. Some fishing families have worked there for over 200 years; indeed, some of their names are known to pretty much everybody in the town. It is a close-knit community. We have local fish shops, plans for new restaurants and a community that wants to buy local catch, but right now we have a local fleet that is struggling even to stay in business.
My coastal communities are not an afterthought. They are the frontline of our food security, our environmental stewardship and our cultural heritage. We must deliver a fair deal for fishers, with real investment and sustainable practices, working with Government. I would be remiss not to take the opportunity to extend the Minister an invitation to come down to Sussex by the sea and visit our fleet in Newhaven.
Too often, very small fleets like ours can be overlooked in discussions about the fishing industry. In his excellent introductory speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) mentioned how fishing is sometimes treated as a homogeneous industry in which all areas are the same. Our small fishing fleet is as worthy of protection as any other, but it can be easily overlooked in wider discussions about the larger industry. I want communities like Newhaven’s to have the power to control their own future, with a thriving fishing industry at its heart.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before the Front-Bench speeches begin, may I extend a warm welcome to the Minister of Education in Ontario, who has been in the Chamber listening to hon. Members’ contributions? I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this important debate and on his powerful speech. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding the time for today’s debate.
The UK’s fishing industry is central to our national economy. It contributes more than £1.4 billion annually and supports more than 11,000 fishers. However, despite the sector’s economic value, the industry post Brexit continues to face numerous challenges. It has insufficient Government support and has been left to fight an uphill battle against environmental neglect and regulatory stagnation. The previous Government’s ill-conceived Brexit deal has had a negative impact on the UK fishing industry and has created deep uncertainty about its future. Our fishing communities feel unrepresented and anxious about the industry’s future economic viability.
Within the terms of the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement post-Brexit, UK fishing became subject to a number of regulations. It is unbelievable that the current Government’s Ministers have, in effect, agreed to continue with the Conservative plan for fishing, subjecting the industry to another 12 years of neglect through the agreement reached at last May’s UK-EU reset summit, as EU boats will now have access to our waters until 2038. The Liberal Democrats hoped that the summit would provide the opportunity for a reset that would benefit our fishing industry, but it just got more of the same. We believe that if the Government had been more ambitious and sought to secure a new customs union, better benefits would have been secured for our fishing industry.
Although it is positive that a comprehensive agreement has been secured across trade and defence, the Government must work with our fishing industry to understand the impact that the extension will have. Greater co-operation is necessary, given that the raft of regulatory changes to the EU applies to all vessels, but fishers do not feel supported by the Government or by the Marine Management Organisation, which gave the industry just five days’ notice of changes. Poor communication regarding new gear marking and catch reporting has only furthered confusion and uncertainty in the industry.
The sewage scandal that has blighted our waters for far too long urgently needs addressing. Although Glastonbury and Somerton is landlocked, it is home to diverse watercourses, including the Rivers Brue and Parrett, which offer excellent fishing for local anglers. Upstream towards Bruton, the River Brue supports local trout fishing, while further downstream around Glastonbury and towards Highbridge, the River Parrett is dominated by coarse fishing such as for roach, chub, perch and pike. Both rivers are valued ecological areas for our local communities and our region’s biodiversity, but our watercourses have not been left untouched by pollution, with the River Parrett in Langport experiencing 54 separate sewage spills in 2023, amounting to 453 hours of pollution. Devastatingly, in 2025 alone, all the water- courses in my constituency were subjected to more than 45,000 hours of pollution. Across the wider—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Lady will know that the debate is on the fishing industry, not on sewage pollution of rivers per se. Perhaps she would like to return to the subject of fishing.
Sarah Dyke
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The impact on coastal communities is even more severe and economically damaging. The House will know that fishing waters in Cornwall, including in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), have been greatly affected by pollution, with many forced to close after high levels of E. coli were found in locally sourced oysters and mussels. For local shellfish growers, the actions of unresponsive and irresponsible water companies have destroyed consumer confidence in locally sourced fish, decimating demand and threatening the viability of local producers across many coastal regions.
Despite the desperate pleas of our coastal communities, the inaction of both the previous Conservative Government and the current Labour Government has resulted in a shocking increase in pollution incidents, which were up 27% last year. The Liberal Democrats have been very clear that tougher regulations must be delivered to prevent raw sewage spillages into our waterways. The Government’s White Paper, which was published on Tuesday, contains some welcome measures, but it does not go far enough—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I will not make this point again. This is a debate on the fishing industry. The hon. Lady has made her point about pollution.
Sarah Dyke
Let me return briefly to Somerset—this is relevant, Madam Deputy Speaker. The European eel was once a key part of the county’s identity. It was so abundant that it even served as the local currency, and it was the most economically significant part of Somerset’s fishing sector. The presence of this keystone species is said to be the leading indicator for the health of our wetland, river and natural habitats.
Unsurprisingly, the European eel is currently deemed a critically endangered species, with a 90% drop in its population since the 1980s owing to habitat loss and migration barriers. The Somerset Eel Recovery Project, founded by Vanessa Becker- Hughes, is leading community efforts to restore the county’s local eel population through conservation and cultural efforts, but despite its best efforts, its work is not bringing the significant changes that it would like. Removing barriers and installing passes is essential for the species’ survival, which is dependent on migration. By balancing conservation efforts with sustainable fishing, we can secure the stability of the sector and more of us can enjoy the culinary delicacy that is eel.
Across the wider south-west, we are seeing a stark decline in fish species along our coastal areas. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), the octopus bloom of last year has led to an 80% decline in crab catch—a decline so significant that it is forcing local fishers to consider early retirement or career changes because they are unable to make ends meet. Fishers in South Devon and across the south-west need greater support from the Government to stay in business while they learn to adapt to these concerning ecological changes, and they require flexibility on catch licences in order to remain in business.
Last May, the Liberal Democrats welcomed the Government’s announcement of a £360 million fishing and coastal growth fund after the industry had been let down consistently by nearly a decade of successive Conservative Governments. The current Government must not follow the example of the Conservatives. For a lasting impact to be realised through greater investment, our coastal towns must be given a voice in how the money is spent.
This vital funding should not be spent on generic community assets such as benches and public facilities in coastal towns. It must be appropriately targeted to empower our fishing communities, providing them with greater powers and resources to invest in coastal infra- structure and services. Through delivering a comprehensive plan for spreading economic opportunity, the Liberal Democrats would ensure that the fund supports initiatives to enhance awareness of the career opportunities in the sector and strengthen skills to retain workers and, crucially, attract younger workers to support future growth.
It is clear that our fishing and coastal communities cannot afford another decade of neglect. The previous Conservative Government left our fishers in the lurch and hung out to dry, while the current Government have failed to grasp the opportunity to secure a genuine reset that would provide both stability and opportunity. Instead, they have chosen to continue with a botched Brexit deal for the industry until 2038. Our fishing industry deserves better.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
I congratulate my friend the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the Chair of the EFRA Select Committee, on securing this vital debate. I have a huge amount of respect for him, given his expertise in, and dedication to, these and other important areas.
We have heard many contributions from Members across the House today. The Chair of the Committee spoke passionately about issues such as spatial squeeze, and also talked about the imbalance in the situation with Norway. The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) talked about how dangerous a profession fishing is and the importance of people in this sector, as well as about the importance of data and science.
The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) talked about the importance of bringing the next generation into this profession. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) talked about the importance of fish for our food security; she also talked about spatial squeeze and about fish being an important part of a balanced, healthy diet for the UK population. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) talked about some of the key logjams of logistics, bureaucracy and red tape facing the sector, and about a pragmatic approach to workforce issues.
The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) talked about some of the debates regarding the designation of marine protection areas, about conservation, and about striking accords on workforce issues. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) talked about the importance of the industry to his rural and coastal communities, and also highlighted workforce issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) again talked about spatial squeeze, the importance of the next generation, and flaws in the recent EU negotiations. I fear he was starting a bit of a lobster war with our hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway; I remind him that lobsters are indeed sentient creatures. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is always a passionate advocate for his industries and communities in Northern Ireland, also talked about some of the key issues, including workforce issues and food security.
Finally, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) talked about the significance of the fishing heritage in his community and its importance to his local economy.
Fishing has always been vital to the United Kingdom—it is the lifeblood of communities up and down this country, across all four nations of our UK. I pay tribute to the brave and hard-working fishermen and women, the processers, the transporters, the traders, and everyone else who does so much to harvest and deliver that precious food source, which is so vital to our food security and to local economies across the land. I also thank representative bodies such as the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation for all they do to champion and advocate for those vital industries. His Majesty’s official Opposition are committed to standing up for, and supporting, our coastal communities and fishing industries. As an independent, sovereign coastal nation, our fishing rights are a fundamental asset; we cannot weaken them, and they are crucial to maintaining our food security and our economy.
The previous Conservative Government made progress in making us an independent, sovereign coastal state, including through our work to secure the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement for fisheries in 2021. We used that agreement as a catalyst to secure £970 million in fishing opportunities by 2024 and an uplifted quota at a value of £146 million, including significant gains for the pelagic sector. The current Government had to renegotiate on quota and access under the terms of that agreement. Unfortunately, the fruits of the Government’s negotiation with the EU were somewhat spoiled. It was quite simply a sell-out that throws our fishing industry under the bus for the sake of closer ties to the EU. Industry representatives have described the deal in no uncertain terms as a “horror show”, and as giving away
“the best card that we still had”.
We Conservatives are fundamentally clear that we stand with all our hard-working fishermen and women, who will be significantly impacted and have their fishing capabilities restricted because of this retrograde deal.
Back in March, when it was first being seriously suggested in the public discourse that fishing rights might be bargained away for access to the European defence fund, I asked the then fisheries Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), to confirm that the Government would not capitulate on our fishing rights. The Minister responded that he was
“determined to get the best possible outcome for our fishing sector”.—[Official Report, 26 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 366WH.]
Unfortunately, the Government caved in to pressure to seek closer ties with the EU at any cost. Worse still, we have learned that despite the Government caving in, the EU has still refused them those closer ties on defence. While nations as far afield as the Faroe Islands have the option of negotiating with the EU yearly to improve their lot when it comes to both quotas and access, the Government’s deal means that our fishing industry is locked into current arrangements for 12 years.
Seamus Logan
The shadow Minister is speaking about the European Union. Just today, I have heard about requests from the European Union regarding the size of fishing nets, which the British Government have apparently accepted without question. Is the shadow Minister aware of that?
Dr Hudson
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. When requests like this come in, we have to take a very logical view across the United Kingdom and the UK Government have to be strong in their deliberations, because we have to make sure that our waters are protected.
The Leader of the Opposition explicitly set “no reduction in our fishing rights” as one of the five tests for this Government’s agreement with the EU. The Government have not even come close to meeting that test. His Majesty’s Opposition also note that in the most recent discussions, technical management rules were brought into the frame of negotiations for the first time. As the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East has intimated, that is a clear sign of the increasing influence the EU is starting to have as a result of these changes.
While of course we all welcome any funding to support the fishing sector and improve the welfare of coastal communities, the Government’s fishing and coastal growth fund was really just a sticking-plaster exercise—yes, it was a significant amount of money, but it was really to try to cover up their errors in their fishing policy so far. As the Minister will remember, when that fund was announced, I asked her to confirm any practical details of how the fund would be delivered; how it would support fishermen and women and coastal communities; and, importantly, whether the funding would be front-loaded, which is the only way that the Government can begin to repair some of the harm they have started to cause since taking office.
As I have said, we absolutely support any funding provided to fishing and coastal communities. When we were in Government, we brought in the £100 million UK seafood fund to support the future and sustainability of UK fisheries and the seafood sector, allocating funds for science, research, infrastructure, skills and training across the sector. Today, we have heard from Members across the House about the importance of data, research and science—we need to collect that, and we need to fund it. From the autumn Budget documents, we also know that the Government plan to spend £25 million in the financial year 2026-27, which is a small part of the £360 million in the fishing and coastal growth fund. They must provide that funding as soon as possible, in a way that makes an actual difference to fishermen and women and to coastal communities.
Speaking of the Budget, like most of the country, people in fishing and coastal communities will have been anxious about the autumn Budget and the changes it contained. We in the Opposition are concerned about the impact of the tourist tax on coastal communities that rely on tourism—that tax will serve a double blow on top of the difficulties the fishing industries and coastal communities have already faced. Owing to the Government’s increase in employer national insurance contributions, employers have been left to make very difficult choices, such as refusing to hire new staff, freezing pay or—worst of all—letting people go. This is really hitting the fishing industries.
A scientific, evidence-based approach is non-negotiable if we are to ensure high ecological and environmental standards in fishing across all fishing countries, including the UK—standards that are paramount for sustaining our precious seas and oceans and ensuring responsible global trade. However, a delicate balance has to be struck. While ensuring ecological and environmental standards, we must also ensure that the fishing industries are able to survive and, indeed, thrive. When we talk about improving marine welfare and addressing some negative practices, we must be clear that fishermen and women in the UK are trying to act in the best interests of the ecosystem on which they depend. As we have heard from Members across the House, the experts on nurturing and protecting that precious resource are the people who fish it. Likewise, an evidence-based approach must be at the centre of the solution tackling spatial squeeze, which we have heard a lot about today.
It is vital, as we enhance our abilities to deliver clean energy, that offshore wind is delivered in the right way and in the right place, looking at all the evidence, including on how offshore wind impacts on the fishing industry, ecosystems and marine life. While the Marine Recovery Funds Regulations 2025, which came into force in December, compensate for environmental damage caused by offshore wind, they fail to compensate fishermen and women for any harm to their livelihoods done by offshore wind projects. That is just another missed opportunity to protect the industry by this Government. Unfortunately, it is their embedded approach at present.
Seafish’s recent report on employment in the fishing industry in 2024 showed an increasingly ageing demographic in the sector, with difficulties for many to access the skilled labour that fishing demands. Pretty much every speaker today talked about the importance of workforce moving forward. Without new fishermen and women, the industry will not have a future. Will the Minister please confirm what the Government are doing to tackle this existential threat to the industry?
Part of solving the problem must look at the practice of fishing itself, which is undeniably a dangerous and demanding industry. Financial instability, the tough conditions and the physical stress can have a significant impact on people’s mental health. I commend the work of several charities, including the Bearded Fishermen Charity, the Fishermen’s Mission, FishWell and the Angling Trust, to support fishermen and women with their mental health. What measures are the Government taking to make fishing safer and to help improve the physical and mental health of our fishermen and women?
In conclusion, fishing is vital for our local communities, our economy and our food security, which is national security. This Government had the room to make real progress on the good—albeit not perfect—legacy they were given. Unfortunately, they are adrift from the shore when it comes to truly grappling with the challenges facing the industry, or they have actively worsened the situation with their decisions, such as this awful EU deal. The Government must wake up and steer their ship in a new direction, or they will see the industry sink on their watch.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
It is a pleasure to respond to an extremely good debate, with many Members reflecting the issues that they have discovered in their own constituencies and bringing them to the Floor of the House, as we expect them to do. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for his tireless commitment to championing the fishing industry and for persuading the Backbench Business Committee to grant this debate in the Chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) has worked closely with the right hon. Gentleman in his work on the fishing industry, and she is delighted to be here, ensuring that an important local industry to her constituency is properly represented and reflected on the Floor of the House.
Fishing is an incredibly important industry to the vitality of many coastal communities. It is culturally and socially important. It is a way of life passed down from generation to generation, and it is evident in a town’s built environment, whether it is the jetties and marinas, the seafronts where the boats moor or the fish huts that dot many a local promenade, not least where I was born and grew up, as the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) was so generous to point out in his contribution.
The key to achieving the collaboration we need to ensure the future of our fishing industry is working with those who know the industry best to deliver opportunities for the future. We also have to remember that fishers contend with tough working conditions. Many hon. and right hon. Members on both sides have raised that point. It is a difficult and dangerous life, but it is often undertaken with passion and commitment. I pay tribute to all those who have been injured or tragically lost their lives at sea. Fishers provide us with the world-class fish and seafood that the UK is rightly revered for. I pay tribute to the RNLI, which often goes out in dangerous conditions to rescue people and save lives at sea. I commend the ongoing efforts of the fishing industry to improve safety—those efforts must continue as a priority.
The fishing industry is operating in a challenging environment, as we have heard from Members from all parts of the House, but many highly promising areas in the industry present opportunities, and we wish to enable the industry to grasp them. It is the case, though, that sectors within the fleet are struggling. There is increasing competition for marine space. Our marine spatial prioritisation programme helps to mitigate that, and I thank industry leaders for the data they have shared and contributed to, which has hugely improved the programme’s insights into this key challenge.
Pressure on stocks means that we must carefully manage fisheries, including in some cases through significant reductions in total allowable catch and changes to other measures. The sector contends with barriers to exports, and Labour’s work to develop new markets and ease the administrative burden of trading in a highly perishable foodstuff is complex and will take time, but that work has begun. Meanwhile, as we have heard, in particular from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and other Members, it can be hard to recruit staff, and entry into the industry requires significant investment.
In that context, the ability to change and adapt is important, and fishing has a good record in doing that. Fishing businesses have to mitigate the impacts on stocks that are under pressure, adapt to changing distributions of fish because of climate change, respond to changing consumer demands, adopt new technologies and develop new skills. It is a task that this Government will continue to support the industry in navigating. We are supporting and encouraging the industry to organise and collaborate, to plan confidently and to invest for the long term. I will continue to work with industry experts—big and small—who know the sector best in order to build a thriving and sustainable fishing industry.
Jim Shannon
Would the Minister agree to have a meeting with representatives from Northern Ireland? I feel and they feel that that would be advantageous for us all to find a better way forward for the sector.
Dame Angela Eagle
I am a very generous person, and I am more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman’s representative bodies. He knows that fishing is devolved, but I understand that some issues are dealt with nationally, albeit not by my Department. Such issues are dealt with by my previous Department, the Home Office, but not by my current Department—I am obviously talking about the issue of visas, which been raised by several hon. Members on both sides of the House. I do not want to give away internal Government issues, but I have a meeting in the diary with the relevant Home Office Minister, where I will discuss some of these issues. Although I cannot promise what the outcome will be, I can promise that the industry will be properly represented. I know that this matter is also relevant to aquaculture and processing, so I am more than happy to take into account any information that hon. and right hon. Members wish to give me ahead of that meeting. Having met some members of the industry around the country, I understand the pressures.
I have met many representatives of the fishing industry since assuming my role in September, and I had a hugely informative visit to Newlyn in December. I have been invited to Bridlington, to Shetland and to Newhaven, so I have an entire tour of the country coming up. I may not be present in the House for a long time, because I will be yomping around the coast to have a look at what is going on in both big and small sectors of the industry. The industry is very complex, and it is impossible to make generalised comments about it. What is important for an inshore small boat will be very different from what is important for a deep sea trawler that spends many months out at sea; I understand the differences.
On that note—having plotted my escape from this place for a few nice visits; I know the importance of seeing and understanding for myself the diversity of the industry, which sits at the heart of our national identity as an island nation—let me say that I am grateful for the invaluable contributions of my fellow coastal MPs on both sides of the House, who have brought the views of their coastal and fishing communities to the Floor of the House. I am listening. I know that I will not be able to please everybody, but I will do my best to understand the issues that are being faced.
The development of the fishing and coastal growth fund has been welcomed in some places and condemned in others. We have been working with the industry to understand the priorities of fishing and coastal communities, and to ensure that they help shape the fund so that it can drive growth for the future. Several themes are emerging from the initial engagement, including the importance of developing the industry’s workforce for the future—something that has featured in discussions on the Floor of the House—making port-side improvements and ensuring that funding goes to all parts of the industry, including small-scale fishers as well as larger parts of the industry. The issues of education, entry to theusb industry and ongoing training have also come up.
My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) did not miss her chance to suggest that Cornwall should have a ringfenced allocation from the fishing and coastal growth fund—a request that I heard when I visited Newlyn. I am very interested in using the fund to ensure that money is made available to those who know their areas best, so that it can be put to best use. That does not always happen with Government funding. I do not want the money to go to people who are very good at making bids for funds; if possible, I want it to go to the places where it will do the most good, so I am in the market for listening to suggestions on how that can be properly brought about. After all, we have 12 years to try to make a difference, and I hope that the fund can do that.
Andrew George
I am very grateful to the Minister for coming to Newlyn, which is in my constituency, and for listening to the industry. The Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation proposes a dedicated fund of £10 million, and wants to ensure that it works with the Government to agree on a strategy to develop the industry over the next decade, including through the recruitment of new, younger fishermen.
Dame Angela Eagle
I had discussions with the Cornish Fish Producers’ Association and the Young Fishermen’s Network on the quay down in Newlyn. I missed the hon. Gentleman at 5 am! Perhaps we can meet another time when I am down there. The bid has been well thought through in principle, and I am impressed with it. However, we have to wait until the fund is properly launched. At this stage, I cannot say anything other than how impressed I was with the bid. Decisions will be announced after our consultation with the industry is over. I am sure that the devolved Governments will be doing similar things with their parts of the fund.
In the negotiations on the fishing opportunities for 2026, we have been able to agree about 640,000 tonnes of UK fishing opportunities, worth roughly £1.06 billion, based on historical landing prices, including 610 tonnes, worth roughly £960 million, secured through negotiations with the EU, Norway and other coastal states. We have secured these deals against a very difficult backdrop of challenging advice for a variety of stocks, including northern shelf cod, against a legacy of 14 years of mismanagement, broken promises and neglected coastal communities.
Our approach to the negotiations is based on rebuilding trust with fishing communities, securing decent jobs, and restoring fish stocks so that our seas can support jobs and coastal communities for generations to come. We have worked closely with those in the sector to discuss the science—an approach the Conservative party refused to take, preferring to negotiate headlines rather than outcomes—as well as to understand their perspectives and requirements, and help them prepare for the impact of quota decisions.
We have achieved a number of resulting wins in this year’s negotiations, including more opportunities for our sea bass fishery, a commercially viable total allowable catch for Irish sea herring, valuable plaice and sole quota transfers, and flexes in the channel and the Celtic sea. The total allowable catches agreed with the EU and Norway have enabled the continuation of the mixed demersal fishery in the North sea, avoiding the cliff edges and uncertainty that characterised negotiations year after year. We have agreed a new management model for North sea herring, which will help to ensure the long-term sustainability of the stock. We have increased opportunities for our commercial pollack fishery, following two years of being unable to target the stock, and we have achieved a significant increase in the UK bluefin tuna quota from 63 tonnes to 231 tonnes. We need to continue to focus on working closely with the industry to improve the scientific understanding of fish stocks and consider further improvements to management measures that protect fish stocks, and support good jobs and strong coastal communities for the long term.
At the end of his speech, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked me about Norwegian access. We believe that the UK-Norway bilateral arrangements are fair and balanced, but I appreciate that some individual UK stakeholders may favour changes to the current arrangements. We take that into account in the negotiations each year and keep it under review. It is important to look at these deals in the round, because what is given away may also be swapped in the quota swaps, and therefore there are trade-offs. However, if he and those in the industry in his constituency feel that something is going wrong or that too much has been given away, he must let me know so we can ensure that the quota swaps are working as intended.
We are working at pace towards a new sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU, and are aiming to have legislation in place by the end of 2027. The new agreement will slash red tape for UK seafood exporters and reopen the market for GB shellfish from certain domestic waters, which will make it easier to sell British fish to our largest trading partner and strengthen the economies of our coastal communities.
We are supporting offshore wind development as a key part of achieving the Government’s mission of making Britain a clean energy superpower. The transition to clean power must be fair and planned, and done with, not to, our coastal communities. As part of addressing that, the Government for the first time gave a strategic steer to the Crown Estate on key risks and issues associated with areas of potential future offshore wind development in the English sea. This steer, provided through the marine spatial prioritisation programme, is helping to guide the Crown Estate in identifying suitable areas for future offshore wind that avoid Government priorities such as the fishing industry and environmentally sensitive areas. I hope to continue to work closely with those in the fishing industry to ensure that their voice is heard when we discuss how these things are done.
I am conscious of time, so I will finish by saying that bringing about change is incumbent equally on the fishing industry and on the Government. We want to work together to bring about positive change. We know that fishing faces many challenges, but with close collaboration, openness to innovation and a Government willing to take responsibility rather than make excuses, there are reasons to be optimistic about the future of fishing—and I certainly am.
Mr Carmichael
I do not know if the Education Minister from Ontario that you welcomed is still here, Madam Deputy Speaker, but if not, that is unfortunate. Many of my family emigrated to that province in the early 19th century, so it is nice to see some of them coming back now.
I place on record our appreciation for the engagement from various fishing organisations, in the run-up to today and throughout the year. They include the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, the Shetland Fishermen’s Association, and the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations; Mike Cohen and Felix Davies from the latter have been in the Gallery throughout our debate. If that is not an illustration of their determination and commitment, then I do not know what is.
We have had, I reckon, 13 Back-Bencher contributions, as well as contributions from the three Front Benchers. We have covered the usual range of issues, including tax, quotas and spatial squeeze, but we managed to diversify into how to kill lobsters and the reintroduction of eels. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) took us back to the beginning of time. There was a happy contrast between his speech and many that we have sat through over the years that did not take us back to the dawn of time, but made us feel as though we had been taken back to that time.
The Minister gave an impressive list of the asks that she has been given. It will be daunting to address them all, but I encourage her to see that list as a positive, because it shows that there are people in this industry who want it to develop and grow. This is a great industry that can have a great future if we give people the basic tools to get on and make it great. I thank the Minister for allowing us to ventilate the issues today, and I am sure that we will return to the subject in future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for the fishing industry.
Agricultural Sector: Import Standards
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of import standards on the agricultural sector.
I am delighted to have secured today’s debate. I am very grateful to all colleagues who signed my application, and to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time. I am happy to take interventions during my speech.
This debate is about the imbalance between our high domestic farming standards, which rightly prioritise animal welfare and the environment, and our imports, which often fall short. The Government’s animal welfare strategy, published just before Christmas, shows our ambition to protect all animals from needless cruelty and suffering. It is the biggest and most ambitious animal welfare programme in a generation. It includes measures to phase out the use of cages in farming, move away from using carbon dioxide to gas pigs, and introduce standards for the humane killing of fish. That is real progress and reflects overwhelming public support for safeguarding animal welfare, but when we improve domestic animal welfare standards, we have to be careful that we are not just exporting cruelty overseas.
British and Northern Irish farmers want animals to be treated well and to have good lives, but UK farmers are undermined by low-welfare imports. Many countries that we import animal products from do not share our standards, so those products are cheaper to produce and sell. Our farmers find themselves in an impossible situation, often unable to compete. Sow stalls, for example, are banned in the UK, but 95% of pork imports come from countries where they remain legal. British shoppers buying bacon have no way of knowing whether the pig that produced it spent its pregnancy in a cage so narrow that it could not turn around. It is the same for hens. Battery cages are already banned here. It is brilliant that we are committed to phasing out cages altogether—the Government should be congratulated on that—but long term, as a next step, we need to think about imports, too. The animal welfare strategy states that we will
“protect our most sensitive sectors and uphold animal welfare standards where we consider overseas produce has an unfair advantage.”
The Government recognise the issue. Now is the time to put that intention into practice.
Brexit has resulted in a massive increase in non-EU imports over the last few years. Although most EU imports are from countries with similar standards to the UK, that is often not the case for imports from non-EU countries. Ninety-five per cent of countries with access to our markets have lower welfare standards than we do. In just four years, from 2020 through to 2024, non-EU beef imports increased by 31%, poultry by 60%, pork by 81% and eggs by a staggering 228%. New trade deals for the UK are welcome, but we need them to uphold our high standards on both animal welfare and pesticides on crops. The price of a good deal cannot be access to the UK food market on more favourable terms than those available to our domestic farmers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter forward; he is absolutely right to underline these issues. Does he not agree that the recent EU-Mercosur deal opens the EU market to increased imports of agricultural products such as beef, poultry, sugar and ethanol under tariff-rate quotas? That may well mean sacrificing quality for cash, and may have an unwanted knock-on effect for our farmers. The hon. Gentleman is clearly trying to save and look after our farmers, who are already under immense pressure. On that deal, the UK Government must make representations to the EU regarding food safety.
Sam Carling
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who makes his point well. I will touch on EU regulations later.
Our Labour Government have a stellar record on this issue so far. In negotiations with India, we refused to lower protections on goods such as pork, chicken and eggs. In talks with Korea, we have secured new commitments on animal welfare, stronger than any it has signed up to in any previous trade agreement. The next step is to equalise all our import standards, rather than just the standards for new agreements. We cannot go back to full alignment with the EU, either. The EU still allows sow stalls, foie gras and fur farming, all of which fall short of our standards. Switzerland successfully negotiated an animal welfare carve-out in its sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the Government are seeking similar exemptions for animal welfare in the UK-EU negotiations. That would ensure we retained the ability to restrict imports that do not meet British welfare standards.
Let me address any arguments about the impact on food prices that changes could have. Over the past few years, food inflation has hit households across the country, and we all want prices to be more affordable, but I think we can all agree that that should not come at the expense of high standards. In the long run, undercutting our farmers will lessen our food security, leaving us more dependent on less reliable markets overseas, and as the Government have repeatedly said, food security is national security. That means that we must defend our farmers from a flood of low-quality imports.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentions food imports and illegal imports. Next month will be the 25th anniversary of the devastating foot and mouth outbreak. Nowhere knows better than my Carlisle and north Cumbria constituency just what happens when foot and mouth takes hold. Does my hon. Friend agree that illegal meat imports heighten the risk of animal diseases such as foot and mouth, and that we need a co-ordinated strategy that involves the Government, local authorities and local port authorities to ensure that we counter such biosecurity risks?
Sam Carling
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the biosecurity aspect of this issue. My farmers, too, have been significantly impacted by foot and mouth disease in the past, and I know how important an issue that is. She puts her point on the record.
I was talking about potential arguments around food prices. Research from Animal Policy International shows that were we to act on this issue, the cost to consumers would actually be very small. Banning battery cage egg imports, for example, would cost just 2p to 4p per person per year. Since all major supermarkets have already committed to phasing out caged eggs, most consumers would feel zero impact, with battery cage imports going to independent retailers and food service as it stands. The boost to domestic farmers, by contrast, would be huge. UK egg farmers could gain up to £15 million annually if battery cage imports were banned. There would also be price stabilisation if we removed imports that undercut UK eggs by up to 20p per dozen. That does not cost the Exchequer; it would be quite a significant benefit to the Exchequer.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I was at Noble Foods last week, as part of the National Farmers Union’s food and farming fellowship programme. The issue, it was explained, is not just lower welfare standards. We need to ensure that eggs are safe. My hon. Friend is too young to remember it, but I remember the salmonella outbreak when I was a teenager. We have to be clear that food safety is as important for imported goods as it is for home-grown produce.
Sam Carling
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I remember doing that scheme myself last year. It was incredibly valuable, and I encourage other colleagues to do it. The NFU is doing a brilliant job. Polls show that consumers do not want low-welfare imports either; nine in 10 people support banning them. That may be unsurprising—we are a nation of animal lovers, after all—but that level of cross-societal support on an issue is rare and should be celebrated.
Some 81% of my constituency of North West Cambridgeshire is agricultural land, which means I spend a lot of time talking to farmers about what they need to thrive, and this issue comes up all the time. Members do not have to take my word on that; they can take the words of Lloyd and Mat, two farmers I know from Lodes End farm in Ramsey in my constituency:
“We grow high quality produce, to high standards. Sometimes, for little and often no profit. To see imported produce coming into our country that doesn’t meet the same standards that we have to achieve seems wrong. We want a level playing field and to feel that we are valued. So much effort, time, passion and pride goes into everything we grow on the farm. We not only grow quality produce but also do this while improving habitats for wildlife and reducing our environmental impact. Farmers do so much more than just produce the food we eat—we are an integral part of the communities we are proud to call home. We need to back British farming.”
Who could disagree with Lloyd and Mat on that? It is certainly not easy to be a farmer. Long, difficult work is set against razor-thin profit margins, unpredictable weather variability made worse by climate change, and distinct unfairness in the supply chain.
So what is the ask here? If we are doing so well as a Government on new trade deals, what change am I advocating for? We need legislative change to tackle the flaws in previous trade deals, which are damaging farmers like Lloyd and Mat. I am glad that the Government are backing farmers, and are allocating a record £11.8 billion to sustainable farming and food production over the course of this Parliament, but tackling the unfairness of low-welfare imports would make a real difference to farmers in my constituency and across the country. Indeed, just on Tuesday, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee took evidence on how important a fair approach on imports is to farm profitability.
This is not just about welfare standards; it is about environmental standards, too. Crops that have been treated with damaging pesticides are being sold in the UK, despite those pesticides being banned here. That is not good news for the environment. Imidacloprid— I hope I pronounced that correctly—a neonicotinoid highly toxic to bees, has been banned in the UK since 2018, yet it has been found in the UK on potatoes, peas and grapes imported from several countries.
As with lower-welfare imports, the UK will face pressure to weaken our domestic pesticide standards to secure new trade deals. Pesticide Action Network has highlighted potential pitfalls of the India trade deal, particularly as India allows the use of 62% more pesticides that are classed as highly hazardous than the UK. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that is being kept under review.
We know what happens when we compromise our standards for trade; I am afraid the Conservatives did it often. The previous Government’s flawed Australia agreement increased sheepmeat imports by 162%, despite many Australian lambs being subjected to live skin cuttings without anaesthetic in a painful process known as mulesing, which was banned in the UK by the previous Labour Government. Our sheep farmers certainly did not thank the Conservatives for the impact that trade deal had, and is still having, on their livelihoods.
With the US reportedly demanding that the UK adopt lower standards in trade talks, I am glad that we have been clear in response that our food standards are a red line, and that we have committed to high food, animal welfare and environmental standards in any deal. That is exactly the approach we need, but we must be consistent about it. Change has support across the board, notably from the NFU and animal welfare bodies like Animal Policy International, both of which I thank for their ongoing work in this area. It also has strong support across the political divide, with massive majorities of Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat voters supporting banning imports of animal products produced by farming methods that are banned in the UK.
What does change look like in practice? All campaigners and the public want is consistency—to ensure that all agricultural products sold in the UK, whether domestic or imported, adhere to British welfare and quality standards. If it is not good enough to be produced in Britain, it should not be sold here, either. Legally, there is precedent in several areas. Slaughter standards are consistent; certification is required to ensure that imports are slaughtered to standards that are at least equivalent to UK standards. Shark fin imports and exports are completely banned; the Ivory Act 2018 bans the import of ivory products; and we ban the import and sale of cat and dog fur. There are numerous precedents that can be applied here, and it makes sense to do so across the board.
World Trade Organisation case law says that the UK can apply its animal welfare standards to imports, and the UK Trade and Agriculture Commission has confirmed that the UK’s free trade agreements do not prevent us from implementing stricter import regulations based on welfare standards. Will the Minister consider legislation to require imported animal products to meet British welfare standards, as is already the case for slaughter standards?
Aligning imports with our domestic standards is backed by farmers and consumers, backed across the political spectrum, and backed by rural, environmental and animal welfare organisations. We have strong legislative precedent, and we have legal clarity. We know that the impact on prices would be negligible, and that our economy would benefit. We would have confidence in the welfare of our animal products, and in the quality of fruit and vegetables on shop shelves. These are big, tangible benefits. Taking action would do so much for Lloyd and Mat in my constituency, and for thousands of others like them across Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This Government have shown promising signs so far. Let us build on that and take the next crucial step.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I will start by setting the scene to explain why we import so much food and why we are not self-sufficient.
We are never going to be self-sufficient in food—certainly not in bananas or avocados, but not in some meat sectors either. Although we produce very large quantities of lamb and beef, we are only 58% self-sufficient in pork; I think the figure is a little higher in poultry. If we were 100% self-sufficient in pork, we would have to export so much more to achieve a carcase balance and achieve value for the farmer from the pig that it would be quite a challenge. As a great nation of bacon butty lovers, we eat a lot of bacon, to the extent that we have to import a certain amount. We are therefore exporting other cuts of a pig, such as belly pork to Europe and fifth quarter to China. That all adds value and achieves a better price for our hard-working farmers.
It is important to point out that the sanitary and phytosanitary agreements that we have been talking about do not cover some of the welfare issues that we have discussed, which are separate. The challenge of those agreements, as our trade negotiators are very aware, is that a country can fall foul of World Trade Organisation rules by telling another country what welfare standards it expects it to employ, so it can find itself in difficulties. In making any trade agreements with other countries, we need to be conscious that we should allow market access only where we are satisfied that welfare standards have been met.
At the moment, when it comes to EU-UK import-export relations and livestock and meat, we are at a relatively similar welfare standard. I mean no criticism of the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling)—it is all quite technical—but sow stalls are not the same as farrowing crates. The sow stall ban in 1999 was a challenge because the EU did not implement it immediately, and that caused us a lot of problems. Farrowing crates are a topic of conversation at the moment. They are part of the animal welfare strategy that the Government have published, and the industry has been working very closely on them for a number of years. About 60,000 traditional farrowing crates are in place in the UK. To convert to a free farrowing system would require planning permission; the crates cannot just be pulled out and replaced. It will be a huge challenge.
I am sure that the Minister is aware that the issue with the sow stall ban in 1999 was that there was not a sufficient transition period. I hesitate to say this, but I think she is experienced enough to have been here at the time. [Interruption.] Yes, she was here at the time. We lost 50% of the British pig industry. That did not mean that we ate 50% less pork; it meant that we imported a load more from abroad.
Whatever happens and whatever measures are taken on pigs, poultry or anything else, it is really important that we do not reduce our domestic food production, lower our food security, reduce British jobs in farming and replace them with jobs abroad and meat produced abroad, often to standards that we would not like. That will be a key issue as the Government take forward their animal welfare strategy. They must ensure that we do not diverge from or move too far ahead of European Union producers, because we are reliant on a huge amount of meat from the European Union. If we put greater production costs on our farmers, we will disadvantage them and naturally they will be displaced. It is a really important issue.
The hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire was right to raise the US. The US still has sow stalls, which were banned in this country 27 years ago. The US does not have ambitious targets to reduce antibiotics, as we do. The UK pig industry has reduced antibiotics by 69% since 2015, so we have been making real progress without the intervention of Government, and there is a recognition that we need to use fewer antibiotics. The issue is that it adds costs and lowers production levels because producers are not able to use outdated methods, particularly sow stalls. That puts us at a disadvantage with some trading partners.
In my previous life, before being elected to this place, I was closely involved with the negotiations on the Canada deal. That was a similar challenge: Canada has methods that we would not accept in certain areas. In the Australia deal, pigs were not included at all because we felt that the welfare standards were not sufficiently high enough for us to import them. The Minister is definitely aware of that. It is important that we all work together to ensure that in any moves we make on trade and food imports, we are always mindful of protecting the great British farmer.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
In Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, agriculture is a key part of our local economy and our identity. The Isle of Axholme alone consists of 50,000 acres and is characterised by a mix of intensive agricultural land, including significant arable land, and a historical, unique system of open-field strip farming, particularly around parishes such as Haxey and Epworth. One farmer in Ealand categorically assures me that we have the best soil for growing the tastiest spuds in the world—so for the Burns night festivities this weekend, Madam Deputy Speaker, you know where to shop for neeps and tatties.
No one takes up life as a farmer because they want an easy time. Farming is hard. Farmers pour their heart and soul into their land; I know that from my wife’s family. I see it from my window at home: they are up before the break of dawn and out after the owls have emerged. My farmers meet the rules—they pay for assurance, inspections and traceability—but when the time comes to sell their crops, their meat and their products, they find that they are not on a level playing field. They are undercut by imports produced to lower standards at a lower cost. That is just not right.
Over the past year or so, I have spent a significant amount of time understanding the issue. I have been out with farmers in my constituency. I have visited farms across Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, have attended roundtables with local farmers and have held surgeries. I have attended farmers’ shows, markets and fairs and have hosted several here in Westminster. I hope soon to meet representatives of Epworth and District young farmers club, which is raising money for the Yorkshire air ambulance and the Lindsey Lodge hospice. In the autumn, I will attend the first ever Isle country show. I have spent time listening directly to the concerns that farmers have raised. Today, I want to feed back clearly to the Minister what they are telling me and what we can do to support them. I will give some examples that they have shared with me.
Let us start with grain. Grain merchants can import grain that is not Red Tractor-assured. Too often, it arrives without the paperwork that we would expect for something that goes into our food chain. UK grain is grown to higher standards. That really matters, but our grain also costs more to produce, so when imports come in cheaper it drives prices below UK production costs. When UK-assured grain is then bulked out with imported grain, it makes a mockery of the premium that our farmers have earned through the quality of their production.
We can grow excellent potatoes in this country, yet we are seeing vast quantities being imported from as far as Portugal, simply to shave costs. That is madness when we factor in the distance, the carbon and the message that it sends to domestic producers who are doing the right thing day in, day out. It is the same story with beef. When we import beef produced to lower welfare standards at a scale that drives down unit costs, we are effectively punishing British farmers for maintaining higher welfare standards and traceability.
There are double standards on crop protection. Oilseed rape became far harder to grow successfully here after key plant protection products were banned, leaving growers exposed to pests such as cabbage stem flea beetles, yet imported crops can be treated with products that our farmers are not allowed to use. That is not a level playing field; it is a tilted one. I will keep repeating that point.
Finally, I turn to sugar. We have sugar beet growers close to processing plants in this country who sustain jobs and local supply chains, yet sugar cane can be imported from countries in which it has been treated with chemicals that are banned here, and then be processed in the UK. I am told that it then ends up on our supermarket shelves with packaging covered in a Union flag that implies British provenance.
I call on the Government to do three things for our farming community; I would love the Minister to respond if she can. We need stronger equivalence in our import standards: if a product cannot be produced here under the rules, it should not be able to undercut our farmers on our shelves. We need robust enforcement and paperwork checks at the border, because standards on paper are meaningless without compliance in practice. We need honest, clear labelling that protects British trademarks and gives consumers the information they need, not marketing that blurs the origin or standards of what they are buying.
UK farmers are frequently inspected, licensed and held to higher welfare and environmental rules. That approach delivers food that is safe, traceable and trusted. The least we can do is ensure that our trade and import regime rewards their efforts rather than undermining them. Let us help our farmers to plough their fields successfully in future by levelling the playing field for them right now.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Madam Dirprwy Lefarydd. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; as most hon. Members know, I am a dairy and sheep farmer from west Wales. I am very aware of the volatility of markets and its effect on our sector. Sheep and beef prices have been steady for the past year or so, but dairy has absolutely crashed since August or September: it is down by between 9p and 12p a litre, which is about 25% to 30% of income, with inputs remaining exactly the same. That is unsustainable.
The welfare standards to which we adhere when producing food here is exemplary, and standards continue to rise. However, while setting even higher standards at home, we allow the import of products produced in countries with lower standards. Animal welfare strategies, such as the one introduced for England last month, highlight the link between welfare standards and food security. The public agree that imported food must be of a standard equal to home-produced food, but that has to be mirrored in the trade agreements that are negotiated. Our farming community cannot be traded off, as has happened in the American deal. The farming community deserves no less than equality in standards, and my Caerfyrddin farmers certainly deserve no less.
Interestingly, the Countryside Alliance acquired some figures through a freedom of information request to see how many local authorities and Government Departments procured UK and local food, and whether those organisations had a policy to buy local food. Only one Department, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, had a policy, and only one other Department, the Department of Health and Social Care, could say how much local food it procured. Of the 215 local authorities, only 26 could provide information on the amount of UK or local food they procured. That really is not good enough. We produce only 60% of what we consume. If we support locally produced food, we will import less.
Locally in Caerfyrddin, Carmarthenshire county council is working hard to ensure that we put locally produced food on the public plate. That work is being done on a council-owned farm, in partnership with Social Farms and Gardens, Castell Howell Foods, Hywel Dda university health board and others, to give top-quality vegetables to our children and elderly. If we can do it in Carmarthenshire, surely more councils can support our local agricultural community in that way. We all need and deserve sustainably produced, fresh, nutritionally dense food.
We are all aware that we import about 40% of the food that we consume, but none of this food is subject to minimal animal welfare or environmental production standards. Input standards are almost entirely related to product safety and the threat to human health and the environment, rather than to how they are produced. Establishing animal welfare and environmental core standards will ensure that the food we eat, whether it is produced at home or abroad, meets the high expectations of British consumers. With core standards implemented alongside balanced and commercially meaningful trade deals, not only can international trade drive economic growth, but it can help our farmers to become sustainable, resilient and supported businesses. Diolch.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) for securing this vital debate and for his thoughtful speech, and I extend that to other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, too. It is an important opportunity for us to consider an issue that sits at the intersection of the food we eat, trade, animal welfare and the sustainability of our rural economy.
The UK’s post-Brexit free trade agreements have rightly opened up new opportunities for British exporters, but they have also raised concerns about how imports are produced, particularly as we look to increase our welfare ambitions. By cutting tariffs on agricultural products from partner countries, those deals can unintentionally allow products to enter the UK that are produced to far lower animal welfare or environmental standards than those expected of our farmers. These are not minor issues; they go to the heart of how we support our brilliant domestic producers and how we maintain public confidence in the food we eat.
Practices that are banned or tightly regulated in the UK—conventional battery cages for hens, sow stalls, tail docking of pigs, and certain pesticides—remain permitted elsewhere, and those products inevitably end up on our supermarket shelves. Without clear protections, imports produced in that way risk undercutting our farmers, and they undermine the principle that high welfare production should be the norm, not just for British producers.
The Trade and Agriculture Commission, which advises the Government on trade deals, has highlighted those differences and warned that they have both ethical and economic consequences. British farmers investing in high-welfare sustainable production should not be left competing on an uneven playing field against imports produced more cheaply by cutting corners. That applies to raw materials as well as finished products.
On Tuesday, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that I sit on heard from the formidable Baroness Batters about her profitability review. She mentioned a comment made by Sir Liam Fox, who, as Trade Secretary, argued that the UK should shift post Brexit to importing cheaply produced raw materials and then add value to them under the Union flag. I agree with Baroness Batters that we should reject that reductive view of the value of the excellent raw materials that our British farmers produce. We should be proud of and protect them.
Many organisations, including the National Farmers Union and the National Pig Association, have called for core standards for imported agrifood products. These standards would ensure that all food sold in the UK, whether domestic or imported, meets the welfare, environmental and production standards expected by the British public. It is entirely reasonable for consumers to expect that pork, beef, eggs or poultry produced abroad meet very similar, or the same, requirements as those produced here.
Two other realities that we have to confront in this debate and which the all-party parliamentary group on UK food security, which I chair, has discussed at length are the cost of food and keeping our shelves stocked. As someone who represents a constituency with pockets of deep deprivation, including neighbourhoods that are among the 5% most deprived in the country, I am concerned that a rapid move to equalise all import standards could have a knock-on effect on food prices, which, as I am sure hon. Members right across the House will be aware, have been very high, particularly over the last five years. Equally, we do not want to see a repeat of the empty shelves that we all remember from the pandemic, which brought home the fragility of just-in-time food supply chains when unexpected disruption hits. As my hon. Friend said, these issues are interlinked, and the more we undermine our domestic supply, the more prices will go up and the more reliant we will become on overseas imports.
The Government have recognised these varied concerns. In the trade strategy published last June, it was clear that the Government will uphold high animal welfare standards and will not lower food standards to accommodate imports. It explicitly acknowledged practices that are not allowed domestically, such as sow stalls and battery cages, and committed to assessing whether those imports have an unfair advantage. I hope it will find that they do.
Where necessary, powers such as quotas, exclusions and safeguards will be used to protect domestic sectors that are most at risk. That approach is welcome. It strikes a balance between maintaining the benefits of free trade and ensuring that British farmers are not undermined. But as we have seen in previous trade deals, including in discussions with the United States, it is vital that those protections are clear, enforceable and applied consistently. Without them, we risk creating a market where the lowest welfare products set the price and not the highest standards.
Equally important is transparency for consumers. Recent polling by Opinium for Humane World for Animals shows that the British public often misunderstand what products labelled as, for example, “welfare assured” or that carry the Red Tractor logo actually guarantee. For example, 65% of people incorrectly believe that “welfare assured” prohibits keeping pigs and chickens in cages and 67% believe it prohibits the use of CO2 for slaughter. If consumers discovered that labelling does not match the reality they think it does, nearly half would feel misled, angry or disappointed.
Mandatory labelling is vital. It will protect consumers, support domestic producers and ensure that imported products adhere to the same high standards—or at least that we can see if they do not. Public support for stronger labelling measures is overwhelming, with 77% backing a new animal welfare labelling law and three quarters supporting stricter enforcement by trading standards and the Advertising Standards Authority to prevent misleading claims.
I acknowledge that getting labelling right will require many tricky balances, and that there is only so much space on a packet. I do not downplay those issues, but by combining robust import standards with transparent labelling, the Government could ensure that trade works for farmers, for animals and for consumers alike, reinforcing confidence in the British food system while maintaining fairness and ethical standards.
Charlie Dewhirst
The hon. Member highlights an important point about the challenges of potential welfare labelling. If imports are not labelled in the same way, as they probably would not be, British producers could be put at a disadvantage when it comes to what a consumer might think about how something has been produced. We must be conscious of that.
Josh Newbury
The hon. Member is absolutely right that we need to be careful how labelling will affect imported goods and therefore what the consumer sees in the supermarket. My take is that, if we educate consumers on the labelling for our standards and, if those labels are absent, what the implications might be for imported products, we can better inform them and protect our domestic producers. That will inevitably have to go along- side any improved labelling for our products.
Sam Carling
Does my hon. Friend agree that if we can unify our import standards with our domestic standards, that problem disappears in many ways? The standards will be the same and therefore we will not have labelling that might undermine our farmers.
Josh Newbury
I agree with my hon. Friend, but I also point out that there will inevitably be some producers who want to produce to higher standards than the minimum, particularly in this country. They should be fairly recognised and rewarded for that, so there will always be the need for a clear and transparent labelling system. Getting that right will be tricky, but it is important that farmers who are producing to higher standards get fair recompense for that.
I hope the Minister can update the House on where work on labelling has got to, so that consumers can make informed choices for themselves and their families. Ultimately, this issue is about more than import and export figures on a screen; it is about fairness for our farmers, transparency for consumers, and the sustainability of our whole food system. As this House debates the impact of import standards, I urge the Government to continue their firm commitment to core standards and to ensure that free trade agreements work for farmers, for consumers and for British values alike.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
I thank the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) for leading this important debate.
The UK prides itself on having some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, and I welcomed last month’s animal welfare strategy, which promises to go further still. I particularly welcome the planned ban on farrowing crates for sows and cages for hens—crucial steps forward in our animal protection in this country—and have called on the Government to set out clear timescales for their delivery and support for farmers during the transition.
The animal welfare strategy reflects years of campaigning by animal protection organisations and growing public demand for change, and marks a significant step forward, with real commitments on animal welfare standards—but there are some glaring gaps. What is illegal to produce here because it is too cruel remains legal to import and sell. That is incoherent, undermines public confidence and leaves higher-welfare British farmers facing unfair competition. The principle should be straightforward: if a practice is too cruel for food produced in Britain, it should be too cruel for food imported into Britain.
Yet reality tells a different story. Some 97% of our pork imports come from countries where sow stalls are still legal, despite the practice having been illegal here for 25 years. Battery cages may be banned here but they remain widespread elsewhere, and imports of eggs have increased more than twelvefold in the last year alone. Since the Australia trade deal was signed, lamb imports have risen by over 160%, despite cruel practices such as mulesing—illegal here—remaining common there.
This is not a niche concern. According to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Compassion in World Farming, 95% of countries with UK market access have lower animal welfare standards than the UK. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs data shows that non-EU imports of eggs have more than tripled since 2020, poultry imports have risen by 60%, and pork by over 80%. In trade discussions with the United States Administration, Ministers focused on food safety and sanitary standards, but that focus risks leaving a huge loophole for imports produced in ways that would be illegal here, widening the welfare gap instead of closing it. While the UK will rightly maintain its ban on hormone-treated beef and chlorine-washed chicken coming from the US, it is
“looking to compromise in other areas”.
Higher-welfare British farmers are paying the price. The NFU has been clear: farmers want trade deals, but not at the expense of being undercut by food produced to standards that would be illegal on their own farms. Over 90% of British livestock farmers support restricting low-welfare imports, and the public agree: more than four in five people support banning imports produced using methods outlawed here. We need a statutory requirement that animal products sold in the UK, whether produced here or imported, meet British welfare standards. We also need mandatory welfare labelling that applies equally to imports. The animal welfare strategy’s consultation commitments on that do not go far enough.
In conclusion, I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how the Government intend to close this loophole and ensure that our individual trade deals and overall policy fully reflect the ambition that is rightly included in the animal welfare strategy. The standards of our higher-welfare British farmers at home should not be undermined by lower welfare standards abroad. We should not be importing cruelty, and our farmers deserve a level playing field.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, isn’t it wonderful to get to Thursday and find that business has run fast, so there is no time limit on speeches and some time to go? Rejoice! [Interruption.] I shall rejoice; whether others do is a different matter.
This has been an excellent debate, and I particularly enjoyed the speech from the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies). I went through her constituency last summer on the way to go and see my hon. Friend the Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell). Next time, I shall stop off for a cuppa and see her in action. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), I married a woman from a family of farmers, so I share his experience and interest in these issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) gave an excellent speech to open the debate, but I want to focus my remarks on the farming industry and the brilliant farmers in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Like my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), I am on the National Farmers’ Union fellowship scheme this year. I am also the vice-chair of the international trade and investment all-party parliamentary group.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as you have heard me say before, Newcastle-under-Lyme is an age-old market town in north Staffordshire, surrounded by the green, rolling hills for which England—and Wales, of course—is known and of which we are all proud. I promised every single farmer I met in the months and years before the general election, and in the time since, that I will do whatever I can to support farmers in Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire and across our country. That means defending our standards every single day. That is why this debate is important, so I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire for securing it.
That is also why I am pleased that we got to the right place on agricultural property relief and the inheritance tax threshold for farmers and farming families. There has been much commentary on this issue and much genuine concern felt by farmers in my constituency and up and down the United Kingdom. A number of us raised it loudly, repeatedly and, thankfully, effectively. I thank the NFU and all the farmers in my patch who spoke out, and I am grateful to colleagues in government for ensuring we are now in the right place. It is also why I set up my farmers’ forum soon after the general election, because after years of being let down and forgotten, I wanted my farmers back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme to get the hearing they deserve, the support they need and the opportunities to thrive, to keep us fed and to keep going.
There is so much in our United Kingdom that we should be proud of, and Britain’s farmers are just one example. I feel sure that our farmers in Staffordshire, and particularly those in Newcastle-under-Lyme, are leading the way. They are the backbone of our food system. They tend to our land, they produce the clear majority of what ends up on our dinner tables, and they allow us all to feel a sense of pride. Their contribution underpins our food security and strengthens rural economies.
The Speeds at Betley Court farm are responsible for a brilliant fireworks display in November each year, and the Betley show each August, and all colleagues—including you, Madam Deputy Speaker—would be welcome to join the festivities this year. At the Kennerley’s Plum Tree Park farm, grass-fed lamb boxes are supplied seasonally, and there is a dog playground; they have diversified their offer to consumers, their neighbours and our community, and helped to put our part of the world on the map. I hope the Minister will come to see those success stories in Newcastle-under-Lyme for herself before too long.
I am firmly of the view that we should always buy British, as that is smart and necessary for our farmers and for the future of British farming. It is also good for our pubs, shops and restaurants, and I hope that Front-Bench colleagues—not this Minister as there is plenty for her to do, but others—will do what the previous Conservative Government did not do: get a hold of the challenges facing the hospitality sector in Newcastle-under-Lyme and across the nation, and ensure that support for our town centres and local businesses is delivered speedily.
As I make that call to support those businesses, which are in turn supported by our farmers and local farming sector, I also think about brilliant local businesses that stand with our farmers every day. Plant and Wilton in Newcastle-under-Lyme town centre is a wonderful family butchers, which of course gets meat from farms both locally and up and down the kingdom. Pubs like the Swan in Betley and the Albert in town are moments away from farms that are tended to by brilliant farmers, some of whom, I suspect, enjoy a pint or two from time to time.
At the Butchers Arms in Audley, Mark the landlord is known for his excellent cooking prowess—again using British food from British farms, many of which are located in Staffordshire. It is similar at the Archer in Wolstanton. When we think about the standards required for the meat and other food that we eat in the pubs I have referred to, and that people enjoy up and down the country, it is important that we make the case for the highest and strongest British standards every step of the way.
Lee Pitcher
When we talk about food standards, we are also talking about the kind and quality of food that we get in our public services. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as contracts for Government services fade out, one of the best things we can do is to ensure that, going forward, at least 50% of food provided in those services is sourced locally?
Adam Jogee
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Royal Stoke University hospital, which is across the road from my constituency border but is staffed by and serves the vast majority of my constituents, is ensuring that its patients and workers enjoy the highest standards and the best of British food. I feel sure that the Minister will agree that that is an excellent point when she sums up the debate.
Constantly thinking about the impact and benefits of the highest British standards leads me to highlight how important it is to remember that the issues facing the agriculture sector and British farmers—who work day in, day out to deliver those highest standards—did not start in July 2024. The price of milk, trade deals that undercut our farmers and access to labour are just some of the long-standing challenges that, as the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin pointed out, farmers like her, and many in Newcastle-under-Lyme who are working to the highest of British standards, have been forced to endure for far too long.
Across the last three years of the previous Government there was a £358 million underspend in the agricultural budget. I hope the Minister will confirm that under this Labour Government, farmers will always receive the support they need not just to maintain the highest of British standards, but to ensure that food production is more sustainable and profitable. While the Conservatives sold out and undercut farmers in trade deals—we must not forget that—I urge my colleagues in the Government to continue with their principled approach. As my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme pointed out, we must always back British standards, we must always back British food and we should never bargain either away. We must never sign trade deals that leave our farmers, including those in Newcastle-under-Lyme, exposed or allow lower quality imports to undercut what British producers deliver day in, day out and to the best of standards.
There is big and serious export potential for British food. I want people from across the world to buy British, to eat British and to benefit from the highest of British standards. I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the Commonwealth. I know that the Minister and the Secretary of State are planning targeted overseas missions, so I urge them and other colleagues to look at the Commonwealth, with which we already have age-hold historical ties, as the default partner of choice. As we look to ensure that we export British goods that have been produced to the highest of standards, we will benefit greatly from that partnership.
I suggest that the Minister speaks to colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade to ensure that all our trade envoys are banging the drum for British food, because we know that it is produced to the highest of standards—standards that the rest of the world can only look to for inspiration. While Scottish salmon is the kingdom’s leading food export, I hope that the Minister will also do whatever she can to help me to increase exports of Staffordshire oatcakes, because the world deserves nothing less.
To put it simply, we must protect our farmers, uphold our standards, and back British food at home and abroad. Notwithstanding the challenges over agricultural property relief, I welcome the steps being taken by the Government to give British farmers the tools, investment and confidence that they need to thrive. We are creating a new farming and food partnership board, chaired by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, that will bring together farmers, processors, retailers and the Government, so that those working on our land have a real voice in how policy is made to ensure that we always maintain the highest of British standards.
We rely on trade to complement what we grow here, to give families year-round choice, to help stabilise prices, to protect our supply chains when global shocks hit and—I know the Minister will agree—to ensure that the highest of British standards are maintained and supported. We will not always get everything right and nor will we always make everyone happy, but we do need to listen to our farmers and our food producers. They are the ones flying the flag for the highest of standards, so we need to ensure that they are not undercut when food with lower standards comes from elsewhere. My message to farmers and producers in Newcastle-under-Lyme is that this Government hear them loud and clear, and they have our full support.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) on securing this important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding time for the debate to proceed.
The UK agricultural sector experienced an enormous shift on leaving the European Union. There was simply no plan in place for farming and international trade, and the post-Brexit era has seen seven DEFRA Secretaries of State and five Prime Ministers. As Baroness Batters said in her recent farming profitability review, this has led to a complete lack of constant political direction at a time when farming needed it the most. Nothing has done more to increase the cost of farming and to reduce farm incomes than the Conservative’s botched Brexit, and it has harmed and undermined protections for animal welfare and the environment.
The Conservative Government did not stop there. In addition, they set a dangerous precedent for future trade agreements in how they went about their negotiations. Stripping away parliamentary scrutiny and forcing terrible deals through has given unfair advantage to imports from countries with much poorer standards, which would fail to meet the high-quality British production standards. The Liberal Democrats demand that every new trade deal should be subject to proper scrutiny, but this Government’s refusal to do so in their latest trade agreement with President Trump—despite calling for proper oversight while in opposition—is a reminder that Parliament has not yet taken back control.
I am proud to come from a farming background. My family has farmed in and around Somerset for more than 250 years, and my brother continues the family business. Like all farmers, he takes great pride in what he does. Despite much turbulence in the industry, farmers work hard to provide the nation with food for our tables. In large part, they remain resilient to most market shocks, but bad trade deals have allowed butter and cheese imports from Australia, New Zealand and the United States to start to land on our shores in increasing volumes. These products are flooding our domestic markets at the expense of British farmers, yet they are under no obligation to have point of origin labelling. That has inevitably led to UK milk buyers slashing farm gate milk prices to a level that is simply unacceptable, and which is unsustainable.
I recently met Rich Clothier MBE, the managing director of family-run Wyke Farms near Bruton. I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will join me in congratulating Rich on recently being appointed an MBE for services to sustainable agriculture and food production in the King’s new year’s honours list. Wyke Farms is one of the UK’s largest independent cheese producers. It has been crafting award-winning cheddar and butter from Somerset for over 160 years, and under Rich’s guidance it now exports products to more than 160 countries.
Rich recently told me:
“People want to eat food produced to British standards of welfare…environmental and food safety…But currently they have no way of knowing…and being able to make that choice.”
That is what is important: to ensure that our consumers know what they are buying and are able to make that choice. However, because of Brexit, the Government are forced into agreeing poor trade deals that continue to undermine British farmers and the food that they produce. Over the past few months, milk prices have been in freefall, leaving many dairy farmers on a financial cliff edge. Milk prices are currently well below the cost of production; we have seen thousands of litres of milk being thrown down the drain, and I fear that there will be much more to come over the next few months if we do not do something about it.
Given the absence of point of origin labelling in our trade policy, products are offered to customers without appropriate labelling, allowing them to masquerade as UK-produced. That is why I introduced the Dairy Farming and Dairy Products Bill, which would force the Government to ensure that any trade deals do not negatively impact on British dairy farmers.
Liberal Democrats are keen to ensure that farmers and growers receive fair treatment in the supply chain, as existing protections are no longer sufficient to tackle unfair practices by large buyers. We want to reform and strengthen the Groceries Code Adjudicator, merging it with the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator and giving it greater powers and resources. What is required is a sensible trade policy that ensures British consumers are protected from imported food produced at lower standards—standards at which it would be illegal for British farmers to operate.
Liberal Democrats are champions of free trade; we know the benefits that it brings to British farmers and businesses. But we also know that regulatory alignment is key. We cannot allow British farmers to be undercut by cheaper imports. However, Canada will soon ratify UK membership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership—which, worryingly, could open the doors to products from farming systems that are banned here and further undermine British farming.
Battery cages have rightly been banned in the UK since 2012, but the CPTPP could allow Mexican farmers who use battery cages to export a large number of eggs to the UK. Those eggs will be produced in a manner that would simply be illegal here. This would force farms such as Silverthorne Farm near Milborne Port, which has 15,000 hens that are all free to roam over its 32 acres, to compete with lower standard importers that operate at a fraction of the cost.
The Government have recently released their animal welfare strategy after promising the largest increase in standards in a generation. While the Liberal Democrats have long called for, and support, many of the measures that the Government have announced, the strategy lacks a commitment to protecting UK food security and farmers through trade policy. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has stated that it will consider whether overseas producers have an “unfair advantage”; unfortunately, it is clear that the answer is yes, they do. It is worth recalling that one former Environment Minister slammed the UK-Australia deal, saying that the UK
“gave away far too much for far too little”,
and described it as “not very good” for British farmers. I am glad that the Government are prepared to use the “full range of powers” at their disposal to protect the most sensitive sectors, as there is little doubt that this is needed. The Government must urgently renegotiate the Australia and New Zealand trade deals, so that we can uphold high standards on food safety, animal welfare, health and the environment. If these standards cannot be met, we should withdraw from such deals.
The Liberal Democrats are clear that a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU is an absolute priority, so that we can cut red tape, reduce checks, and lower costs for exporters. We have called for an agreement to be delivered as soon as possible. It should be modelled on the EU-Swiss veterinary deal, and should guarantee enhanced access to the single market, with minimal checks. We also want a bespoke UK-EU customs union, so that we can rebuild our economy and support British producers, and the tariff-free movement of goods between EU member states, in order to strengthen domestic economic growth. A far more ambitious, free and fair trade deal with Europe is an absolute necessity. It would give the Government some of the financial scope that they need to keep a few more of their promises to improve our vital public services. However, any upcoming agreement poses some risk to British farmers, as any agreement could limit the UK’s ability to apply our own standards for imports. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for us to replicate the Swiss model, which is based on mutual recognition of animal health measures.
The Conservatives sold British farmers down the river in their desperation to agree trade deals by arbitrary deadlines, but there is now an opportunity to properly protect British welfare standards in all future deals. That must be at the forefront of this Government’s mind in all future negotiations, as it is critical for UK farming, food security and national security.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
I start by thanking the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) for securing this debate and opening it so excellently. It has offered Members from across the House the opportunity to discuss an issue that is central to our national interests and our values. The speeches we have heard today reflect a deep commitment across this House to our farmers, our food standards, animal welfare, the environment, and the integrity of British agriculture.
We have heard a range of contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst)—to whom I pay tribute for his expertise on the pig industry, and whom I thank for his work on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee—talked about the complexities of the global trade in meat, the importance of food security, and a sensible transition on husbandry regulations. He also touched on inappropriate antibiotic use, which I will speak about in due course. The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) talked about the importance of the grain and sugar sectors in his part of the world, and of transparency in labelling. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) and to her family on the farm. It is brilliant that she brings that expertise to the House of Commons, and I thank her for all she does. She talked about welfare standards, food security, and the importance of local food procurement.
The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), whom I also thank for his excellent work on the EFRA Committee, talked about the importance of food security and, again, transparency in food labelling. The hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), who is a proud advocate for high animal welfare standards, talked about the important bans that we uphold on hormone-treated beef and chlorine-washed poultry; I will touch on those in due course. Finally, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) spoke about the importance of both buying and exporting British. I thank him for his comments.
Standards are not abstract trade matters; they are questions of fairness, food security and moral duty. British farmers are rightly proud of producing food to some of the highest animal welfare, environmental and safety standards in the world. They do so not only to comply with the law, but because it is right. It is therefore indefensible to allow them to be undercut by imports produced to standards that would be illegal in the United Kingdom.
I am proud of the previous Conservative Government’s record on advancing animal welfare. We banned the export of live animals, including cattle, sheep, pigs and horses for fattening or slaughter, under the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024; increased the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years under the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021; and, importantly, enshrined animal sentience in UK law under the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, thereby establishing the Animal Sentience Committee. That means that any new legislation that we consider must pay due regard to animal welfare. I was proud to co-sponsor the Conservative-initiated Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025 to tackle the cruel puppy smuggling trade and the horrific practice of dog ear cropping.
In the United Kingdom, we have brilliant farmers who farm to the highest animal welfare standards, and we should be proud of that. As I have said many times in this House, we can be a beacon to the rest of the world. British farmers follow strict rules on banned growth promoters, on housing and welfare conditions, and on environmental protections. Those standards carry costs and responsibilities that farmers accept, because they reflect public values. The injustice arises when food produced to lower standards overseas is allowed to enter our market and compete directly with food produced under our higher rules. That does not raise global standards; it simply exports cruelty and imports unfair competition.
We Conservatives have consistently defended our standards. In 2024, when the Leader of the Opposition served as the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, she suspended trade talks with Canada, after Canada insisted on including hormone-treated beef. That decision sent a clear message that the UK will not compromise on important bans, such as bans on hormone-treated beef, ractopamine-treated pork, or—we have heard about these today—chlorine-washed poultry and bovine somatotropin-treated dairy, all of which remain illegal in the United Kingdom. Those practices merely hide substandard—unacceptable, in some cases—husbandry methods, and are not positive at all for animal or bird welfare. I was proud that the previous Conservative Government stood firm on the bans on such products in our negotiations with Canada, and I urge the current Government to maintain that firm position.
The United Kingdom has among the strictest welfare laws in the world. By contrast, countries such as Canada and the US still allow hens to be kept in battery cages. Here, 83% of eggs come from free-range or barn systems, and the Government have committed to phasing out all cages for laying hens by 2032. The Opposition have made it clear that we very much support banning cages or close confinement systems where there is clear scientific evidence that they are detrimental to animal and bird health and welfare. That is in keeping with much of the United Kingdom’s legislation on the use of cages and crates, which includes a law to ban keeping calves in veal crates, introduced in 1990; legislation banning keeping sows in close confinement stalls, introduced in 1999; and measures to ban battery cages for hens, introduced in 2012.
Under the Conservative Government, Ministers were clear that it was their ambition for farrowing crates to be no longer used for sows. Indeed, the new pig welfare code clearly states:
“The aim is for farrowing crates to no longer be necessary and for any new system to protect the welfare of the sow, as well as her piglets.”
I emphasise that last part. It is important that the industry is heard and, as we have heard today, that we have a sensible, workable, pragmatic transition that works and upholds animal welfare. Future trade deals must insist on core standards, or we risk encouraging systems that our own laws reject.
Transparency also matters; consumers should be able to see how their food was produced. In 2024, the Conservative Government consulted on improved welfare and origin labelling, but the Labour Government’s animal welfare strategy, released just before Christmas, offers only vague intentions on labelling; there is no timetable and no binding commitments. Clear, mandatory labelling would empower UK consumers and reward UK farmers who do the right thing.
The emergence in the UK of products that do not meet our animal welfare and environmental standards is potentially compounded by the alarming situation facing our national biosecurity. With disturbing reports of foot and mouth disease emerging abroad—including in Europe last year—African swine fever advancing up the continent of Europe, and the ongoing outbreaks of avian influenza and bluetongue virus in this country, we must maintain our vigilance. After raising concerns in Parliament on 17 occasions, I was pleased that the current Government finally listened and agreed to commit funding for the vital redevelopment of the Animal and Plant Health Agency’s headquarters in Weybridge, which was started by the Conservative Government. I thank APHA, which I visited again last month, for its tireless work, particularly in the face of the ongoing avian influenza situation.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I have the Animal and Plant Health Agency in my constituency—it is confusingly named the Weybridge centre, but it is actually in New Haw—I thank the shadow Minister for his advocacy on this issue, and the Government for putting in the funding for the redevelopment.
Dr Hudson
I thank my hon. Friend for his very kind intervention. He proudly stands up for that important institution, which I know the Minister has visited, as has the Minister in the other place. It is important that, cross-party, we support something that is so critical to our national security.
As we have heard today, the very real consequences of illegal meat imports for human and animal health are a disaster waiting to happen, unless the Government maintain vigilance and step up now. Our ability to detect and seize illegal meat imports at our borders is being tested to its limits. According to DEFRA, the amount of illegal meat seized between January and April 2025—72,872 kg—was close to the amount seized in the whole of 2024, which was 92,382 kg. Dover Port Health Authority alone has seized 367 tonnes since 2022. Given the ongoing threat, it is essential that sufficient funding is provided to our agencies at the border, and that routine certification surveillance and spot checks can be carried out at Dover and other ports, to prevent illegal meat and products of animal origin entering the country.
It is vital that—in addition to upholding standards, protecting our biosecurity and safeguarding animal welfare—we ensure that the United Kingdom has enough veterinary surgeons. At this point, I must declare both a professional and a personal interest: I am a veterinary surgeon, a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and a graduate of Cambridge Veterinary School. The UK does not train enough vets domestically. They play a vital role in animal health and welfare, which we have been talking a lot about today, but also in food safety, public health and disease control—all things that come into this debate on standards. That is why I am deeply concerned about the possible closure of Cambridge Veterinary School, as recommended by the council of Cambridge University’s school of biological sciences. I know the Minister is very aware of this issue, as I have raised it with her in the Chamber, and with her colleagues in DEFRA. We cannot maintain animal welfare or food security without adequate veterinary capacity, so I urge the Government to press Cambridge University to stop this short-sighted possible closure. In addition, the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 needs to be updated. Although that was mentioned in the Government’s animal welfare strategy, there was no timeline or urgency. Again, I urge the Government to act.
Sadly, the Government’s record on supporting farmers gives us cause for concern. Just look at their treatment of the sector, as instanced by the ill-judged and awful family farm tax, on which they have only partially U-turned. I do not believe that we are in the right place, and there is much more that we still need to do on that.
By permitting imports produced under weaker standards, the Government risk favouring overseas producers over British ones. Ministers say that they are passionate about animal welfare and food standards, and I take them at their word, but their record and their rhetoric tell a slightly different story. Their keenness to merge with EU standards is worrying, especially on animal welfare, given that our standards in the UK are higher. Returning to EU regulatory alignment would make us rule takers, not rule makers, preventing farmers from adopting innovations such as gene editing.
The Labour manifesto spoke about food security, but it failed to set out a clear plan to protect farmers from low import standards. The Conservative Government’s Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 laid the foundations for the development of disease and climate-resilient crops and the breeding of animals and birds that are resistant to harmful diseases such as avian influenza and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome. As I have mentioned, the landmark Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act, ended the inhumane export of live animals for slaughter or fattening. These are important achievements, yet the Opposition have concerns that these vital Acts may be repealed, watered down or weakened because of this Government’s pursuit of a reset with the EU. I hope the Minister can assure the House that those safeguards will remain intact and that we will not take a backward step on animal welfare and innovation in the agriculture and food security sectors.
We have already seen how sectors such as fishing can be treated as bargaining chips in international talks, with our UK fisheries sold away to Europe for 12 years to try—at this stage, in vain—to get access to the European defence fund. Farmers are watching closely and are understandably worried that agriculture could also be a bargaining chip. If import standards are watered down in the name of smoother trade or convenient deals, British farmers may lose out by being denied access to revolutionary tools such as gene editing and precision breeding that the EU is slow or reluctant to adopt. Moreover, animal welfare will be weakened, consumer confidence will be damaged and the long-term resilience of our food system will be jeopardised.
This is not about protectionism. It is about our values. Farmers are asking for a fair and level field on which to compete, which means import standards that reflect the standards required of British farmers and demanded by British consumers, as well as clear red lines in every trade negotiation, proper enforcement at our borders and no agreements that sacrifice agriculture for political expedience. Can I ask the Minister directly whether the Government will guarantee that no food produced to lower standards than those required of British farmers will be allowed into our market? Will they commit to not trading away our standards in future negotiations?
I would welcome the Minister’s response on the public procurement of food, which we have heard a bit about today. Sadly, the Government buying standards still have a loophole that allows public bodies to bypass high animal welfare standards on the grounds of cost. If we are to lead globally on animal welfare, we must uphold such principles here at home.
Import standards are fundamentally about trust—trust between farmers, consumers and the Government. British agriculture depends on that trust. Opposition Members will examine every agreement, every regulation and every concession that may risk undercutting our farmers and weakening our standards, or indeed compromising animal health and welfare. His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition urge the Government to support agriculture and defend the standards that the British people hold dear.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Dame Angela Eagle)
This debate goes to the heart of something that this Government care deeply about: the future of British farming and the food on British tables. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) for securing the debate, and I thank all Members for their contributions.
Let me be direct about what we are trying to balance in this area. British farmers produce most of our food: two thirds of it in 2024, which means that 65% of everything we eat is produced in this country. When it comes to what can actually be grown or reared in this country, that figure rises to over three quarters: 77%. In other words, we do not grow our own bananas or mangoes, and we cannot grow our own citrus fruits except in particularly hot weather, so we have to import them.
The hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) used the phrase “carcase balance”, which is important to think about when we talk about the balance between exports and imports. In the UK, we eat only particular bits of the animal, not all of it. It is useful to be able to export the bits that the British do not particularly want to eat, so the farmer who produces the animal gets more of a return than they would if those markets were not open.
The potential benefits for UK producers of open trading markets for such things are very great indeed. Although I will spend much of the rest of the debate talking about standards for imports, we have to remember that exports are also important to our home-grown industry. Exports are harder to gain if we are too closed about the imports we allow in our trade deals, because trade is a two-way street. I caution everyone to think about that balance, as well as thinking about what we would like to see in trade deals: it is real, it exists and we ought to take it seriously.
We have to remember that we are a trading nation. Trade gives families access to food that we cannot grow here; it keeps prices affordable; it means that we can get food out of season all year round; and it provides a safety net when supply chains are disrupted by disease, drought or conflict. Although being able to grow most of what we want to produce here is an important part of food security, so is having reasonable, predictable and acceptable access to other markets so that we can import when we have to, if there is a particular issue.
The question is not whether we trade, but how we trade and on whose terms. This Government have been clear that we will not sacrifice British standards on the altar of trade deals. All imports must meet UK food safety requirements, and that is not going to change. We have been clear that hormone-treated beef and chlorine-washed chicken, which hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned, are and will remain banned in the UK. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) pointed out, that is because such treatments are designed to hide what has happened as a result of production methods. We are firm that we will not allow that. There are also potential issues with the human food chain, and we do not wish to put our consumers at risk.
We understand that there can be frustrations when farmers here are held to higher welfare standards than some competitors abroad. Sometimes there are good reasons for those differences. We have not heard about any of that in the debate today, but farmers across the world face different geographical environments, different climate conditions and different disease risks. Practices such as sow stalls and battery cages, however, are banned in this country for good reason. We will not pretend that every difference in global standards is acceptable just because it happens to be legal elsewhere; we spend our time trying to persuade other countries to see the sense in adopting our higher food production and livestock standards.
As we have said in the trade strategy, we will not lower food standards. We will continue to uphold high standards in animal welfare. We will always consider whether imports have an unfair advantage and what the potential impact of trade agreements on UK food production could be. That is why, in our trade deal with India, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire pointed out, we kept tariffs on pork, chicken and eggs: because we were concerned about the welfare standards. We used the powers we have, and we will do so again where our farmers and our values are at stake. In the India deal, we also secured commitments to co-operate on animal welfare—the first time that India has ever agreed to that in a trade deal. The independent Trade and Agriculture Commission recognised that achievement in pursuing our policy on animal welfare protections as a part of our trade deals.
We have a proud history of leading the way in ensuring the very best care for animals. In December, we published our animal welfare strategy, to which hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred. It will improve the lives of millions of animals in the UK. We recognise that animal welfare is a global issue, and we will continue to champion high animal welfare standards around the world, promoting robust standards nationally and internationally. Our recent trade deal with Korea includes comprehensive language on animal welfare that goes beyond anything that Korea has agreed to date. We will continue to strengthen co-operation and information exchange on this globally important issue.
In his opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire mentioned eggs from Ukraine. We are 90% self-sufficient in eggs in this country. The Ukrainian trade in eggs is about 1% of our supply. That is done partially as support for Ukraine’s industry and economy in the global situation in which it finds itself, at war with Russia. Despite that, I have met both Ukrainian Agriculture Ministers and they are working hard to ensure they can come into compliance with EU regulations in egg production as soon as possible. We are helping them to try to do so. The debates that we are having on animal welfare with respect to egg imports are real, and they are happening. I have raised them personally with both Ukrainian Agriculture Ministers.
Protecting standards is not enough on its own, however. We are backing British farmers to create a productive, profitable and sustainable future for farming. We believe that support is essential for our country’s economic growth and food security. Through new technology, streamlined regulation and nature-friendly farming schemes, we are helping farmers to produce food for the nation. A stronger and more productive domestic farming sector is in our national interest and will keep high-quality British food on the shelves for consumers.
The heart of our approach is working in partnership with the sector, which is why the Secretary of State and I are grateful to Baroness Batters for her recent review of farming profitability. We are taking forward a series of measures from the review to deliver practical support and long-term certainty for farmers. We recently announced a new farming and food partnership board as part of our actions. This brings farmers, processors and retailers together, because food security is not just about what happens on the farm; it is about the whole food chain, all the way from the farm to the fork. Farmers will have a seat at the table when policy is developed, and their voice will shape what the Government do.
Different parts of our food system face different challenges—the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) talked about what is happening in the dairy sector at the moment—but they also face different opportunities. Together, we intend to develop sector plans that target growth in sectors such as horticulture and poultry first, sectors in which there is significant untapped potential to increase home-grown production. This will be followed by other sectors in which there is real scope to grow more of our own food, because when British farming thrives, consumers benefit, with affordable, high-quality food on their tables.
As well as supporting producers at home, we are working to extend the international reach of British food and drink. We will continue to focus on new markets for the sector. We have 16 agrifood attachés around the world opening doors for British producers. Last year alone, their work removed barriers, creating £127 million of export value for our home-grown food producers. That includes opening British pork access to Mexico and removing costly barriers for British dairy exports to Egypt. This year, the Secretary of State and I will be leading dedicated trade missions to showcase British food and drink overseas and boost our exports. Our high standards are something we should be proud of; the reputation of our top-quality produce helps us to unlock new markets, and many of those we deal with see UK food as at the top of the quality mark and want to have access to it.
Closer to home, the majority of our agrifood trade is with the EU, including around 70% of our agrifood imports. That is why the SPS agreement with the EU to slash red tape for the businesses that trade most with our nearest neighbours is so important, as it will make agrifood trade in our biggest market cheaper and easier to engage with. The agreement will bring down costs for UK producers and remove most of the regulatory trade barriers. We have been clear about the importance of high animal welfare standards, and the EU has accepted that the UK will need to retain its own rules in some areas. As in all trade deals secured by this Government, we will maintain red lines in our negotiations.
We are a nation that has always led on animal welfare. In 1999, the Labour Government banned sow stalls before most of the rest of the world had heard of them. I understand the issues that the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) raised and I want to reassure him that we are working closely with the industry on transition in some of the areas mentioned in the current animal welfare strategy, such as banning farrowing crates and moving away from enriched cages for hens. We do not want the law of unintended consequences, but we do want increases in animal welfare. This Government will not allow that legacy to be undermined through the back door by trade policy. We will protect our farmers, uphold our standards and back British food at home and abroad. That is what food security means, and that is what this Government will deliver.
Sam Carling
I am glad to have a couple of minutes to wind up after what has been an incredibly valuable debate that has covered a whole range of topics. I start, of course, with the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), who, I think, agrees with me—there were various bits of discussion there. I referred exclusively to sow stalls in my speech; he importantly raised the issue of farrowing crates, which also remain an issue in the UK. He spoke of wanting to ensure that our farmers are not undermined, and that is the whole point of this, right? It is about ensuring that we expect at least the same standards of imports coming from overseas so that our farmers are not undercut in that way. So, yes—we agree.
My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) made some excellent points around the enforcement of standards and honest labelling. All Members present will know just how many emails we get from constituents on the practice of farm washing, where products that have been imported from overseas mistakenly—and, in many cases, misleadingly —try to imply that they meet British standards when they do not, with big Union Jack flags and everything, as my hon. Friend said. We need to get on top of that.
The hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) talked about how we need to ensure that more of the public sector prioritises buying British, which I think is really important and something the Government have commented on. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) referred to Baroness Batters, who makes explicit and positive reference to this issue in her profitability review. The hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) reinforced some of the points I made on the undercutting of farmers and spoke of how much that impacts his constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) also spoke about the importance of buying British and the critical link to the hospitality industry, including the various pubs in his constituency, the names of which he treated us to.
The comments of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), on the Australian trade deal were particularly useful. They also relate to what was said by the shadow Minister who spent some time talking about the Conservatives’ record. There was some good stuff in there. I will just read him this quote from Michael Gove, a former DEFRA Secretary, speaking at Conservative party conference about the previous Government:
“we negotiated poorly with Australia, and New Zealand, but particularly with Australia in defence of our farmers. In the anxiety to secure trade deals, we did not think about the long term.”
I would just encourage Opposition Members to reflect a bit on that.
I had a comment to make if I got an intervention from a Reform Member, but none have turned up, so that did not happen. If they had tried to attack us on this, I would have mentioned that the leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), went to America recently to call for economic sanctions against the UK—far from lowering tariffs for British beef exporters as we have done in our landmark economic deal with the US.
I am grateful to the Minister for speaking about the need to ensure that our farmers can export too—that is a really important part of this. She is right that there is a balance to be struck. I thank her for detailing some more of the Government’s examples of success in this area. I did not mention Ukraine specifically with regard to eggs, as I am very conscious of the issues she raises, but I am grateful to her for referring to the positive measures in terms of making some progress over there.
To reiterate, this Government have been clear that worsening our animal welfare standards and allowing imports of low-welfare goods is a red line for us. We are not going to do it, and that is positive. However, that raises a question: why do we not legislate to make sure of that? I trust this Government, but I cannot say I trust future Governments, and I do not trust the trade deals that sadly are already in place.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of import standards on the agricultural sector.
Royal Assent
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Act 2026
Sentencing Act 2026
Holocaust Memorial Act 2026.
Safety of the A525 near Meadows Primary School
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The petition of the residents of the constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme declares that the A525 outside Meadows primary school and the A531 at the junction of Crewe Road are inadequate, dangerous and putting the lives of the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme at risk. The petition acknowledges that in December 2025 a parent was knocked down dropping their child off to school and that there have been many more near misses in the many weeks and months before.
The petition calls on the police, fire and crime commissioner in Staffordshire and Staffordshire county council to act sooner rather than later to make the road fit for purpose. It further recognises that traffic-calming measures including traffic lights, speed bumps, speed cameras, a reduced-speed zone or a roundabout modification would meaningfully improve safety. It notes that each and every parent should feel safe dropping their children off at every school in Newcastle-under-Lyme. It further notes that a corresponding petition online on the same issue has reached 289 signatures from the good people who live, learn and work in Newcastle-under-Lyme.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme,
Declares that the A525 outside Meadows Primary School, and at the junction of Crewe Road, is inadequate, dangerous and putting the lives of the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme at risk; acknowledges that in recent weeks, a parent was knocked down dropping their child off to school, and there have been many more near misses in the weeks and months before us; notes that each and every parent should feel safe dropping their children off at school; and further notes that an online petition on this same issue has reached 289 signatures from people who live, learn and work in Newcastle-under-Lyme.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to push Staffordshire County Council to make the sections of the A525 near Meadows Primary School in Newcastle-under-Lyme fit for purpose by introducing traffic calming measures that would meaningfully improve safety such as traffic lights, speed bumps, speed cameras, a reduced speed zone, or roundabout modification.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003159]
Local Government Finances: Surrey
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The amount of money that local government authorities have, such as Surrey county council and the new east Surrey and west Surrey unitary councils, has a huge day-to-day impact on residents. It determines the provision of services and the protection of our communities, and it is essential to the many businesses and voluntary organisations in the area through both policy and the many direct contacts held with local service providers.
We heard again this week claims that the Government are boosting funding for councils, but the reality does not live up to the rhetoric. Surrey county council’s budget is being reduced by over £50 million for the next financial year. Surrey is negatively impacted more than any other area despite increased demand and escalating costs just to maintain existing service levels.
The Government’s calculations simply do not provide enough money for statutory services such as adult social care provision—and we all know about the urgent action that is needed to improve the special educational needs system and support available for children, schools and families. Instead of investing in services, the Government are slashing central grant funding for Surrey. Despite that, Surrey county council has managed to put forward a balanced budget, thanks to hard work led by Councillor David Lewis, but the situation as it stands is unsustainable, and the risks are mounting. The Government need to act.
In addition to the counterproductive funding decisions being made by the Government, we have the added complication of local government reform. Changing the structures of local authorities is a complicated matter. It requires changes in contracts, staffing, location and every other aspect of running a large and complicated organisation, yet we have no information on how the transition will be funded. It cannot possibly come from existing budgets if services are to be maintained, given the situation I have outlined. There is no clarity on what will happen to staff during the transition. Many jobs are at risk, and some have already sought new, more stable opportunities elsewhere. All face additional pressures as a result of reorganisation, and the risk is that important decisions will be delayed, leaving Surrey stuck in stasis.
Beyond transition, we must look at the foundation of the new unitaries. We all know the concerns about local authority debt. Some councils, such as Runnymede borough council, which covers a big chunk of my constituency, were able to operate a commercial strategy with sound financial management, meaning that the risk of high debt was mitigated by clear controls and revenue provisions. However, they are the exception. Too many local authorities borrowed heavily without the knowledge or systems to manage the risk, and none did so more disastrously than Woking borough council.
Given the size of the authority, the failures at Woking are unparalleled, both in terms of the scale of the debt and the failure of financial management and scrutiny, yet, despite announcements that the Government are proceeding with local government reform, there is still no clear plan about what to do with the Woking debt. In October last year, the Government announced debt relief totalling half a billion pounds for Woking borough council in 2026-27, but that still leaves more than £1.5 billion of debt, and under the Government’s plans, that may shortly become the liability of residents across west Surrey.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is giving an excellent speech that has really drawn out the pressures on his constituents, as well as on mine and on those of the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford). West Surrey unitary authority as a whole faces the prospect of beginning its life with £4.5 billion of debt. The hon. Gentleman raised a very important point about the vital public services that need to be paid for. My constituents are concerned that when west Surrey unitary authority comes into existence, those public services could falter and fail on day one, and I am sure his constituents are concerned, too. Through the hon. Gentleman, I ask the Minister for reassurance that that will not happen and that some kind of financial package will be offered to my constituents and those of the hon. Gentleman.
Dr Spencer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, although it sounds like it was more for the Minister than for me. He has given the Minister time to prepare for his inevitable question, which I hope she addresses in her speech.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for letting me take the debate from Surrey to Staffordshire. There is concern in Newcastle-under-Lyme about what a potential new unitary may look like and about whether the debt of current councils will be carried over to it. I want to add my concerns to his. This is not a party political issue; it is about ensuring that people are not forced to pay off the debt accrued by others.
Dr Spencer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is exactly right: through local government reform, all areas could be affected by the debt and other commitments of neighbouring authorities.
That brings me to the point I was about to make, which is that it really is not fair that my constituents in Runnymede could have to pay for the failed decisions of Woking politicians—both those in power and those who failed in their duty to scrutinise decisions—because those constituents never got to vote for them. The scale of the remaining debt, when combined with the debt of other local authorities, means that the new west Surrey unitary will be bankrupt from day one. New local authorities should be established on a sound and equal footing, so that the provision of services can be determined by local need. The Government need urgently to introduce a sound long-term financial plan for both unitaries in Surrey.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for his impassioned and powerful speech on this matter, with which I wholeheartedly agree. I think he is being somewhat polite in the way he describes what this unitary authority is going to be. Essentially, if it is saddled with the debt from Woking and a number of other boroughs, it will essentially be stillborn from the start, and residents in my areas of Farnham, Haslemere and the other Surrey villages that I represent will be worse off because of it. Does he not agree that the Government must write off that legacy debt, or at the very least ring- fence it, so that our constituents do not face the problems —to be frank, the absolute mess—left by other boroughs and their politicians?
Dr Spencer
My hon. Friend is a lot harder in his language on this issue and I very much respect him for that. At the very least, we need to have a well thought-out plan and strategy for what is going to happen with the block of debt. There is a variety of different options for how it can be managed and dealt with. Here is the fundamental problem that my constituents—service providers, charities and businesses—raise with me and are really worried about: that decisions made in a neighbouring local authority, which they have had no involvement in or dealings with, will have a material impact on them when the west Surrey unitary authority is set up.
I realise that the scale of the debt is a huge and complicated problem. I do not envy the Minister in trying to find a way through. I am glad that we have this forum for debate this afternoon, but we need to have these debates and discussions so that the west Surrey unitary authority—and, frankly, others that are being set up that face similar problems—can be dealt with fairly and so we know what is coming down the tracks. My residents are not going to be punished for decisions made in other authorities that they never had the chance to vote for. That is fundamentally unfair.
By the way, in some ways this is not something that we are unused to in my part of Surrey. We sit on the penumbra—just on the outskirts—outside London, and there are plenty of policies that come from this awful Mayor of London that affect us in a whole range of negative ways and which we do not have the ability to vote for. Unfortunately, this situation is far and away the most substantial we have faced, and there is so much fear, concern and uncertainty about what may be coming down the track.
Of course there is a huge irony in all this, because Surrey is one of the largest contributors to the Exchequer in our country. Cutting local authority funding, and impacting services and the many contracts that local authorities maintain, risks serious harm, not only locally in Surrey but to the national economy. Let us consider some examples.
If the Government do not effectively fund local highways, that will lead to deteriorating road conditions, resulting in more temporary emergency repair works. We all know the nightmare that that causes, with delays, costs of millions in lost work hours and missed appointments, and longer transit times for goods. That damages the Surrey economy and, by virtue, the national economy. If the Government do not effectively fund adult social care, that will cause bed blocking in hospitals and pressure on health services, impeding effective recovery and care.
If the Government do not effectively fund planning services, that leads to lengthy delays in assessing applications for homes and businesses and, crucially, risks enabling rogue development, which blights Surrey and other areas. Although planning enforcement remains a discretionary service, there is a real risk that it is increasingly seen as a “nice to have” and not an essential tool to protect communities. Evidence shows that enforcement rates continue to fall in the face of funding pressures. Inappropriate and illegal development—people essentially cocking a snoot at the planning system, and building anyway—is a serious problem in my constituency and in places across the country, and my residents are rightly incensed. Critical to stopping this activity and turning the situation around are not only stronger enforcement powers—for which I have been campaigning for years—but, at the very least, the resources to do proper planning enforcement.
Dr Pinkerton
In my area—perhaps in the hon. Member’s, too—we have had increased housing targets of up to 150% as a consequence of this Government’s decision. I understand their commitment to house building, but such targets open up the floodgates to opportunistic development—development that is unplanned. It requires incredible expertise in planning departments to ensure that such development is appropriate and that there is enforcement where necessary. Those are exactly the kind of services that risk being cut at just the time when we face the greatest pressure. Does he agree that we need some kind of financial resolution to ensure that these services are continued into the future?
Dr Spencer
I thank the hon. Member for raising housing targets and planning in local authorities. The majority of my constituency is covered by Runnymede local authority and, I think, roughly a third by Elmbridge local authority. In the Runnymede authority, there is a local plan, so there is no risk of the opportunistic development that he mentions. In the Elmbridge local authority, there is no local plan, so there is opportunistic development. Applications are under way that are causing huge concern to local residents in the Cobham, Downside, Stoke D’Abernon and Oxshott area in particular. In fact, at the end of last year, I wrote to the Secretary of State along with councillors from Elmbridge to raise our concerns about the fact that, because of local government reorganisation, again Surrey has found itself stuck in stasis.
There is a local plan in Elmbridge. Can that be put together by the time we hit the election of the shadow authorities? When you think about it, the term itself is an awful one—try knocking on doors and asking for support for the shadow authorities! What is Elmbridge to do? Do people living in the Elmbridge part of my constituency effectively have to wait a year and a half, until we have the full authority going when the shadow authority transfers over, before we can have some sensible progress when it comes to getting plans in place to protect people from opportunistic development? That is before we even talk about the scale of the housing targets, whose spread is disproportionate in Elmbridge; and I will ask the Minister later about the absence of a commitment for a Surrey mayor, who would in part be responsible for planning decisions. I hope Members can see that it is all a bit of a mess, and my constituents and local businesses are stuck in the middle.
No topic is more sensitive or concerning than where we find ourselves with special educational needs provision. We all know what happens when that is not fully funded. I welcome the work that the county council and Councillor Jonathan Hulley have been doing to improve transparency and engagement locally, really turning up the dial on what is happening for families and children with special educational needs, but ultimately we need national changes to services and support, and the funding to bring forward delivery. Without the local funding, the opportunities for children to reach their full potential are limited. It leads to failure demand, which is when services do not provide what is needed early on, thereby creating more demand in the system later, and that harms and limits children. That is notwithstanding all the pressures on families and siblings and on schools, which are going above and beyond to try to support those children.
The Government know these risks—I know the Minister knows and appreciates them. I hope the Government also know that it is a false economy to cut costs right now. The resulting economic and social impact of not funding these essential services will be calamitous locally.
Of course, as night follows day, I fully expect Government Members and others to see this as an opportunity to blame the Conservative Government, and of course I acknowledge that local government has struggled as a result of difficult financial decisions over the years, but there really is no more capacity for cuts. That is why we need to address the issue now. I want to use this debate as a plea to move beyond any sort of blame game or political posturing and work together to address the real risks that we face and establish a sound financial basis for effective local authority finances.
Given the clear risks, more than anything else we now need certainty. Residents and businesses need to know that they will not be shackled with high costs resulting from other local authorities’ poor financial management. Businesses and charities that have contracts and partnerships need certainty about their future. We all need to know that there will be adequate funding so that we all retain access to the essential services that local authorities provide. That cannot wait until after the May elections. Our voters need to know what authorities they are voting councillors into. They need clarity over the scope of the authorities’ powers. This debate is the Minister’s opportunity to answer the questions of 1.5 million Surrey residents.
How will local authority debt be dealt with? Will central Government ensure effective funding, or do Ministers intend to rely on constant tax rises despite the cost of living pressures? These are council tax rises—taxes on working people, as she and the Government, I assume, would define them. Will we have a mayor in Surrey? If so, can we have the details? How can we prevent the long-term risks if the Government continue to prioritise short-term funding cuts? For once—just for once—will this Government put Surrey first?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I thank the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) for opening this debate on the important topic of funding for local government in Surrey and for the thoughtful, constructive and eloquent way in which he made his remarks. I also thank him for acknowledging that we have inherited a very challenging context. I do not intend to do any party political back and forth, but the reality is that the inheritance was incredibly tough. We are working at pace to rectify that, in an impossible context for everyone involved.
We share the hon. Member’s view that local government is on the frontline of delivering services to the people of this country. It can do so only when central Government works with it in partnership to overcome the shared challenges that we face. Our local government reforms, including funding reforms and reorganisation, will enable local councils that are empowered to deliver local services and equipped to drive economic growth and to work in the interests of their communities. That is a shared goal and a shared priority, and we will work with anyone across any political party in order to deliver it.
I turn first to the local government finance settlement. I put it on the record that this is the most significant move yet to make English local government more sustainable. That is a core priority against the really tough backdrop that local authorities across the country are having to navigate. We are delivering fair funding, targeting more money to the areas that need it most and then putting in place multi-year settlements for the first time in a decade. That will give councils the certainty to make the longer-term calls so that they can take a more preventive approach and do less crisis management.
For the local authority in Surrey, by the end of the multi-year settlement period in 2028-29 the provisional settlement makes available almost £1.5 billion of core spending power—an increase, in totality, of 7.3% compared with 2024-25. We acknowledge that there has been a cut in the core grant but, as has been the case for the past decade and a half, we look at the totality of core spending power, and it is going up. That does not in any way negate the fact that it is a tough context for local government to have to operate in, having had to operate in a really tough context for the past decade. However, we are trying to give sufficient flexibility in the approach that we are taking to enable local authorities to weather that.
For the first time since 2013-14, the Government are updating the relative needs formula, which forms part of how local authorities’ funding allocation is calculated. That has involved using more up-to-date data, including the indices of multiple deprivation published in 2025, as part of our assessment of needs. We know that that is leading to a redistribution across the country that is tough for some authorities to absorb, but we think it only right and fair that we target more support to those authorities and communities that have huge levels of need and deprivation. I say that as an MP representing a London constituency. London is taking some of that hit, but we see that as fair across the country, because in the end what we care about is supporting the communities that need the most help.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are simplifying and consolidating 36 revenue funding streams worth over £56 billion over three years, which we hope will provide greater flexibility, stability and certainty for local authorities.
We recognise that funding reform is just one part of the story. That is why we are committed to simplifying local government by ending the two-tier system and establishing new single-tier unitary authorities. I think the end goal that Members across the House are trying to get to is consistent. There is common ground: we want authorities that are sustainable and strong and can deliver for constituents. The Secretary of State has decided, subject to parliamentary approval, that Surrey will move towards two unitary councils: east Surrey and west Surrey.
The question of debt was raised, and rightly so. We are very alive to the pressure facing the new unitaries because of the historical debt. As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge says, we have announced an unprecedented commitment to repay, in principle, £500 million of Woking borough council’s debt in 2026-27. That is the first tranche of support, and we will continue to explore what further debt support is required and how we can work with the new west Surrey authority to resolve the debt issue. We are clear that residents are at the heart of this, and it is our collective responsibility to ensure that we are delivering for them. We are committed to working together to make sure that they are protected and have the quality and level of services that they deserve.
Gregory Stafford
From what the Minister says, it sounds as if she accepts that the remaining debt is still unsustainable to be dealt with at a local level. Is she teasing us with a future announcement of further moneys, or is it more of a general ambition?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I would do no such thing as tease with announcements that sit with the Chancellor. What we have said to partners on the ground in the local authority is that this is a shared problem and we are committed to working together to find a resolution. We understand the pressure that the historical debt will place on the new authorities. It is incumbent on all of us to find a way through that ensures that, on the other side of it, we have local authorities that are sustainable, can survive and can deliver the quality of services for the local residents that is required.
Dr Ben Spencer
I think the Minister said a moment ago that she would work with the west Surrey authority to resolve the issue. At what stage in the process does she anticipate a decision and resolution? The west Surrey authority will not be an operational statutory unit until spring next year. We have elections to the shadow authorities this year. As I understand it, those shadow authorities will not have any powers until vesting day, when they are transferred to the full-fat authority, so the current county council and the district and borough councils will still have statutory powers.
Is the Minister saying that there will be no debt resolution until the west Surrey unitary authority is set up? Is she saying that there will be a resolution when the shadow authority is in place, or will we have a resolution before the elections this May? That is really important for our residents, who need to know what set-up the councillors they are voting for will have to deal with. Can she guarantee, or even say that it is her ambition, that she will get this resolved before we get to those elections?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are already working with all the authorities involved. That is why we put in place £500 million for Woking local authority. We have been working with it historically, and we will continue working with it to resolve this. I cannot give a timeframe, in part because resolving this requires all parties involved to come together to understand the scale of the problem and, critically, how we can work together, using the levers available to us. I hope that the hon. Gentleman hears that there is a shared commitment to resolving this, and we will work with the constituent local authorities to get a resolution.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will make a little progress, if I may. I acknowledge the pressure that social care is creating for the local government finance system; that is squeezing vital services. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge mentioned planning, but we see this issue across services that are not non-statutory. Ultimately, the core thing that local government can deliver is effective services that build our communities and hold them together, and we all want to preserve that. That is why we are driving through pretty punchy reforms across children’s social care, for example. That is the biggest transformation in a generation; there will be an historic £2.4 billion of investment over the multi-year settlement period in the Families First partnership programmes. We are building a national care service based on quality care, backed by £4.6 billion of additional funding available for adult social care in 2028-29, compared with 2025-26.
We will bring forward a full White Paper on special educational needs and disabilities, because we understand that there is pressure, and the impact that has on local government finances. We must find a way to deliver the best possible services for children and families who need support, and must do so in a sustainable way.
Dr Pinkerton
I am terribly grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She has been extremely open in her responses so far. One side effect of the financial pressures that Surrey faces as a consequence of special educational needs is the so-called safety valve agreement. That has had consequences for a proposed school in my constituency, Frimley Oak Academy, for which money is designated. The Department for Education agrees that it should go ahead, but as a result of the safety valve agreement, Surrey cannot go ahead with it, because of that school’s ongoing operational costs. That is an example of financial constriction having a material effect on the provision of a vital educational offering. Will the Minister perhaps take that point away, and inquire whether the situation could be freed up to ensure that the school can come to my constituency?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I am happy to take that point away, and either my Department or the DFE will write back and provide an answer to the hon. Gentleman.
Let me address the question about devolution and the devolution process, and the move towards a mayor. We are absolutely committed to devolution. I have spoken to the leader of Surrey council and made it clear that we want to move forward. For us, the first step is creating a strong strategic authority that is empowered to start driving economic change and can bring constituent authorities together for strategic decision making. We want to move forward with that at pace, so we will work with the new unitaries, and with partners on the ground, to build a strong economic footprint, and build the institution that allows us to move to the next stage of devolution.
Gregory Stafford
The Minister is being extraordinarily generous with her time, but I do not want her to miss the opportunity to respond to the important question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) about a Surrey mayor. Will she confirm whether we will get a mayor in Surrey before the end of this parliamentary term?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Ultimately, that will be a local question. The process is always to put in place a combined authority first and foremost, and to get that working. The big lesson that I have learned from my many years working in the space of devolution—a lesson that we see when we look across the Greater Manchester combined authority—is that if we first get strong institution working in partnership, so that the combined authority can hold power and deliver economic development functions, it makes the mayor far stronger and more effective.
The first stage for us is working with the constituent authorities to move forward with the strategic authority. We want to do that at pace, and to ensure that we are equipping it with the powers that it needs, so that it can start driving economic prosperity for the area, take on strategic planning powers and transport powers, and start investing in the local community. We can then move through the stages of devolution. The commitment to devolution in Surrey is absolutely there, and we will work with partners to deliver that.
I thank all hon. Members for the powerful points that they have raised, and for their passion, commitment and advocacy for Surrey. I hope that they have heard, in this debate, that the Government are absolutely committed to fixing the foundations of local government finance, against an incredibly difficult backdrop. We are ready to listen to the concerns of any local authority about the ongoing reforms. We know that they are difficult and punchy, but we are making the reforms because we think that they are necessary if we are to get local government back on a sustainable footing. We are determined to work together, across party lines, to deliver our shared goal of services that work for constituents in every part of this country. The Government are absolutely committed to that.
Question put and agreed to.
5.10 pm
House adjourned.
Railways Bill (Third sitting)
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices off or to silent, and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings—but I hope you have plenty of water. We will now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate.
A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first. For debates on clause stand part, the Minister will be called first; other Members are then free to indicate their wish to speak in that debate by bobbing. Please bob on each occasion on which you wish to speak during proceedings. At the end of the debate on a group of amendments and new clauses, I shall call again the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause, or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press to a vote any other amendments in the group, which includes grouped new clauses, that will be at the Chair’s discretion.
My fellow Chairs and I shall use our discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses, following the debates on relevant amendments. I hope that that explanation is helpful, but you may seek advice when we are not sitting.
Clause 1
Great British Railways
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 257, in clause 1, page 1, line 8, at end insert—
“(2) A body corporate may be designated under this section only if—
(a) it is limited by shares, and
(b) it is wholly owned by the Crown.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1)—
(a) must specify the time from which the designation has effect, and
(b) must be published by the Secretary of State as soon as reasonably practicable.
(4) The designation of a body corporate terminates—
(a) if the body corporate ceases to be wholly owned by the Crown, or
(b) if the Secretary of State revokes the designation.
(5) Any notice of revocation under subsection (4)(b)—
(a) must specify the time from which the revocation has effect, and
(b) must be published by the Secretary of State as soon as reasonably practicable after the notice is given.
(6) For the purposes of this section a body corporate is wholly owned by the Crown if each share in the body corporate is held by—
(a) a Minister of the Crown,
(b) a company which is wholly owned by the Crown, or
(c) a nominee of a person falling within paragraph (a) or (b).
(7) Great British Railways is exempt from the requirements of the Companies Act 2006 relating to the use of ‘limited’ as part of its name.
(8) In this section—
‘company’ means a company registered under the Companies Act 2006;
‘Minister of the Crown’ has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 (see section 8(1) of that Act).”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
New clause 24—Great British Railways Board—
“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a Board to review decisions taken in respect of Great British Railways (‘the Board’).
(2) The Secretary of State must appoint to the Board persons who are employees of, or otherwise represent—
(a) Great British Railways,
(b) open access passenger operators,
(c) freight operators,
(d) The Office for Rail and Road,
(e) The Passengers’ Council, and
(f) an organisation or campaign group representing passengers with accessibility requirements.
(3) The Board must comprise at least six members and no more than half of its membership may be employed by, or otherwise represent, Great British Railways.
(4) Great British Railways must determine the frequency of board meetings in any year.
(5) Any—
(a) decision by the Secretary of State concerning, or
(b) direction given by the Secretary of State to,
Great British Railways must be notified to the Board prior to the making of the decision or issuing of the direction, and such decision or direction may only be made if a majority of the Board approves of it being made.
(6) The Board must publish any decision or direction it considers, and whether it has approved any such decision or direction.
(7) Where the Board has not approved a decision taken by, or direction given by, the Secretary of State to Great British Railways—
(a) the Board must notify the Secretary of State that it has not approved the decision or direction, and its reasons for not doing so;
(b) the Secretary of State may proceed to make any such direction or decision provided that, in their opinion, it is necessary to do so.
(8) Where subsection (7)(b) applies, the Secretary of State must publish a statement setting out reasons for proceeding with the direction or decision.”
This new clause would require the creation of a GBR Board, constituted of relevant internal and external stakeholders and regulatory bodies, which the Secretary of State would have to consult on major decisions and changes.
New clause 38—Ministerial statements on functioning of Great British Railways—
“(1) Once every three months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must make a written ministerial statement in each House of Parliament summarising progress towards Great British Railways becoming fully operational.
(2) Should any day on which the Secretary of State must make a written statement be on a day when either House of Parliament is not sitting, the Secretary of State must publish a statement in similar terms.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament quarterly on progress in establishing Great British Railways.
Laurence Turner
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. At the outset, I wish to declare that I am a member of Unite.
It is a privilege to speak at the start of these proceedings. I do so as a believer in public ownership of the railways not as an end, but as the best means of realising greater economies for taxpayers and improvements for all those who rely on the railways for livelihood and leisure. I am conscious that the Committee has much work ahead of it, so I will keep my explanation of the amendment brief.
Public ownership is the ballast of the Bill, but its clauses make only limited reference to ownership, although the drafting logic for that may be good—the Bill must, after all, be read alongside the previous enabling legislation passed by Parliament, the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024 and the now much amended Railways Act 1993. In 2024, Parliament’s decision and intent were clear: passenger services are to come under public ownership as franchises expire. I must admit, however, that I start our proceedings under the shadow of a doubt. On my reading, there is a risk that the requirements of public ownership that sit outside this Bill may be time-bound, designed for the specific circumstances of transition, and dependent on definitions in statutory instruments that are themselves at risk of amendment or repeal without full parliamentary scrutiny.
I freely acknowledge that some members of the Committee may take a different view of the merits of the ownership question, and I am sure that we will have good and respectful debate on the Bill’s provisions in the weeks ahead, but surely we can all agree on one point: such an important decision as public or private ownership should be taken only through primary legislation. To put it another way, were a future Government to seek to return to a privatised model, they should be obliged to seek majority consent in the full House. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve.
The amendment would require Great British Railways to be a wholly and nationally owned public sector entity. Indeed, it would cease to be GBR if it were sold in whole or in part. The amendment would also, I think, prevent a future Secretary of State from taking the extremely perverse step of removing GBR’s designation as a public sector body and transferring it to a private or semi-private entity.
If the wording of the amendment seems familiar to hon. Members, it will be because they have been paying close attention to other legislation. Clause 1 of the Bill is effectively identical to section 1(1) of the Great British Energy Act 2025. The amendment is a near carbon copy—I am sorry to all members of the Committee, but we are only at the start of our descent; I cannot promise that the puns will improve as we go on—of the subsections that follow in section 1 of that Act. I note that in the equivalent Committee debate for that Act, the sponsoring Minister, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), said:
“The clause protects the principle of public ownership by making explicit that the company would terminate if it ceased to be wholly owned by the Crown.”––[Official Report, Great British Energy Public Bill Committee, 10 October 2024; c. 91.]
I accept that we are seeking to build on a complex body of legislation; the railways are the accumulation of two centuries of history, and so are the laws that govern them. If—I emphasise that word—a drafting issue has been identified, we also need to identify the right solution for this specific legislation. I am grateful to the Minister in the Commons and to the Minister of State, the noble Lord Hendy, for their thoughtful conversations on this matter. I am also grateful to the officials who have worked hard to prepare this commendable Bill. My motivation in tabling the amendment is to establish beyond doubt that the Bill will achieve its aim: that Great British Railways will be run by and for the nation. If we can assure ourselves of that, I believe that this legislation will set out a permanent way for reform. I will listen carefully when the Minister responds.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
It is very nice to have you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I think this a conversation among Labour Members, and I do not want to get in the way of a private dispute. I might just sit down and listen to what the Minister has to say.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I want to speak in favour of new clause 24, which I will press to a vote when the time comes, because, as I have said in other forums where the Minister has been present, one of the Liberal Democrats’ big concerns is the Secretary of State’s power over GBR as specified in the Bill. I have given many examples previously of past poor state-led decisions, and fear I will do so again during the Committee’s discussions. Of course, there are lots of problems with private sector railways, but there have also been lots of public sector problems, too, whether with fares, rolling stock or infrastructure.
Our proposal would increase the transparency and accountability of the Secretary of State’s decisions. It would not prevent any of those decisions, but it would create a vehicle for them to be properly discussed. We propose creating a Great British Railways board. If the Secretary of State went against the advice of that board, the reasons for that would need to be communicated. The people serving on the board would represent GBR, but also other key stakeholders in the running of the railway: open access passenger operators, freight operators, the Office of Rail and Road, the passengers’ council and organisations that represent passengers with accessibility requirements. The board would comprise at least six members. To make sure that there is a voice for the other stakeholders that GBR needs to work with and serve, no more than half the board’s membership would be employed by, or otherwise represent, GBR.
It would be for GBR to determine the frequency of board meetings in any year. Any decision or direction from the Secretary of State concerning GBR would be notified to the board prior to being made, and should be made only if a majority of the GBR board approved it. The board would need to publish any decision or direction it considered, and whether it had approved any such decision or direction. If the board did not agree with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State would be free to go ahead with whatever they decided to do against the views of the GBR board, which we hope would be made up of experts from both GBR and elsewhere, but would need to publish a statement setting out their reasons for that.
That is a summary of our proposal. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Jerome Mayhew
I do. I apologise to the Committee; I erroneously thought that we were dealing with amendment 257 in isolation.
There is huge interest in this Bill, which will directly affect lots of people. It will affect the employees, of course, as well as Network Rail, the train operating companies, the remaining franchisees and those already in the public sector, freight and open access operators, the mayoral combined authorities, Transport for London, High Speed 1, the huge supply sector, the trade unions and many others—and that is before we even start to consider passengers. This is a generational change in the organisation of the railways, and it is crucial that the Government do not mess it up.
One of the key themes that will run through a lot of our conversations over the coming four weeks is accountability, and new clause 38 would address just one small part of that issue by requiring a ministerial statement, once a quarter, on the progress of the setting up of GBR and its becoming fully operational. There is huge public interest in the Bill, which must be successful, so it would be sensible for the Minister to come to the House and make a statement. That would increase transparency, maintain focus and prevent drift.
Mrs Hobhouse, can you give me some guidance? Are we going to talk about the clause more widely later, or should I deal with that now?
Jerome Mayhew
Thank you.
We have this generational change in the organisation of the railways; the Government, with their majority, have taken a political decision to nationalise the sector. We know that nationalisation of the railways has been tried before. They were nationalised in 1950 or 1951—
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Gentleman is quite right. From 1950, we had the high point of post-war passenger numbers on the railways—about 1 billion passengers. From that period of nationalisation, the number of passengers choosing—I use that word advisedly—to use the railways started a long and seemingly unstoppable decline. It went from 1 billion in the early 1950s all the way down to about 735 million in the period of privatisation—1993. It seemed like that was due to the public changing the way in which they chose to live their lives. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Nottingham South, suggested from her seat on Second Reading that it was obvious that people did not want to use the train so much, even during a period of increasing population, because they were increasingly affluent and they bought more cars. That is a possible explanation.
But then something very odd happened. In 1993, the then Conservative Government legislated to privatise the railways. Now, we can debate—and I am sure we will multiple times over the coming days—whether that was a good or a bad thing in principle and whether the way the privatisation was done, through the Railways Act 1993, and subsequently amended was perfect or whether it could have been improved upon, but if we consider that the primary objective of a railway—leaving freight to one side for a moment—is to carry passengers, the data shows that the privatisation of the railways in the United Kingdom was an unqualified success. The seemingly inevitable decline in passenger numbers changed direction immediately. It was not just a slow bottoming out; that long-term decline immediately turned in the other direction, and then continued to grow until covid meant that all bets were off from 2019. Those numbers did not just grow to recover all the lost work of the previous 40 years—they did not go back up to 1 billion customers; they increased to 1.75 billion. That was a period of increased affluence, when the number of cars available to passengers increased enormously. The only explanation for the absolute reversal in passenger numbers is the decisions taken through privatisation—the profit motive and the incentive to focus on passengers rather than on the organisation.
The Chair
I advise Members that any clauses or amendments that I announce in a grouping are debated at that point, although some of the decisions—that is, the votes—might come not at that point, but later. We will decide on amendment 257 and clause 1 after this debate; we are also discussing new clauses 24 and 38, but the decisions on those will come later. I hope that that is helpful and that it will help Members with other groupings we debate.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham has already addressed clause 1 in broad terms, so I do not propose to repeat what he said, other than to express my agreement with his concerns about the unintended consequences and potential impact of nationalisation on passengers. I recognise that that is the Government’s decision and that, with their majority, they will be able to carry it—unless they have a huge rebellion on a scale we have not seen before, which is highly unlikely.
Let me address my hon. Friend’s new clause 38. As a Government Minister, I saw that the easy bit was coming up with a strategy and pushing some legislation through the House; the hard bit—and the bit that makes the difference as to whether something works for our electorate and for the great British public—is the implementation and delivery of the intent behind the strategy or legislation. There can be no doubt that this legislation is complex and represents a significant change to a service and industry that is relied on by many, day by day, up and down this country.
The Minister knows I have a lot of respect for him. He has risen up through the ranks rapidly but justifiably through his abilities and talents. I have seen in the past his willingness to listen and reflect on different perspectives, so I gently encourage him to look at new clause 38 with an approving eye. It is not onerous. It is a written ministerial statement that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham proposes, which is not a challenging thing to produce in a Government Department and then lay before the House. Although on occasions such scrutiny might test the Minister’s patience, I have to say with the benefit of hindsight that the scrutiny that comes through that publication and having to go through the process of summarising where we have got to in implementing a policy can often lead to that policy being kept on track and to course corrections as it is implemented, and can genuinely improve outcomes and delivery for the public.
I conclude by gently commending my hon. Friend’s proposed new clause to the Minister. I hope he will look at it with an approving eye or at least an open mind.
The Chair
We now look forward to the Minister responding on amendment 257, and on new clauses 24 and 38, although he might be relieved to hear that he does not have to make a decision on those today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. May I begin by saying how much I look forward to working with all members of the Committee as we advance the priorities in the Bill and hopefully have a robust debate as we do so?
First, I turn to amendment 257 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield. I also want to reciprocate his warm words about the conversations he has been able to have with me and the Rail Minister Lord Hendy on this provision. Let me reassure him that public ownership of our railways is what the Government are delivering, as set out in our manifesto, and that we are steadfast in our commitment to it. We are already seeing the benefits of bringing train operators into public ownership, with passengers being put back at the heart of the rail network. Passengers can now use their tickets on another public sector operator at no extra cost during disruption.
Through working with Network Rail, Southeastern increased capacity to popular seaside spots in the summer months. Since moving into public ownership, South Western Railway has more than quadrupled the number of new Arterio trains in service, directly benefiting passengers. Public ownership sits at the heart of the Bill, as my hon. Friend notes is the case in other legislation passed by this Government, to ensure that we gradually take our railways back into public ownership in the interests of passengers. However, I take his point that it is important to safeguard the legacy of these essential reforms for generations to come. I will take that thought away. In the meantime I encourage him to withdraw his amendment.
New clause 24 would require the Secretary of State to appoint a Great British Railways board to advise the Secretary of State on decisions taken in respect of Great British Railways, with representation from various industry groups. I feel that is unnecessary and would distort the clear accountability framework established in the Bill. To be clear, a highly skilled board that can hold to account the executive of Great British Railways will be crucial to delivering an improved railway. The GBR board will be made up of experienced people with diverse backgrounds who can be the voice of railway users. Where the Secretary of State is concerned about the performance of GBR, she will be able to raise these matters with the chair of the board. The chair will be able to advise both the Secretary of State and GBR’s chief executive officer on options for resolution and will be expected to ensure they are acted on, all without the need for a direction.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I recognise that improvements are needed for the drafting of the board were it to go ahead. He makes reference, however, to the board of GBR and that it will have a number of directors on it. In normal circumstances that would include a number of non-executive directors outside the main organisation. Will the Minister confirm that that is the intention for this board? If it is the case that external non-executive directors are anticipated for that board, could he go down the list in new clause 24(2)(a) to (f) and describe whether those are the kinds of organisations that might be represented in a non-executive capacity on the GBR board?
Keir Mather
It is my understanding that the process of appointing non-executive directors on GBR’s board will be followed in the normal way. I expect departmental processes to find a range of candidates with experience of both the private sector and public institutions, to ensure that GBR is an agile organisation that provides value for money for those who fund the railway and, most importantly, accountability through the Secretary of State, as well as having a mind to furthering the interests of both open access operators and the freight sector within the operation of GBR.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse.
I completely appreciate what the Minister is saying. However, I suppose that the outstanding question is this: how will the general public come to understand what GBR is going to mean for them if it is not going to be established for 12 months and if there is not a fixed timetable for reporting back to MPs on how it is going? There has already been a fanfare about delivery; I am sure that there is going to be another fanfare from the Government once the Bill is passed. However, if we are going to take passengers on this journey, so to speak, we must ensure that there is an opportunity for us, as Members of Parliament, to be able to report back, even if it on an issue relating to our own constituency. I think the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham is actually quite sensible.
Keir Mather
May I draw the hon. Member’s attention to the fact that so far I have not made a single rail pun in the course of this debate—and I intend to keep it that way?
The hon. Member made a really important point about both parliamentary accountability and the general public being able to understand more about how GBR works and what it constitutes. Throughout the establishment of GBR, there are concurrent process that will allow the Secretary to State to outline more properly the long-term future of the railway and GBR’s role in it, including the long-term rail strategy, as well as work that we are already advancing on the accessibility road map and the rolling stock and infrastructure strategy.
Existing parliamentary structures in our Westminster democracy provide ample room for us to hold Government Ministers and the Secretary of State to account on the establishment of GBR. We have oral questions for Transport, as well as the ability to ask urgent questions on GBR’s establishment. Through both Lord Hendy in the other place and Ministers in this House, we have a real ambition to explain GBR’s provisions and ways of working to the general public, because we are confident in its ability to revolutionise how the railway runs on behalf of passengers, but I take the hon. Lady’s point.
Establishing GBR is the primary purpose of the Bill, and clause 1 provides the Secretary of State with the power, by regulations, to designate a body corporate as GBR. The clause enables wider provisions in the Bill relating to GBR to apply to a body corporate, such as the statutory functions and general duties set out in it. Following Royal Assent, a company will be designated as GBR, and it will consolidate Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd, DfT Operator, train operators and parts of the Rail Delivery Group into one organisation to ensure that GBR can be mobilised as quickly as is practicable.
The clause is essential for the Government to deliver our manifesto commitment to reform the railways by establishing GBR as the directing mind, bringing track and train together. I commend clause 1 to the Committee.
Laurence Turner
I must start by slightly disagreeing with the Minister on his approach to railway puns. The shadow Minister referred to the discussion on amendment 257 as a dispute; I reassure him that this is not a case of pistons at dawn—[Laughter.] It is going to get so much worse. Before I come to the Minister’s substantive response, I will briefly respond to a few other comments that have been made in the debate.
The shadow Minister spoke about changes in passenger numbers over the years, which is a good illustration of why it is important to look across a whole time series, and to bear in mind the old maxim that correlation is not causation. After all, passenger numbers were already falling by the time that we got to vesting day in 1948. The railways were exhausted after years of war—indeed, passenger numbers halved between 1920 and 1947. In fact, the actual nadir in passenger numbers was not in the early 1990s but in 1983. I thought that Opposition Members might have wanted to take pride in the successful sectorisation experiment under the Thatcher Government, perhaps aided by some benign neglect from that Administration, which was sadly not repeated by the subsequent Major Administration.
We have some good explanations for why exactly passenger numbers rose so dramatically in the 1990s and 2000s. For a long time, I think we could have all substituted our political explanations for why that happened. However, in 2018, a very good study, led by eminent modellers and academics, was published by the Independent Transport Commission on precisely that question. It found that passenger growth was overwhelmingly driven by changes in the job market—the types of roles being created and the areas of the country in which they were being created. It was also aided by changes to tax incentives for company cars in the early 2000s, which led to an additional increase in rail traffic.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. For my constituents, in the period since the railways were privatised they have twice needed to be brought back under public ownership: once in 2003, when Connex failed, and again in 2021, when Southeastern failed. However, on both occasions, there was no impact on passenger numbers; rather, the factors that my hon. Friend is describing correlated and led to those passenger numbers. Does he agree that over the last 30 years, whether the service has been under national or private ownership has had no impact on the passenger numbers on trains in my constituency?
Laurence Turner
I absolutely agree, and we could point to other examples where franchises being taken in-house under previous Governments led to a service improvement. The Opposition’s problem has always been that public ownership works in practice but not in their theory.
I am heartened by what the Minister had to say on my amendment. This is not an issue of dispute; this is sensible scrutiny. I welcome the commitment the Minister made to take the issue away. I recognise that this Committee is probably not the place to resolve this detailed and technical consideration. I am encouraged by his comments and on the basis that we may return to this matter at a later stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Crown status etc
Keir Mather
I beg to move amendment 164, in clause 2, page 2, line 3, at end insert—
“(5A) This section is not to be read as preventing the exercise of functions by Great British Railways on behalf of the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers under arrangements made by the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers.”
This amendment clarifies that the Secretary of State and Scottish and Welsh Ministers may enter into agency agreements for the performance of functions on their behalf. For example, this may be required to assist with winding up of ongoing franchises, as they transition to GBR.
Keir Mather
Amendment 164 will enable the Secretary of State to appoint GBR as an agent to undertake certain activities on her behalf—for example, to manage outstanding contractual arrangements associated with the winding down of the franchising regime while the industry transitions to the new arrangements. It may be appropriate for GBR to do that if transfers of staff from the Department into GBR have already happened, for example. It would also ensure that GBR can effectively co-ordinate the winding down of franchises alongside its new management of services. This is a technical measure that supports a seamless transition of work and resources into GBR.
The amendment also clarifies that Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers can delegate their functions to GBR under clause 4, or enter into agency agreements with GBR if desired. That is already the Bill’s intention, but the amendment ensures that the Bill is clear and readable.
Clause 2 sets out GBR’s relationship to the Crown and the civil service, establishing it as an independent body. It will not be part of the Crown or act as the Crown’s agent or servant and its employees will not be civil servants. Additionally, the clause confirms that the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers will not be considered shadow directors for the purposes of the Companies Acts.
The clause is essential in setting up GBR and laying out how it will operate. I urge the Committee to support the amendment and the clause.
Jerome Mayhew
I enjoyed listening to the Minister read out the explanatory notes; we are all under no illusion as to what clause 2 stands for. The Opposition think it is eminently sensible—in fact, it lifted directly from the structure proposed by the previous Conservative Government for the draft Rail Reform Bill. Government amendment 164 appears to be a clarifying amendment to help with the dotting of i’s and crossing of t’s and we have no objection.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for his constructive engagement on the amendment and the clause.
Amendment 164 agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Functions
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 3, page 2, line 15, after “sale” insert—
“by promoting a thriving competitive market in the retail ticketing market”.
This amendment makes Great British Railways’ duty to promote a competitive retail market explicit and aligns the Bill with the Government’s stated aim of delivering a system where competition drives better outcomes for passengers.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 131, in clause 3, page 2, line 27, at end insert—
“(2A) Great British Railways’ function under subsection (1)(d) must be exercised in accordance with the findings of the report published under section [Report on Great British Railways’ ticketing function].”
This amendment is related to NC9 and requires that GBR exercises its ticketing function in accordance with the findings of the report detailed in that new clause.
Amendment 117, in schedule 1, page 58, line 6, at end insert—
“including requirements to promote a fair and competitive retail market that treats all market participants, including Great British Railway’s retailing function, on a fair and equal basis.”
This would ensure the Code of Practice to explicitly include a duty for GBR to safeguard a level playing field for third-party retailers and confirms that GBR Retail must itself comply with the Code.
New clause 9—Report on Great British Railways’ ticketing function—
“(1) Great British Railways must prepare and publish a report on how it will exercise its function under section 3(1)(d) of this Act (the ‘ticketing function’).
(2) A report under this section must include plans for Great British Railways to —
(a) introduce a cap on fare increases not exceeding the rate of inflation, applicable to and reviewed as part of each 5-year funding settlement for the railway,
(b) extend, and where not currently provided for provide, a 50% discount on all train fares for passengers aged under 18 years,
(c) establish a tap-in tap-out method of ticketing across England, Wales and Scotland,
(d) guarantee that any fare offered to passengers for purchase via any means is the best value fare, and that there is no inequality in fare for the same ticket when purchased via different means,
(e) introducing a National Railcard across England, Wales and Scotland,
(f) enable open-source access to Great British Railways’ ticketing systems and rates databases for third-party retailers,
(g) collaborate with local and regional transport authorities to enable multimodal ticketing between railway passenger services and local bus, light rail and other public transport networks, and
(h) take all reasonable steps to simplify fares and remove barriers to travel where a single journey undertaken by a passenger involves travel on—
(i) multiple rail services, or
(ii) at least one rail service and at least one additional form of public transport.
(3) For the purposes of this section the rate of inflation is calculated in accordance with any increase in the Retail Price Index.”
This new clause would require GBR to report on how it will undertake its ticketing function. It requires GBR to set out how it would cap fare increases; extend children’s discounts; provide that a single best price is available across ticketing mediums; and provide access to systems for third-party retailers.
New clause 3—Great British Railways retail requirements—
“(1) Great British Railways Retail is subject to the same conditions, standards and transparency requirements as all other accredited retailers.
(2) Conditions, standards and transparency requirements as set out in subsection (1) include equal access to—
(a) fares,
(b) products,
(c) technical systems, and
(d) data feeds.”
This new clause clarifies that Great British Railways Retail is subject to the same conditions, standards and transparency requirements as all other accredited retailers, including equal access to fares, products, technical systems and data feeds.
Amendment 132, in clause 92, page 54, line 5, at end insert—
“, except that section 3(1)(d) may not be commenced until any report under section [Report on Great British Railways’ ticketing function] has been published.”
This amendment is related to NC9 and requires that ticketing functions for GBR may not be commenced until a report under that new clause has been published.
Jerome Mayhew
This is where things liven up a bit. We have had the preliminaries; now we are going to get into the meat of the debate.
Clause 3 is where the Government set out the proposed functions of GBR—the list of activities that GBR will be expected to undertake to fulfil its purpose. I use the word “purpose” with some hesitation, because of course no purpose for the organisation is set out in the Bill. The Opposition will seek to address that in a new clause. What is contained within those functions, as well as what is not there, tells us a lot about the Government’s priorities. This is going to be quite illuminating.
The Chair
Order. We will debate clause 3 later. We are currently considering amendments 131 and 117, tabled in the name of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. Will the hon. Member direct his remarks to those amendments, please?
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for that direction, Mrs Hobhouse, but it is quite hard to talk about amendments if we have not considered what is in the clause. I fully accept and follow your guidance that the decision and debate on clause 3 as a whole comes later, but to address amendments to a clause I have to discuss the clause as a whole.
The Chair
I can only advise the hon. Gentleman on how we are going to take the debate forward, but I hear what he says. It would be helpful if he could allude to the amendments we are discussing.
Olly Glover
On a point of order, Mrs Hobhouse. I seek clarification for my own understanding. The lead amendment in the group is Opposition amendment 2; is it correct that we are also speaking to amendment 117 and new clause 3?
Jerome Mayhew
In which case, I will speak first to amendment 2, as that is first in the grouping, and then proceed to the others.
Amendment 2 would make explicit the duty of Great British Railways to promote a thriving, competitive retail market, and align the Bill with the Government’s stated aim of delivering a system in which competition drives better outcomes for passengers. The retail market in the UK is currently one of thriving competition, as we can all recognise, and shows UK tech at its best. Trainline is—I think I am right in saying—a FTSE 250 company, and a tech growth story for the United Kingdom, being Europe’s leading train and coach app. The amendment is therefore key to ensuring that the landscape continues to thrive and that we do not drive Trainline and its competitors out of the country.
Members will remember that in written evidence to the Transport Committee, Trainline asked that Committee
“to recommend that the Bill be amended to require structural separation of GBR online retail from the rest of the GBR organisation and to publish information that enables the ORR, CMA and other regulators to assess compliance with competition law, subsidy control rules and non-discrimination duties. This should not be left to the Code of Practice alone”—
and, by the way, we have not seen the code of practice.
Trainline also said:
“We ask that the Committee recommend that the Bill include a statutory duty that all retail market participants—including GBR online retail—are treated fairly, equally and non-discriminatorily, and that GBR online retail be subject to the same Code of Practice as all other retailers…We ask the Committee to recommend that these economic parity safeguards, including structural separation of GBR’s online retail business, be written into the legislation and the forthcoming Code of Practice…We therefore ask that the Committee recommends…An explicit ORR power to impose binding orders or financial sanctions if GBR breaches its licence or the Code. ORR’s competition duty should explicitly apply in respect of these functions and GBR’s licence…Provision for an appeal body (for example the CMA or the Competition Appeal Tribunal) to hear merits of disputes…The Code development process must be led by ORR, independent of DfT and GBR. It must ensure full stakeholder consultation, clear timetable, transparent publication of decisions and mechanisms for future amendment.”
Members may say, “Well, they’ve got skin in the game, haven’t they? They’re a commercial organisation trying to compete with the future GBR, so it will be in their interest to try to fix the corporate structure in a way that gives them an unfair advantage.” But if we look at what Trainline is asking for, we see it is not seeking to gain an unfair advantage. It is merely asking GBR to create a level playing field. Trainline is not the only organisation making that argument; it is joined by others.
Laurence Turner
The hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago that Trainline and other online retailers are not seeking to make ill use of their market position, but the Advertising Standards Authority has ordered Trainline to amend its adverts, and the ORR ordered it to amend its practice of not showing booking fees at the start of the booking process. In oral evidence to the Transport Committee, Trainline accepted that its market share was significantly above the 25% test that the Competition and Markets Authority applies for a potential monopoly position. Does that concern the hon. Gentleman at all?
Jerome Mayhew
That demonstrates that the current system is working to hold Trainline to account, and that where there are abuses—if what the hon. Gentleman outlined amounted to abuses—effective systems are in position and they have been corrected.
The hon. Gentleman’s intervention did not speak to the overriding point: what do the Government want when they are applying this new structure to retail? Do they want a level playing field? Is that their intention, or do they want a systemically biased system in which GBR retail is given an unfair advantage over independent competition? Both answers are credible—it is possible for the Government to form one decision—but they should not pay lip service to a level playing field but, in design, achieve the opposite, which appears to be the case at the moment.
In oral evidence to the Transport Committee, Ben Plowden, the chief executive of the Campaign for Better Transport, essentially agreed with Trainline’s position. He said:
“We think that because the independent retail market has produced significant benefits for customers in the time that it has been in existence. It is heavily used by rail passengers. The critical question in relation to the Bill, and the other mechanisms that will be in place once the Bill has been passed, is how we ensure that there is genuine fair and open competition between GBR ticket retailing and the independent retailers currently or potentially in the market.”
This is a key point: the Government need to stop and think about what their intention is. If it is to have a fair market, the evidence, and all the feedback they are getting from the sector, is that they have not yet achieved that objective. They need to put their money where their mouth is and decide what their objective is. I hope the Minister will be clear in his response as to the Government’s thinking on that.
A second concern is that the sector is nervous about the apparent lack of hierarchy and detail in the functions. GBR is assigned multiple duties under the clause, but with no hierarchy, so it paves the way for potential confusion—or, worse, it gives GBR the ability to pick and choose which function it thinks is important in relation to any decision. It can quietly demote the importance of others so that it can serve itself and thereby reduce the power of the clause.
Nick Brooks from ALLRAIL said in oral evidence to the Transport Committee:
“To lead from your further question: with the very broad powers for the Secretary of State and a certain lack of specificity on what will happen, what we are looking for is more key performance indicators, like in business. I realise it is a governmental entity, but the quantitative KPIs are not really there.”
I would go further than that: they are not there at all.
As well as amendment 2, which I have spoken to, we have also tabled new clause 3, which sets out GBR retail requirements. As I have said previously, this is a critical issue given the evidence that the Select Committee received, and the oral evidence that we heard on Tuesday, that the Government have built a structural conflict of interest into the Bill as currently drafted.
We also heard on Tuesday about international examples where a similar concern has been addressed in a different manner. SNCF is a state-owned railway in France that has unification of track and train. It also has a retail function, through which is competes with the wider market. SNCF, or, I presume, the French Government—I do not want to claim greater in-depth knowledge that I actually possess—have taken the decision to have a structural separation between SNCF retail and SNCF operations, the equivalent to GBR. The very obvious reason why they did that was for fairness and to have a level playing field. We are not talking about SNCF, but an improvement on the current position, which I fully accept is not perfect.
The Chair
Can I reassure the shadow Minister and all members of this Committee that it is not my intention to confuse you? I interrupted on the advice of the Clerks. The groupings have been agreed on; I do not want to stifle debate and there will be plenty of opportunity to debate the whole of clause 3 later on, in group 7.
Olly Glover
I stand to speak in favour of amendment 131 and new clause 9, and we will push new clause 9 to a vote if you are willing, Mrs Hobhouse. The amendments are intended to encourage GBR to think deeply and creatively about fares and ticketing, reflecting the fact that until recently—more on which anon—rail fares have been subject to above-inflation increases for much of the past 20 to 30 years.
Many passengers feel that they are not getting good value for money and that the current fares and ticketing system requires a PhD in British railways ticketing systems, even for a nerd like me. I recently got caught out because GWR’s peak hour restrictions are utterly baffling and incomprehensible. I do not wish to speak too highly of myself—it is not my style—but if I, someone with the generally not particularly character-enhancing reputation in this place of being a railway nerd, got caught out, it does suggest that the system is too hard to process and needs to change. Given that the car is the default mode of transport for so many people, an overly complicated ticketing system creates a further barrier for people using it. That is why we have tabled amendment 131 and new clause 9.
Our amendments would require Great British Railways to prepare and publish a report on how it will exercise its ticketing functions under section 3 of the Act. Our measures set out various proposals that we would like GBR to consider and which we feel would significantly improve the value for money of the fares system and its accessibility and comprehensibility to everyone using the railway, and help it to draw on best practice from elsewhere—both domestically and in other countries—to improve the current situation.
The report that we are asking for would need to include the following information. To give credit to the Government, they recently embraced a long-standing Lib Dem campaign for a rail fares freeze, for which we are grateful and praise them, but it should not just be a one-off that Department for Transport Ministers somehow managed to achieve the miracle of persuading the Treasury to do it. It is something that we need to think about for the future. On this side of the House we are not so fiscally irresponsible—
Jerome Mayhew
I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Member’s flow, but there is a wider point there. The hon. Member is right to mention that the Government have frozen fares, but they have not reduced the cost of providing railway services. All they have done is frozen fares on the one hand and increased taxation on the other—and the taxpayer is having to pick up the difference. Does he agree that what the Government have done is put money into one pocket, but taken it out of the pocket of passengers who are, presumably, taxpayers?
Olly Glover
Of course, taxpayers pay for a wide range of services, public or otherwise. Too often, the railway has been viewed almost uniquely, with the high expectation that it covers its own costs. The key challenge with a rail fares freeze is that it needs to be fiscally responsible. While the one-off gesture is welcome, and relieves some of the pressure that has built up over the last few years during the cost of living crisis, our measure for the future is, we believe, more fiscally responsible. A cap on fare increases that does not exceed the rate of inflation should become the default, and should be reviewed as part of each five-year funding settlement.
We also advocate for extending, where not currently provided for, a 50% discount on all train fares for passengers aged under 18 to address the anomaly of fare rates for young people aged 16 to 18. We want a tap-in, tap-out method of ticketing that is consistent across the countries of England, Wales and Scotland.
Edward Argar
May I ask, on a factual point, what assessment the hon. Gentleman has made of what the cost of that 50% discount would be?
Olly Glover
I have not made an assessment of it at this moment. But that is not unique: at this stage in the parliamentary cycle, the right hon. Member will find that a number of the Conservative proposals that are debated in this place have not yet been fully costed—
Rebecca Smith
I beg to differ: they are all costed, because we are the official Opposition.
Olly Glover
I look forward to hearing all the figures. The point is that it is not always about coming up with the exact cost for absolutely every measure. There are plenty of things that are the right thing to do, and that can earn a return on investment. The number of young people who are not in employment, education or training is a significant barrier to economic growth. This measure, by making it easier for young people to use the train to access jobs, is likely to earn a significant return by getting more people into employment and paying taxes.
Before I accepted the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention, I was saying that we want a tap-in, tap-out method of ticketing across England, Wales and Scotland. If that sounds absurd, the Netherlands has it at this exact moment—and there is much that we can learn from that example. We want a guarantee to be issued that whatever ticket passengers purchase, via any means, is the best value fare. There should be no inequality in fare for the same ticket purchased via different means, which can be the case now because of the proliferation of ticketing platforms.
We want a national railcard to be introduced across the country. Many other countries, including Germany and Switzerland, offer national discount cards, but it is a bit of a postcode lottery here, with the network railcard in the London and south-east England area and a number of other regional or local railcards. We want open-source access to Great British Railways’ ticketing systems and rate databases for third-party retailers. That would build on the useful example demonstrated by Network Rail about 15 years ago, when it made the data feeds for its performance and train running systems available for the public to use. That created a wonderful ecosystem of useful train running and disruption apps that were much better than the official ones provided by train operators.
We also want to see greater collaboration with local and regional transport authorities, so that we see much more multimodal ticketing between railway passenger services and local bus, light rail and other public transport networks. That would help us to get the integrated transport system we need to deal with the first and last-mile issues that are often a barrier to people deciding to take public transport over the car. Where a single journey involves travel on multiple rail services, or at least one rail service and another form of public transport, we want steps to be taken to simplify fares and remove barriers to travel.
We believe that our new clause makes a number of proposals that would put our fares and ticketing system on a much better footing. It would deliver value to the taxpayer as well as reduce cost, because it would stimulate many more people to use our railway and therefore increase revenue. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I am always slightly concerned about speaking after my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage, who has a justifiable reputation as a train expert—I will not say “train nerd”—so I am slightly circumspect.
Rail users, both regular and irregular, have many gripes about the rail system, but the most frequent I hear from constituents undoubtedly concerns the cost of tickets. New clause 9 is about requiring fare increases to be capped in line with inflation. At time of a sustained cost of living pressure for working families, that would provide a long-term guarantee that rail fares will not continue to spiral up unpredictably, which would drive down usage.
The new clause would also mean that children aged 16 and 17 who are still in education would not be charged adult fares simply because of an arbitrary age threshold. In rural West Dorset, this is another issue that comes into my mailbox all the time. Children who are still in education hit the 16-year-old threshold and have to get across the constituency to colleges in Weymouth, at astronomical cost. Extending the 50% discount for under-18s who are in full-time education is sensible and fair, and will be especially good for people in rural communities.
The new clause would also address long-standing inconsistencies in ticketing. As mentioned, a national railcard system would end the postcode lottery whereby some areas benefit from low fares while people in other constituencies, especially rural ones, are left paying more.
Rebecca Smith
I appreciate the heart behind the hon. Gentleman’s proposal, but can he explain a bit more about why we need a national railcard? There are already all sorts of other railcards, as he rightly points out. There is one for the south-east, and I know there is one in Devon and Cornwall, but they are for specific sets of people doing specific types of journey. If there was a national railcard, would it not incentivise everybody to possess one, so that nobody ever paid a full rail fare?
Edward Morello
At one point, going through all the amendments that had been tabled to the Bill, I concluded that accepting them all would mean that the only people who would pay for a full-price ticket would probably be working-age men aged 35 to 45—they would have to single-handedly fund the entire rail network. I am not sure that that is a desirable long-term system, but a simplified system is ideal. I accept the premise of the hon. Lady’s intervention: the regionalised or localised railcards have their own benefit. But invariably we are just creating more and more carve-outs, and a simplified national system may be fairer and easier to sustain over the long term.
A move towards a national tap-in, tap-out system would modernise the network and make it far more user-friendly. In West Dorset, passengers too often step off a train only to have to wait 45 minutes for a bus, because timetables are poorly aligned. Enabling multimodal ticketing would allow rail, bus and other services to work together, making journeys smoother for residents and visitors.
New clause 9 would require Great British Railways to report on and plan for fair fares, modern ticketing, innovation through an open-source system and integration across all transport nodes. Like new clause 8, it would allow us to advocate for passengers, which should be the central theme of the Bill.
Keir Mather
I thank all the hon. Members for the amendments, which relate to GBR’s ticket retailing functions. I will turn first to amendments 2 and 117 and new clause 3. The amendments and new clause seek to amend GBR’s retail function and code of practice to promote a level playing field for third-party retailers, with parity of access to fares, products, systems and data.
Once GBR is established, it will have a retail function, as provided for by clause 3. Crucially, that function will be accessible via all channels—at station ticket offices, ticket vending machines, onboard trains and online—ensuring that it serves passengers however they buy their tickets. GBR’s future online retailer—its website and app—will operate in a fair, open and competitive market.
The Government have consistently recognised the significant value of independent retailers, as they help to innovate and drive up standards for passengers. Therefore, I recognise and agree with the motivation behind amendment 2. Nevertheless, the Government do not believe that the amendment is necessary. Significant safeguards have already been announced to ensure that our shared vision for the future of the rail retail market is realised—not least a code of practice, which will be owned and enforced by the Office of Rail and Road.
The provisions in the code of practice will ensure that GBR cannot abuse its position or self-prefer as it also operates vital cross-industry functions that independent retailers rely on. The incentives to comply could not be stronger: if GBR fails to adhere to the code of practice, that constitutes a breach of its licence, and the ORR will take enforcement action. It is as simple as that.
Rebecca Smith
I thank the Minister for the clarity on the code of practice, which has also been echoed in some written answers I recently received from him. While we are talking about open access, what thoughts have the Minister and the Department given to working with independent retailers who have probably spent billions of pounds developing an app and a website that do a particularly good job? What work will they do collaboratively with those organisations, rather than viewing themselves as competition?
Keir Mather
The hon. Lady is right to point out that there are certain areas where GBR will operationally have to work with third-party retailers to ensure that they have the information that they need to continue to discharge their service.
However, another important point is that there are lessons to be learned about existing functions—where they work and where they do not work—in providing value for money for passengers and ease of access to the railway network. That is certainly something that we can take forward as part of the discussion on the Bill. I know that the Rail Minister consistently meets with stakeholders across the breadth of the railway industry, and it should be incumbent on us all to ensure that competitive measures, where they serve the interests of passengers, are incorporated into the way GBR works.
Rebecca Smith
The point I want to come back to is about value for money for the taxpayer. I want some reassurance that GBR will not go right back to the beginning of the journey of creating a ticketing app and website, which would effectively cost the general public an inordinate amount of money, when we already have a lot of platforms that could be brought in-house rather than having to be separate businesses.
On the value for money point, call me a cynic, but my understanding of computer programming is that it is not very cheap. I assume that that is something that GBR will have to factor in. Perhaps using some of the existing independent retailers might be a better value for money option.
Keir Mather
Of course, those independent retailers can continue to operate. GBR also has, as part of its duties—the things that it is required to follow by law—an interest in promoting the efficient use of public funds. We also think that there are significant economic benefits that can be realised through consolidation when it comes to aspects of ticketing.
As has been so ably pointed out, taxpayers and railway passengers are the same people. To that extent, people being taken in different directions by a vast variety of ticketing apps, not being able to realise the potential savings that are in place, does them a disservice economically. We believe that consolidation can offer them a smoother experience of ticketing and, hopefully, access to benefits that otherwise they might not be able to realise.
To return to the code of practice, it will be fully consulted on before its introduction, so it would not be appropriate for the Bill to pre-empt the specific provisions that it will contain. However, I can confirm to the Committee that the principles I have set out today, which I believe are consistent with some of the concerns that amendments 2 and 117 and new clause 3 seek to address, will very much guide ongoing work in this area.
On that point, I turn back to one of the comments made by the Opposition spokesperson about his concern regarding the setting of fares. I would like to make clear to him that it is not for the Secretary of State to interfere in day-to-day fare decisions. The Secretary of State will be limited to setting high-level strategic parameters to ensure that fares remain affordable for passengers and sustainable for taxpayers. GBR will make all of the operational decisions within those parameters and changes to those parameters would occur only to reflect GBR’s financial settlement, or in exceptional circumstances. That is, in my view, a necessary and proportionate safeguard to protect passengers, taxpayers and Government money. Therefore, as we are already taking significant and sufficient steps to deliver what the amendment envisages, so I urge the hon. Member to withdraw it.
I turn now to new clause 9 an amendments 131 and 132, which are dependent on it. New clause 9 would mandate the publication of a report covering various elements of GBR’s fares, ticketing and retail functions. Many of the items that this report would be required to cover relate to affordable and accessible rail travel—causes to which the Government are steadfastly committed. Affordability for passengers will be a key consideration when the Secretary of State sets strategic parameters and guardrails for GBR to follow on fares. As the Committee is by now aware, the Bill ensures continued statutory protection for concessionary discounts for young, older and disabled passengers.
Elsewhere, new clause 9 covers matters such as tap-in, tap-out payment and integrated ticketing, as well as third-party retailers’ access to systems and products. On integrated ticketing, we are already working with local authorities to integrate rail with local transport modes—and to trial or expand pay-as-you-go travel where appropriate. We are also progressing evaluations of how different pay-as-you-go schemes impact passengers, and the final reports will be published in due course. This work, which has not required additional legislation, is consistent with the ambition set out in various parts of new clause 9.
In summary, a legislative requirement to publish the envisaged report is not needed to deliver the outcomes that we want to see going forward. With that reassurance, I hope that the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage will agree not to press new clause 9 to a vote. Amendments 131 and 132 are dependent on new clause 9 and, for the reasons set out, the Government do not believe the report that new clause 9 would require is necessary, so I hope that the hon. Member will also agree not to press these amendments.
Jerome Mayhew
I have great respect for the Minister and I hear with interest what he said, but I am not convinced that the sector will receive sufficient reassurance from that, so I intend to push the amendment to a vote. Perhaps others, subsequently, as well, but we will deal with those later.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Railways Bill (Fourth sitting)
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 241, in clause 3, page 2, line 17, after “including,” insert
“acting in a fair and non-discriminatory manner”.
This amendment would require equal treatment between GBR and non-GBR services.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 2, line 20, after “services” insert
“managed by Great British Railways”.
These amendments would clarify that the research, advice and standards being published by Great British Railways are related to aspects to part of the railway and railway services which are managed by Great British Railways.
Amendment 4, in clause 3, page 2, line 22, after “services” insert
“managed by Great British Railways”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 3.
Amendment 5, in clause 3, page 2, line 23, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) Great British Railways’ function under subsection (1)(a) includes making strategic plans as to the future provision of railways infrastructure in Great Britain and implementing those plans.
(2A) Decisions about access to, and use of, railway infrastructure for the operation of trains will be made by the Office for Rail and Road.”
This amendment aims to ensure that the Office for Rail and Road continues to make decisions about access.
Amendment 6, in clause 3, page 2, line 28, leave out subsection (3).
New clause 15—Great British Railways electrification programme—
“(1) Great British Railways has a duty to publish and adhere to a programme of rail electrification.
(2) The programme must seek to—
(a) reduce cost, and
(b) improve timely delivery of
construction and delivery of infrastructure associated with rail electrification.
(3) The programme must cover a period of five financial years, beginning with the financial year following the financial year in which the programme is first published.
(4) The programme must be published each financial year thereafter, covering the period of the following five financial years.”
This new clause would require Great British Railways to commit to a rolling programme of line electrification.
New clause 20—Great British Railways: environmental targets—
“In the exercise of any of its functions, Great British Railways must take all reasonable steps to contribute to—
(a) the achievement of targets in sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021,
(b) the achievement of targets set under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008,
(c) the programme for adaptation to climate change under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and
(d) the achievement of targets set under the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.”
This new clause requires Great British Railways to takes steps to contribute to meeting targets set out in existing legislation on climate change.
Jerome Mayhew
It is a pleasure to see you in your place, Sir Alec. Amendment 241, in my name, is important, as so many of these amendments are. We heard in both oral and written evidence that lots of people are concerned about the need for this amendment, which addresses the concerns of many in the non-Great British Railways sector, whether Trainline, open access operators, freight operators or the whole supply chain.
The amendment seeks to require GBR expressly to act in a fair and non-discriminatory manner. We had some discussion about that before lunch, but I reiterate the argument that I made. I will seek to press the amendment to a Division if the occasion demands it, but it would send a terrible message to investors in the independent sector if the Government voted down an amendment that merely asks GBR to operate in a fair and non-discriminatory manner.
Amendments 3 and 4 clarify that the research, advice and standards published by Great British Railways are related to aspects of the parts of the railway and railway services that are managed by Great British Railways. Many independent entities, such as freight, open access and the supply chain, as well as other networks, are not managed by or part of GBR. Those entities need to be free to publish their own standards and manage their own innovation and research. The current drafting of the clause is a clear overreach. I suspect that that may be unintentional, so I ask the Minister or his officials to have a think about that.
Additionally, other cross-sector and national standards, such as those managed by the Rail Safety and Standards Board or the British Standards Institution, may be directly legally applicable to GBR itself under, for example, the Railways (Interoperability) Regulations 2011 and the Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006. To avoid conflicts of interest, those cannot be published or managed by GBR itself, so the Minister needs to explain how clause 3 does not involve a conflict of interest. Has he—or, it is probably gentler and kinder to ask, his team—researched those apparent contradictions? If he or they have, perhaps he could set out how those conflicts are addressed in the current wording.
Amendment 5 would leave out clause 3(2) and insert in its place:
“(2) Great British Railways’ function under subsection (1)(a) includes making strategic plans as to the future provision of railways infrastructure in Great Britain and implementing those plans.
(2A) Decisions about access to, and use of, railway infrastructure for the operation of trains will be made by the Office for Rail and Road.”
This would be quite a big change, because it would address head on the structural conflict of interest that has been identified by very many commentators. The role of the Office of Rail and Road is a key concern for the non-GBR part of the industry, which is, after all, 60% of it. By “the role of the ORR”, I do not mean its safety role, which remains almost entirely unchanged; I mean its economic regulator role.
This is not an issue of ideology. Some play has been made about base views on whether nationalisation or privatisation are better or worse than one other, but let us leave that to one side—we have had our fun for the moment. This is a fundamental issue of fairness of procedure, which is necessary irrespective of the ownership structure of the organisation. We all know that Great British Railways will be the dominant operator. That position brings it structural advantages in any event, but it will now be the referee on access as well. That is a direct and obvious conflict of interest, and it is a very odd approach because it is so clearly unfair.
The alternative is to use an independent structure. We would use the ORR because it already exists and does not have to be created, it already has a reputation for independence, and its remit and direction are set by the Secretary of State, so it cannot be a loose cannon.
I accept in part the arguments put forward by the Minister in response to questioning on Tuesday. I recognise that the Government own the infrastructure and the taxpayer has invested many billions of pounds in the railway over time, and I accept that they should decide how those funds are best used. The issue is how the Government look after taxpayers’ money. Is it via a player-referee—GBR—or is it via the Office of Rail and Road, which is itself a governmental organisation, has its remit set by the Secretary of State and is given direction? It is not as though we would be handing the keys to a stranger; we would just be demonstrating the application of a fair and non-discriminatory process by an overtly independent organisation that is itself an arm of the state.
Amendment 5 aims to ensure that the Office of Rail and Road continues to make decisions about access. It is a common theme of the Opposition amendments throughout that we want to ensure that the Bill does not create a GBR with that structural conflict of interest that acts as referee and player. I intend to press the amendment to a Division, should the opportunity arise.
Finally, I turn to amendment 6, which would leave out clause 3(3). Subsection (3) is a very broad regulation-making power for the Secretary of State to confer further functions on GBR. It is unrestricted. It reads:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations confer on Great British Railways such other functions relating to railways or railway services as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
Could it be any more widely framed? I do not think so. As long as it is something to do with railways, it takes power away from primary legislation and gives it to the Secretary of State to do as he or she will. It is a blank cheque for the Government and, by extension, for GBR. There are no details given as to why it is needed, and no reason why the powers have not already been considered.
We know that the Government have gone off half-cocked with this legislation. By Tuesday’s count, 19 serious documents relating to how GBR will work in practice have yet to emerge. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s justification for subsection (3). Why are the Government so keen to give such overarching powers to the Secretary of State?
Sir Alec, are we also going to deal with new clauses 15 and 20 tabled by the Liberal Democrats?
Jerome Mayhew
That is just as well, because I am going to leave those to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, but I will be happy to support new clause 15 should he be minded to press it to a vote.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I wish to speak to new clause 15. In doing so, I must ask the Minister for his assistance with either a medical or a political problem—I am not entirely sure which it is, because I cannot get a GP appointment in Didcot as we do not have a GP surgery on Great Western Park, but that is an issue for another time. In the absence of a GP appointment, I really hope that the Minister will be able to save me from sullying my reputation. In speaking to this new clause, I find myself at risk of having to say something positive about the Thatcher Government, which is obviously somewhat politically embarrassing.
New clause 15 proposes adding a rolling programme of electrification to the Bill. The reason that I may need to say something nice about the Thatcher Government is that according to figures that I have looked at, nearly 3,000 km of railway was electrified under that Government during the 1980s, to which the just 170 km electrified under the 1997 to 2010 Labour Government compares very unfavourably. That perhaps comes as quite a surprise, given that there was significant economic growth during that later period, at least compared with today—[Interruption.]
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I think we just heard an Opposition Member ask, “What were they doing?” in respect of the 1997 to 2010 Government. The answer, of course, is that capital investment had to be directed to safety in the aftermath of Hatfield and other disasters. When we look at where exactly that money was spent, it was on the safety improvements necessitated by some of the disasters caused by privatisation. I am a strong supporter of electrification, as I know the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage is, but I thought it was important to place that on record.
Olly Glover
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will say two things in response. First, I hope that his Government and the Minister will support the new clause, because, given the strong state of railway safety today, there should not be the same limits on electrification expenditure that he suggests. Secondly, the problem with his point is that very few electrification schemes were authorised between 1997 and 2000, the period before the Hatfield rail disaster, which led to the period of safety recovery that he quite rightly highlighted.
The direction that the Government are taking is a big concern. They have yet again cancelled the midland main line electrification, a scheme that would have happened 40 years ago in any other European country. Our stop-start progress on electrification compares very unfavourably with other countries in Europe. Germany has delivered a steady 200 km a year, or thereabouts, on average for many decades, and in so doing delivers significantly lower unit costs than our boom and bust approach to electrification. It is not just Germany. We often hear excuses about how electrification is too difficult for us because of our limited gauge clearance or our scenery, but that does not explain the fact that the entire Swiss rail network is electrified, including railways in UNESCO world heritage sites and more than 3,000 metres above sea level.
With the exception of the trans-Pennine route upgrade and a couple of other very small schemes, nothing is committed at the moment. That is a real shame, because the benefits of electrification are significant. I feel that we have perhaps lost our way in this country. We have become very focused on electrification as a means of decarbonising our railways, but that is a small part of the enormous benefits of electrification. Electrification delivers more reliable, lighter trains that have far less impact on the track and are also cheaper, because pure electric multiple units are the standard off-the-shelf product across the European rolling stock market. What wouldn’t any other sector—whether it is shipping, which I know the Minister has a keen interest in, aviation or the car industry—give for the ability to provide constant electrical power to get the amazing power-to-weight ratio that electrification delivers?
We constantly talk about the lack of freight on our rail network. A big part of that is that rail freight tends to be diesel hauled, which has far worse acceleration and consumes far more track capacity. On a recent journey across Germany and other parts of Europe, I did not see a single diesel-hauled freight train; they were all electric. That enables so much more to be squeezed on to the network, and would support private sector investment. For example, GB Railfreight has invested in a fleet of locomotives that can haul both diesel and electric. Having visited its Peterborough headquarters a few months ago, I know that it would like to run under electricity far more than it is currently able to because of our electrification rate. We are in a very poor state, and not just compared with western European countries; Poland and India have significantly higher percentages of electrified railways than we do. At the moment, I see no hope of that changing.
Our new clause 15, requiring a rolling programme of electrification, would also significantly reduce unit costs, because the supply chain would get used to doing it, we would become experienced at structures clearance, and so on. That is not my opinion; that is what Sir Andrew Haines, former chief executive of Network Rail and now chair of DfT Operator, said before the Transport Committee.
Jerome Mayhew
Correct me if I am wrong, but my recollection of Sir Andrew Haines’s oral evidence is that he gave an example of the experience not just on continental Europe, but in Scotland, where a steady-state period of electrification resulted in significant reduction of the cost per mile when compared with the stop-start approach in England. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Olly Glover
Yes, the hon. Gentleman is correct. Scotland, as a result of a longer-term commitment to electrification, has got unit costs down considerably, and has now electrified the bulk of the dense-traffic network in the lowland area and central belt. We can do the same in England and Wales should we wish to do so. I hope that the Government will change course and, in so doing, that the Minister will enable me to praise his Government and his commitment to beating the Thatcher Government’s electrification rate, liberating me from the difficult position of having to compliment the 1980s Conservative Government on their electrification progress.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I will speak to new clause 20, which makes the simple ask that Great British Railways does all it can not to contribute to the climate crisis. I hope it is uncontroversial, because the bits of legislation that we are asking for GBR to adhere to are the Environment Act 2021 passed by the previous Conservative Government, the Climate Change Act 2008 passed by the previous Labour Government, and the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 passed by the coalition Government.
I am deeply concerned that climate change does not appear in the Bill at all, and we tabled new clause 20 to close down that problem. At a time when extreme weather is already disrupting services, damaging infrastructure and frustrating passengers, the absence of any clear environmental duty is extremely troubling. We are already seeing the impacts of climate change on our rail network. In West Dorset, services have been severely disrupted by soil moisture deficit, alongside flooding, high winds and extreme weather. Last summer, that led to a reduced timetable, widespread delays and endless bus replacement services. From August, services from London to Yeovil Junction were cut to one train an hour, and took more than half an hour longer, while services to Exeter were reduced to one every two hours. That is the cost of not planning ahead.
New clause 20 would require GBR to take climate risk seriously in every decision that it makes. That means factoring in flood risk, heat stress on tracks, coastal erosion and extreme weather, and designing infrastructure that can cope with hot summers and wet winters. If the Bill is about the future of rail, it must account for a future that is going to be impacted by climate change. The new clause would strengthen the case for rail electrification, encourage low-carbon construction methods and ensure that procurement decisions properly consider materials, the supply chain and energy use.
Without a clear statutory duty, environmental goals risk being treated as entirely optional. With new clause 20, climate and environmental objectives would become part of GBR’s core purpose. Decisions would be more consistent across the network, rail would be properly aligned with national climate and nature targets, and GBR would be more transparent and accountable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank hon. Members for the amendments and new clauses in the group. Before I turn to amendments 3 and 4, however, I will pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for South West Devon earlier about people across the country having an understanding of GBR and its functions, and knowing how it will impact the railway and their lives. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, has consistently given the statistic that 60% of functions on the railway will still be done by the private sector, once GBR is established—
Jerome Mayhew
To clarify, that figure is about not just the private sector, but rail services in Scotland and Wales not being part of GBR. It is the non-GBR parts of the greater rail world: about 60% are nothing to do with GBR.
Keir Mather
I thank the shadow Minister for that clarification. I want only to add, as a further clarification, that in the future GBR will account for about two thirds of passenger services in Britain, and GBR infrastructure will make up 90% of station stops. It is quite important to give that level of context, so that people can better understand the impact that these changes in the railway will have on their lives.
Amendments 3 and 4 would limit GBR’s research, advice and standards development functions to only the railway and services managed by GBR. I reassure the shadow Minister that the vast majority of research and innovation carried out by GBR will relate specifically to the services that it provides and the operation and maintenance of its network.
However, research, development and innovation tend to be general in nature and application. It is critical that GBR’s research, development and innovation should be able to support the wider rail network, not just the elements that GBR manages itself. Collaboration between the independent parts of the sector on learning and innovation is, we argue, crucial for the rail network to operate as an integrated whole, and limiting this function could arbitrarily restrain wider adoption of best practice. Various organisations, including Network Rail and train operating companies, currently publish standards adopted on the railway, so this is not a unique or abnormal practice. However, these amendments could arbitrarily constrain it and might even hinder GBR from supporting research that might bring benefits to parts of the network, or services, not managed by GBR.
Amendment 5 seeks to return responsibility for taking access decisions to the ORR. That is one of the fundamental questions sitting at the heart of our debates on the Bill. The amendment is contrary to the Government’s manifesto commitment to establish GBR as the directing mind for the railways. It would reintroduce the fragmentation and conflicting accountabilities that exist in today’s system. At present, there is no single body in charge of taking a whole-system approach to making access work. That leads to conflicting opinions about what services can fit where and when. Differences in view between Network Rail and the ORR cause delays in producing the timetable, hindering efforts to tackle congestion, disruption, cancellations and overcrowding. The current system is not fit for purpose: it lets passengers down every day, and taxpayers are not getting value for money.
In the current system, the absence of a single directing mind, with a single set of objectives, leaves us with ridiculous situations such as the recent 7 am Manchester service that was set to travel with no passengers on it. I do not understand how hon. Members can think that continuing the current system benefits anyone, least of all passengers.
The Government have been clear that for GBR to have the space and authority to take access decisions consistent with the best use of the network, the ORR’s current role must change. GBR must be the decision maker on access; it must have authority and full accountability for what happens on the tracks. The ORR will play a key role as a robust appeals body that ensures that GBR’s decisions are fair. Without one body in charge of taking access decisions, we cannot deliver the performance improvements that we have promised passengers and the public.
Amendment 6 would remove the delegated power for the Secretary of State to confer further statutory functions on GBR in the future. Although clause 3 has been drafted to cover the breadth of activities that we expect GBR to undertake, it is responsible to legislate with proportionate flexibility. For example, in the future there may be new technologies or other responsibilities relating to the railways that GBR would need to take on. We heard in oral evidence on Tuesday that the advent of artificial intelligence and wi-fi are two examples of that type of change, and that witnesses understood the need for this type of flexibility for GBR.
There is precedent for this type of power in legislation. For example, the National Health Service Act 2006 includes a power to add functions to special health authorities specified in regulations. That power is already limited to adding new functions that relate to the railways; any regulations conferring new functions would be subject to the affirmative procedure, which would ensure suitable transparency and parliamentary scrutiny.
Amendment 241 seeks to require GBR to act
“in a fair and non-discriminatory manner”
when carrying out its statutory function in clause 3 —specifically, when GBR is providing back-of-house functions to facilitate railway services run by operators other than GBR, such as a journey planner. The amendment is not needed, because the duties set out in the Bill will govern GBR’s behaviours when carrying out its statutory functions. I assure the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham that the duties will require GBR to act in the interests of the public, taxpayers and passengers. GBR will act fairly and in accordance with its duties, not only when exercising this function but across the full range of its statutory functions.
In addition, competition law will apply in full to GBR. This requires GBR to act in a manner that is fair, non-discriminatory and not anti-competitive. Both the ORR and the Competition and Markets Authority will regulate GBR’s behaviour against its competition law obligations, so I hope that hon. Members will be assured that GBR must always treat all private operators with fairness and in a non-discriminatory manner. Given those safeguards, the addition proposed would be duplicative.
I turn to new clause 15, which seeks to implement a statutory electrification programme. Living near Selby station, I know better than most that rail electrification is important, including to realise the Government’s wider goals of decarbonisation. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage ably set out the fact that decarbonisation is not the sole efficiency and aspiration that can be realised through electrification. We fully realise the need to reduce the cost of electrification and accelerate the delivery of committed schemes in comparison with past experiences.
We are currently developing a long-term strategy for rolling stock and associated infrastructure. That will be published in the summer and will consider the future approach to electrification. That being said, a legislative duty to carry out an electrification programme is not the right way to deliver these important upgrades. In the effort towards net zero, electrification may not always be the right solution—although the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage made a well-reasoned case as to how, in many cases, it is. Other opportunities, such as trains powered by batteries, may be more appropriate. It is also hard to predict the pace at which battery technology and other alternative technologies will progress over the next 20 or 30 years, and what that means for the extent of electrification that will be needed as we move towards net zero.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I appreciate the Minister’s points. How does he see the drive towards electrification, for all the good reasons he has set out, sitting with building a degree of resilience into the rail network? The hon. Member for Nottingham South, the other Minister, may have experienced the problem that I had last weekend, when, due to attempted overhead cable theft, a load of trains through the east midlands were cancelled. That happened because there is no back-up mechanism to move those trains if the electrical supply is not there. How do we square that circle of making sure that a bit of resilience is built in?
Keir Mather
The right hon. Member makes an important point about resilience on the railway; it complements the points made by the hon. Member for West Dorset about the fact that we live in a changing climate. That creates pressing resilience challenges across the breadth of the railway. The right hon. Member makes a good point about not being over-reliant on one technological mode. That being said, I hope that, through an overall transition towards decarbonised rail transport, alongside the other decarbonisation measures that the DFT is taking across the piece, we will be sufficiently resourced, capable and in pursuit of innovative solutions to make sure that electrification can play a prominent part in the future of the railway.
We believe that the way to achieve that is to have something more flexible to future direction and opportunities, such as GBR’s business plan, which is already provided for in the Bill. Of course, the rolling stock and infrastructure strategy might be more appropriate as a way to set out GBR’s plans for electrification rather than their being in the Bill.
We move to new clause 20, which would require GBR to work towards climate change targets. I assure the Committee that the environment will form an important part of GBR’s considerations through various mechanisms already included in the Bill. One of the strategic objectives for the long-term rail strategy will be environmental sustainability. GBR will have a duty to have regard to the Secretary of State’s long-term rail strategy and a general duty to make decisions in the public interest, which includes environmental considerations, when developing its business plan. Finally, it is important to point out that Network Rail is not currently directly obligated to deliver on those targets, but has still published “The Greener Railway Strategy”, which includes targets on net zero, climate adaptation, air quality, biodiversity and other environmental areas.
To conclude, we remain committed to addressing the environmental challenges faced not only by rail, which is already a comparatively green way to travel, but across all transport modes, and GBR will be an important partner in that work. I hope that hon. Members have been reassured and will consider withdrawing their amendments.
Jerome Mayhew
It is always a pleasure to hear the Minister explain the Government’s positions, but I remain unconvinced in relation to amendment 241, which I believe is the only one that can be put to a Division at this stage. I would like to press it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Olly Glover
I beg to move amendment 130, in clause 3, page 2, line 22, at end insert—
“(h) complying with the provisions of the Passengers’ Charter laid under section [Passengers’ Charter]”
This amendment is consequential on NC8.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 8—Passengers’ Charter—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a Passengers’ Charter.
(2) A Passengers’ Charter must include—
(a) a guarantee about value for money, quality of service, and provision of adequate seating for any single part of a journey taken by rail for a duration greater than thirty minutes;
(b) targets for reliability of services;
(c) a timetable for implementing improvements to passenger accommodation on train services, including in relation to—
(i) seat design,
(ii) availability of high-speed WiFi and reliable cellular network service,
(iii) provision of power outlets,
(iv) storage for luggage, bicycles, pushchairs and prams,
(v) provision of toilets, including standards of cleanliness and accessibility, and
(vi) provision of on-board catering on any train service with a total duration of at least two hours;
(d) a guarantee relating to improving the accessibility of trains, stations, areas immediately surrounding stations and interfaces with connecting transport modes, and replacement road services, for passengers with disabilities;
(e) extension of the principles behind Delay Repay compensation to include a framework of compensation for failures to comply with the Passengers’ Charter for lack of specified on-board amenities;
(f) a commitment that Great British Railways will take all reasonable steps to ensure that systems for compensating passengers for delays or disruption—
(i) are digital by default;
(ii) minimise any administrative burden on passengers when applying for compensation;
(iii) allow, where practicable, for compensation to be issued automatically based on information attainable by Great British Railways from about a customer’s journey or from a ticketing account.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to lay a Passengers’ Charter and sets out the what the charter should contain, including provision relating to customer amenities, value for money, accessibility and compensation.
Olly Glover
Amendment 130 and new clause 8 constitute a Liberal Democrat proposal to introduce a 21st century update to passenger charters. I shall seek to be concise; in the unlikely event that hon. Members would like to hear more, I should say that I gave a ten-minute rule Bill speech on the subject in the House of Commons yesterday.
For context, given above-inflation fare increases over many decades, which I alluded to earlier, the modern rail passenger rightly expects more than they often get. On-board amenities are generally not subject to any form of compensation provision should they not be available. Indeed, passenger charters generally make good noises about having such amenities, but they do not get the same guarantees for them as they do for delays.
The issue is not necessarily about moving to this tomorrow; there are many older trains on our network that require either upgrading or replacement with modern amenities, but where the amenities exist they should be provided. It should no longer be considered a luxury to have functioning wi-fi or a mobile phone signal so that people can be productive on the train. Toilets should be reliable, a seat should not be considered a luxury—a standard class ticket does not entitle one to a seat—and there should be adequate space for luggage, pushchairs, bicycles and so on. In so doing, we will make the rail offer more attractive to the travelling public and ensure that people do not have bad experiences, as did my friend Jen from Wallingford who, after a particularly terrible journey between London and Glasgow on Avanti West Coast, has now returned to driving, even though the distance is—off the top of my head—some 350 miles.
Our proposal would require the Secretary of State to lay a passenger charter before Parliament within six months of the Act’s being passed. That updated charter would look at providing value-for-money guarantees not just for delays, but for provision of other amenities, with reasonable waivers such as for journeys under 30 minutes, which can be subject to commuter-heavy loading at peak times.
The whole principle of delay repay should be protected. I keep hearing rumours—I have no idea whether they are true; perhaps the Minister could give us assurances that there will not be any attacks on delay repay. We should be proud of it, as it is a much more generous compensation provision than in any other European country and it should not be diluted or reduced to save costs. Instead, we should focus on preventing delays and managing delays better so that we do not need to pay so much delay repay. That compensation provision should be extended to other onboard amenities, so that there is an incentive to create a 21st century onboard environment that enables us to retain our existing passenger base and attract far more people to our railway.
Edward Argar
I have only a few brief remarks to make. Having read both new clause 8 and amendment 130, which is effectively consequential, I say to the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage that they appear to be perfectly reasonable and sensible proposals that seek to focus, as we should be doing, on the passenger. I have a couple of points consequent to that.
I see the intent behind the provisions; my only query is that I cannot see in the language of the new clause or amendment where the teeth are when it comes to enforceability. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman has in mind exactly how that would operate, but I would be grateful if he clarified how the provisions would be enforced and where the teeth are when it comes to the travelling public. I also associate myself with his question to the Minister, about delay repay.
The focus of all we are doing should be on the passengers—the service users of our railways. The passenger has paid to use that service. Again, I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to confirm on the record that there is no intention to weaken the delay repay scheme once GBR is in operation. The key is for the Government, rather than seeking to weaken delay repay to save money, to actually put their money where their mouths are and be confident that GBR will improve reliability. That way, GBR will not have to pay out so much because the trains will be doing what they are there to do for the travelling public. I hope the Minister can give that assurance as he winds up.
Edward Morello
I speak in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage’s passenger charter. I recommend that any Member who was otherwise engaged to go and listen to his ten-minute rule Bill, which outlined it in far greater detail than I will today.
Edward Morello
It is excellent reading—something for the train on the way home. It lays out why the passenger charter is so key to delivering a better experience for rail users. The Committee will spend a lot of time talking about rail upgrades, shorter journeys, passing loops and all the things that we should discuss—it is easy to understand why we focus so much on shorter passenger journeys—but the passenger experience is also key. When I agreed to sit on the Committee, I said that if I achieved anything from it I hoped it would be the return of the buffet trolley to any train going anywhere near West Dorset.
Edward Morello
I could not possibly comment, Minister—I was going to say tea. But there are basic human rights that we should be respecting here—and a gin and tonic might be one of them.
On rail journeys lasting more than two hours, access to food and drink is a basic expectation. As anyone who has done the trip to Exeter or Dorchester South from London will know, numerous stations on that line do not have a café on the platform, or even one close by. I hope we are also going to achieve a reduction in the number of delays on that line, but once someone is on it they are on it; their options for access to anything are incredibly low. Whether for a parent travelling with children, older passengers on long journeys or commuters trying to work on the move, access to basic amenities—reliable wi-fi and food and drink—should be mandatory.
New clause 8 would require the Secretary of State, within six months, to introduce a passenger charter as a core function of GBR. It would set out clear expectations for passengers, and clear accountability for operators. As my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage laid out in his ten-minute rule Bill, it would include guarantees on value for money, service quality, adequate seating for journeys over 30 minutes, and improved accessibility across trains.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
If my constituents travelled from London Bridge this evening and caught the 5.34 to Barnehurst or the 6.50 to Bexleyheath, in zone 5, those journeys would take 31 minutes, so do you actually believe that, under your guarantee, my constituents—many of whom, you would expect, would rather just get on a train and expect to stand for some of the journey—would get compensation if they did not have a seat for that commuter journey home of an evening?
The Chair
Order. I remind Members that I do not believe one way or the other; please talk through me, not to me.
Edward Morello
Thank you, Sir Alec, for the clarification, and I thank the hon. Member for his question. I understand the premise of the point: whichever number we put in, there is a risk that someone could come up with such an example. I think the point is that, for journeys over 30 minutes, for older passengers, for example, the guarantee of a seat may be an issue of whether they want to travel or not, so we must find a line to draw in the sand; I hope that able-bodied Members would stand up for the elderly, but it is not always the case. I would like us to move to a system where we do not have to stand on trains and where there is an expectation of seating—not least so that the drinks trolley can get through and get a cup of tea to me when I need one.
The charter would also set targets for reliability and a clear timetable for improving passenger accommodation, including seat design, reliable wi-fi and mobile signals, power outlets—I honestly cannot believe we are still questioning whether or not we should have power outlets on trains—luggage and bicycle storage, clean and accessible toilets, and onboard catering for journeys of more than two hours. We must focus much of our innovation on the passenger experience and not just the journey time, whether that is wi-fi for commuting workers or accessible toilets for everyone. Crucially, it would also extend delay repay principles to cover failures in onboard amenities and move towards automatic digital compensation that does not place the burden on passengers to fight for refunds—hopefully that speaks to the teeth that the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston mentioned.
Those are not luxuries. Almost every rail user has stood despite booking a seat, lost their signal mid-journey, missed a connection because of a delay, struggled to find a clean toilet—or a working one—or found nowhere to store a bag, yet too often there is no meaningful redress for those inconveniences. That undermines confidence in the railway.
The data is stark. Only 32% of passengers believe that the rail network meets their needs, and just 59% are satisfied with value for money or onboard internet. Last year, there were more than 62,000 complaints about punctuality, nearly 40,000 about overcrowding, and more than 24,000 about onboard facilities. All those things act as a drag. They are why people do not want to travel on the trains and why they are choosing car journeys instead. If we want people to choose rail for economic, environmental and social reasons, we have to deal with these frustrations as well. New clause 8 puts passengers back at the heart of the system, where they belong.
Jerome Mayhew
I am very supportive of the intent behind this new clause. Where the Government have taken the political decision to put all their eggs in the nationalisation basket, it becomes even more important that we add as many clauses to the Bill as possible to force them to focus on the passenger experience.
Nationalisation has been tried before, not just in the railways but in a number of other organisations, and not a single one of them is a byword for individual customer choice, so if experience is anything to go by—and if we are, as seems likely, going to be forced to have a nationalised approach to the railways—the legislation needs to bend over backwards to keep reinforcing the point that the passenger experience is the central element that the organisation should be aiming for.
At the moment, the Government are woefully unambitious in their definition of railway services. If you look at clause 18(3)—which I am sure you have already, Sir Alec—you will see that the definition for railway service performance
“includes, in particular, performance in securing each of the following in relation to railway services”.
I was expecting a long list of all the good things that customers travelling on the railway should expect, but what do we get? We get “reliability, (including punctuality),” and
“the avoidance…of passenger overcrowding”,
and that is it. What poverty of aspiration. It really is very striking.
It may be that the wording of new clause 8 could be improved—I am sure that the Government have the drafting firepower to do exactly that—but what is listed in subsection (2)(c)(i) to (vi) is a good starting point, and certainly much better than what the Government managed to come up with in clause 18. I support it.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage for new clause 8 and amendment 130, and all right hon. and hon. Members who have offered contributions in support of the notion of seeking to require the Secretary of State to lay a passenger charter. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am as zealous as he is in pursuing not only the rights of passengers, but their ability to have happy, fulfilled experiences on the railway—whether through a G&T, a cup of tea or whatever else.
Although I fully endorse the aim of raising passenger standards, I do not agree that a statutory passenger charter is the best approach. Great British Railways, not Government, needs to be in charge of the passenger offer, and it is being set up to be an expert-led directing mind, not a Government-led directive mind. There would be little value in reforming the system, only for the Government to continue to micromanage the railway, down to the level of specific seat designs.
Edward Morello
During my conversations with the sector, one of the challenges that came up about returning, for example, the buffet trolley or other services to trains is that services have already been sold on station platforms. There is direct and inherent competition between any service that someone might receive on the train and something that might be provided, and has already been sold, leased or franchised out, on the platform itself. How can the Government put passengers’ interests at the core of service delivery when they will have an inherent business or profitability conflict with some of the services that are already in existence?
Keir Mather
The hon. Member can intervene again if I have misunderstood his point, but I think there is a lot of utility in the fact that GBR, by being able to direct passenger services as well as having responsibility for long-term infrastructure such as stations, provides a coherent basis on which to tailor the passenger experience across the multitude of ways in which passengers engage with the railway and its infrastructure. From my perspective, it actually removes issues in cases in which competition may not be what is best for the passenger—where there is an offer in the catering car on their service down to London, but also a small business running a café from the station. We will have more of an opportunity to offer a holistic service for the passenger.
It is also important to me that we do not want to fix the passenger offer in statute. We want GBR to be able to adapt to passengers’ needs as they change over time. For example, I cannot imagine that many were thinking about wi-fi when the Railways Act 1993 was passed, but we know how fundamental it is to social and economic connectivity for passengers on the railway today.
To ensure that GBR does a good job of managing the passenger offer, the Bill will also establish the passenger watchdog, which will have strong powers to act in passengers’ interests. The Government and GBR will have to consult the watchdog when developing their policies, strategies and priorities for the railway, including when GBR is developing its business plan and passenger offer, and GBR will be expected to take account of the watchdog’s advice. The watchdog will also set minimum consumer standards, covering areas such as accessibility and passenger information.
The Secretary of State will have the opportunity to prioritise the needs of future passengers through the long-term rail strategy.
Edward Argar
The Minister has just said that the watchdog will have strong powers, but then uses words like “consultation” and “taking account of”. I have taken Bills through this place, and there are other words, like “should”, “could” or “must have regard to”—in fact, Bills rarely say, “must”; they normally say, “should pay attention to” or “should heed”. What actual powers will the watchdog have to compel GBR or the Secretary of State to take a particular course of action?
Keir Mather
That is a very important point. I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution. The passenger watchdog will have the ability to make sure that GBR is compliant with minimum consumer standards on accessibility and information—this will be an independent power to directly monitor the passenger experience—as well as investigation powers, including to demand information by a deadline. It will be fully established within 12 months of Royal Assent of the Bill, so it will be stood up quickly to provide the oversight that it needs to provide.
The Secretary of State will also have the opportunity to prioritise the needs of future passengers through the long-term rail strategy, as well as her statement of objectives, which must be addressed by GBR in its business plan, which itself must be signed off by the Secretary of State under the new funding process. It would therefore be inefficient and duplicative to create yet another document to achieve the same aims.
Let me turn briefly to delay repay. The passenger watchdog can set standards that relate to delay repay. It is namechecked as an example in clause 46, and delay repay will still be available under GBR. The Opposition spokesperson—
Keir Mather
Forgive me. The shadow Minister points to the fact that we have, in his view, a dearth of ambition when it comes to what we have set out in clause 18. I would actually argue the inverse—the standards set out in clause 18 relating to reliability of services, avoiding overcrowding and promoting the passenger experience are fundamental to creating the turn-up-and-go railway with a single directing mind that GBR seeks to achieve.
At the heart of it, these are the fundamental building blocks of the passenger experience. Layer on top of that the ways in which GBR will be nimble and dynamic enough under this legislation to lay out the passenger offer over time, and that creates a suite of measures that allow us to enhance, in the whole, the passenger experience. On that basis, I urge the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage to withdraw the amendment.
Olly Glover
If you will indulge me, Sir Alec, I will briefly respond to the points that have been made. I thank the Minister for his comments. He will know from our past interactions on this that I very much agree with him that we definitely do not want the micromanagement and overprescription of GBR. That would be absolutely inimical to what I want to see happening, but there is a distinction to be made between setting the overall standards and the implementation of the work needed to meet those standards.
I do not read the rest of the Bill as quite saying, “We’re just going to let GBR crack on and define everything from scratch for itself”. Given the Minister’s comments about micromanaging, which I find encouraging, I look forward to hearing what he has to say about the later amendments that are designed to dilute the Secretary of State’s ability to interfere. Hopefully, given his comments, he might be minded to give them a fair hearing, but we shall see when the time comes.
The right hon. Member for Melton and Syston makes the good point that these things need to have teeth, and that is the intention of clause 8(2)(e), which would extend the delay repay principle to onboard amenities. Work would clearly need to be done to establish a sensible framework for the evidence requirement for people submitting claims—that would need to be thought through further—but that has not been prescribed here precisely because that would be a matter for GBR.
We also want to add teeth with subsection (2)(f), which is all about making it easier for people to claim compensation and allowing them to do so digitally rather than just on paper. In fairness, a lot of that has improved, and we hope it will continue to improve. I also want to address the very fair point made by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. The challenge with these things is always where to define the cut-off, but it should not be inevitable that commuters in south-east London, Greater Manchester or anywhere else should have to stand by default.
Rolling stock cuts without replacements on some routes—maybe not the hon. Gentleman’s, but elsewhere—have partly added to some of those problems. That includes the premature withdrawal of British Rail class 455 trains on Southern without a replacement and class 365 trains on the Great Northern network. A lot of these poor decisions were made following the pandemic to save cost in the short term, which has added to some of the overcrowding problems—many of which are preventable. We have included a 30-minute minimum duration in new clause 8 to try to be reasonable and to recognise that things are not always perfect.
In conclusion, we are putting a passengers’ charter forward because we feel that there is value in improving the onboard offer and making it consistent. There are things in the charter that would support other elements of the Bill by strengthening accessibility provision. For catering, my temptation would have been to go even further and wax lyrical about restaurant cars on Swiss railways or Austrian railways, which—if anybody has not enjoyed them—should be very welcome.
In Switzerland, even inter-city trains of just two hours always have a restaurant car, and they have a separate division for on-train catering, which is in-house—they take it very seriously. I have been on 55-minute journeys across Switzerland and have been attended to straight away. It is inexpensive and very good. I have decided not to be too prescriptive and to just talk about onboard catering. It is then for GBR, or whoever, to decide if they wish to embrace that particular bit of Swiss excellence, as well as electrification, as I mentioned earlier.
I think I have said more than enough, Sir Alec. I said earlier that we want to press new clause 8 to a vote. I expect I have to take guidance from the Clerk as to whether a vote on that or on amendment 130 would be most helpful—either is good with us.
The Chair
New clauses will be moved at the end.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Olly Glover
I beg to move amendment 133, in clause 3, page 2, line 39, at end insert—
“(4A) Great British Railways must, when exercising its statutory functions, seek to increase passenger traffic on railways.
(4B) Great British Railways must set and publish targets in relation to subsection (4A).”
This amendment would require Great British Railways to exercise its statutory functions with a view to increasing passenger numbers.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 248, in clause 3, page 2, line 39, at end insert—
“(4A) Great British Railways must, when exercising its statutory functions, achieve targets for—
(a) growth in in passenger traffic on railways, and
(b) growth in the overall share of passenger journeys taken by rail for the purposes of—
(i) work,
(ii) leisure, and
(iii) accessing goods and services,
relative to other modes of transport.
(4B) Targets under subsection (4A) must—
(a) be set by Great British Railways, with the agreement of the Secretary of State, and
(b) take into account, and be published alongside, each Rail Strategy under section 16 of this Act.”
This amendment would require Great British Railways, when exercising its statutory functions, to meet a target for overall growth in the number and relative proportion of passengers using railways.
Amendment 35, in clause 18, page 10, line 17, at end insert
“and to increase the number of passenger journeys in absolute terms and as a percentage of passenger journeys by mode of transport.”
This amendment would require Great British Railways to carry out its functions so as to increase the number of passenger journeys.
Amendment 249, in clause 18, page 10, line 23, at end insert—
“(g) so as to achieve an increase in—
(i) the number of passenger journeys undertaken by railway, and
(ii) the proportion of passenger journeys undertaken by rail relative to other modes of transport.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 248.
New clause 42—Passenger growth target—
“(1) The Secretary of State must set and publish a target to increase passenger numbers in Great Britain.
(2) The Secretary of State—
(a) must keep the target under review, and
(b) may revise or replace it.
(3) If the Secretary of State revises or replaces the target, the Secretary of State must publish the revised or replacement target.
(4) Great British Railways must, when exercising its statutory functions, have regard to—
(a) the target set by the Secretary of State under this section, and
(b) any strategy or policy of the Scottish Ministers relating to the growth of passenger numbers in Scotland.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to set a passenger growth target.
Olly Glover
The length and complexity of this amendment mean that hopefully I will be able to relieve hon. Members by making a very concise speech. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s commitment to a freight growth target as part of GBR. It is good that we have greater ambitions for the carriage of rail freight on our rail network, which tends to lag behind most European competitors in modal share. However, we think that the Bill has missed an opportunity by not including a comparable target for passenger growth. I have heard the argument made in front of the Select Committee and other forums that that could compromise or undermine the freight growth. I disagree with that premise. As so often in life, it is not either/or; it is both/and. Railways are useful for both passengers and freight.
Freight is arguably neglected on our network and the economic and environmental benefits are absolutely enormous, especially if electrically hauled. One freight train is able to convey many containers or aggregate wagons and take dozens of lorries off the road. We therefore very much support the freight growth target, but feel that there should also be a passenger growth target. Many of our roads are plagued by congestion and many people opt to take the car who, in other circumstances, would like to take the train, but have either had negative experience of overcrowding or fear that they could be subject to overcrowding and a bad experience. Amendment 133 would require GBR to set a target for increasing passenger traffic and publish progress in relation to how it will achieve that. I think that I have said more than enough and am very interested to hear the Minister’s comments.
Jerome Mayhew
The official Opposition, strongly support this amendment because it seeks to increase passenger traffic on the railways, in addition to the welcomed inclusion of an objective to increase freight. We agree with it so strongly because it is almost identical to our amendment 35, which I shall also speak to. Amendment 35 would add a specific requirement to subsection (2) paragraph (b) of clause 18—the duties clause—for GBR Ministers and the Office of Rail and Road,
“to increase the number of passenger journeys”.
This directly addresses the concern raised by the Campaign for Better Transport in the evidence received by the Committee. It is an essential amendment to ensure that GBR has a key focus and aim to increase passenger numbers—something that is essential for a railway. It would ensure that the dominant culture of GBR is not one where passengers are seen as creators of damage to infrastructure.
That is not a loose accusation that I have made; I have been listening to the industry for over a year now. The core structure of GBR is Network Rail. I know that I am bound to be corrected if I get this even a couple out, but I believe that Network Rail has about 41,000 members of staff. Network Rail is the central body to which train operating companies have been added at a rate of about one every six weeks or two months over the last period. An oft-repeated criticism of the culture of Network Rail has been that it sees passengers as a necessary irritation in the correct functioning of the railway. Sir Alec, if your organisation is engineer focused, the condition of the infrastructure is what is most important to you. Passengers demand lots and lots of trains, but lots and lots of trains damage the infrastructure. There is a concern in the wider sector— I am merely passing it on—that the culture of Network Rail has historically been one in which it wants to limit the number of trains to what it considers to be acceptable, so that it has a nice steady state of repair of the infrastructure. If that is the dominant culture that pervades GBR, now that it is bringing everything together, that will be a disaster for passenger services, because there would not be an automatic incentive to focus on an increase in passenger journeys, which is why amendments 133 and 35 are so important.
New clause 42—to go into the detail a little—would require the Secretary of State to set, publish and keep under review a passenger growth target. It would also require GBR to have regard to that target when exercising its statutory functions. In oral evidence to this Committee, Ben Plowden, chief executive of the Campaign for Better Transport, said:
“It is welcome that there is a duty to promote the interests of passengers and disabled people in the Bill. We think there is a case for strengthening that duty so that it aligns with the duty in relation to freight, which is to promote the use of the network for passengers and disabled passengers. There should also be an equivalent duty on the Secretary of State to set a passenger growth target, as she is required to do in relation to freight, so that, as we picked up on a minute ago, GBR does not end up being incentivised not to grow the network in order to meet its crowding and reliability duties, for example. It seems to us that giving it a statutory incentive to increase passenger use over time would be very helpful to build on the existing duty in the Bill.”––[Official Report, Railways Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2026; c. 24, Q49.]
That organisation was not alone, because John Thomas from ALLRAIL said:
“I think a passenger growth target is really important. At the moment, the duties for GBR only include improving performance. You can improve performance, as we saw during covid, by cutting the number of services, but that is not necessarily in the best interest of customers. We think a balance between a performance target and a passenger growth target is really important.”––[Official Report, Railways Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2026; c. 47, Q78.]
Finally, we heard from Rob Morris of Siemens. He said:
“What we seem to be missing in the Bill at the moment is the ambition for passenger growth, how that will improve the railway and the levels of investment that need to go with it.”––[Official Report, Railways Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2026; c. 64, Q122.]
It is unclear to me why, if the Bill can require a target to increase use of the railway network for freight, the same obligation is not applied to passenger services. The inconsistency suggests a deliberate choice not to mandate passenger growth. And why would GBR care about passenger growth? After all, if it will be dominated by Network Rail, there is at least a risk that its culture will be one of avoiding damage to infrastructure, in excess of looking after growing the number of passengers.
In written evidence to the Transport Committee, Rail Forum said:
“From Rail Forum’s perspective there is nothing specific in the Bill that will guarantee improved travel for passengers. Improvement is predicated on the goodwill of GBR and others driving things in the ‘right direction’. In our view the key to improvement is culture change within those organisations coming together to form GBR. Creating GBR from Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd…will not signal the need for change and creates a risk that the current Network Rail culture will be seen as the norm and hence the status quo will prevail.”
These are not arguments made up by a cunning Opposition to wrongfoot the Government. This is the Opposition doing our job properly and reflecting the concerns of the wider sector—not just from one organisation but from multiple organisations, right across the sector. They identify the drafting as a problem and the culture as potentially a problem unless the legislation makes it clear that it is a duty of GBR to increase passenger numbers.
Laurence Turner
As in this morning’s sitting, I draw attention to the fact that I am a member of Unite. I did not intend to speak in this particular debate, but I wish to respond briefly to some of the things that have been said and to mount a perhaps limited defence of Network Rail and the importance of engineering in such organisations. The comparator, of course, was Railtrack, which outsourced its engineering functions, had only a single engineer on its board of directors and had only one non-executive director from an engineering background, with deadly consequences, which are well understood and do not need repeating. If there is sometimes caution in the organisation, I suggest that the long shadow cast by the events of the late 1990s and early 2000s is why.
There is good and sound logic behind not running too many trains across congested track. The real reason why we do not run as many trains as is theoretically possible is that lack of capacity on the network. Birmingham New Street, for example, will be exhausted once the Camp Hill services start in the spring—any more services simply cannot be safely got in or out on the network. When path allocators have to make decisions on which services to prioritise, freight tends to be squeezed out. That is a long-standing problem.
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is right partially to defend Network Rail. It is an issue of balance and of the culture going forward. He also talked about capacity—this is not a party political point—but that is determined by not just the number of trains, but the length of trains, which makes an enormous difference. Just increasing carriage numbers—in particular on the Northern rail network where the majority of trains are just two carriages—by a couple of extra carriages does not require significantly increased capacity on the line, but it does increase capacity enormously for passengers. That would allow a target for increased passenger numbers to be fulfilled, without an increase in line capacity.
Laurence Turner
I thank the shadow Minister for the constructive spirit of his intervention. Indeed, in the days of cross-party consensus on High Speed 2, I worked with members of his party exactly to address some of the capacity challenges on the network. I just say to him that the two are linked. As he was alluding to, the length of the trains is related to the signalling blocks and the safe distance between trains, so that they can be run together. If he is right, we should be looking to put on more carriages. When waiting for a CrossCountry train, I can certainly remember the collective groan on the platform when another short formation appeared. There is a hard limit, however, to what can be applied without providing more caps on the network. That is where the passenger versus freight dilemma comes in, because sometimes hard choices just have to be made. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point that this is not always either/or, but sometimes it is. Sometimes one has to be prioritised over the other, and freight has historically been the loser.
Olly Glover
I am trying not to make too many interventions or to be tedious, but I cannot resist the temptation of that. Where the choice is either/or, does that not suggest that that particular route line requires an upgrade to provide sufficient capacity for both?
Laurence Turner
The hon. Gentleman and I are members of the same Select Committee and we tend to agree on most things, and I think that I agree with him again. In the here and now, however, and in the circumstances in which the Bill will start to apply, I share the fear that if the freight growth target is accompanied by an equivalent passenger growth target, in effect the freight growth target is neutralised; it is no longer the essential correction to the tendencies that have sometimes seen freight services being squeezed off the network. I say to the shadow Minister that the previous Government put in place a freight growth target and not a passenger one at the same time, presumably for exactly the same reason: at times when the two are in tension, freight can suffer the detriment. I thought it was important to put that concern on the record.
Edward Argar
I regularly find myself agreeing with the hon. Member for West Dorset—possibly to the detriment of us both—on a whole range of things, and I agree with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson again on this occasion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham is right to highlight that amendments 133 and 35 are not dissimilar in their intent and in what they seek to achieve. It is important, notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield says, that while we do recognise the desire and the need to drive up an increase in the use of railways for transporting freight, at the moment we risk disproportionately focusing on that to the detriment of traveling passengers. If there was any tension there, I would posit that freight may win out.
Yet in the Bill, it is the traveling passengers who will be not only paying for their tickets but essentially, as taxpayers, paying to subsidise or backfill any additional funding needed for the railways as a nationalised industry. Given that, it is vital that the passenger is front and centre of the thinking behind the Bill and how GBR comes into being. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham rightly highlighted the importance of the culture of the organisation. It may inherit DNA from predecessor organisations, but GBR will be a new organisation, and that gives the Minister and the Secretary of State an opportunity to help shape that culture.
I have a genuine concern that in what is being done, the power of the passenger—of the paying public or the market—is diluted by virtue of creating what is essentially a state monopoly in GBR. What the amendments proposed by both my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham and the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage seek to do is to put the passenger back into the mix in some way, and require that their voice has to be heard alongside that desire to drive up usage for freight. If there is a target or an obligation on GBR to drive up passenger numbers, it will have to be responsive to what passengers want, what they see and the experiences they have on the railways, which will drive them to use those railways more often.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield, who knows of what he speaks. But at the moment, with the perfectly reasonable desire to increase the use of railways for freight, we risk that being unbalanced to the detriment of the passenger and their voice not being heard. For that reason, I am supportive of both amendments in seeking to make sure that the passenger remains front and centre of how GBR operates.
Keir Mather
I genuinely thank the shadow Minister, the Lib Dem spokesperson and Members from across the House for their considered and meaningful contributions on this matter. It shows the strength of feeling that we all have about making sure that the passenger experience sits at the heart of the way that our railways function. On the detail about the length of trains, which I agree is an interesting point that has been teased out in this debate, the rolling stock strategy that the DFT is bringing forward will have specific regard to the issue of train length. That will hopefully assuage some concerns.
The shadow Minister also pointed to the potential deficiencies in Network Rail caused by having an operational focus on the maintenance of infrastructure as opposed to promoting the needs of passengers. I would contrast that with the point that a lot of the issues that come with accessibility on the railway and sufficient provision of passenger services arise as much from the access regime and diffuse accountability as they do from cultural or institutional failings in Network Rail. In the current system, access is ultimately decided by the ORR and timetabling by National Rail, and we can end up with a situation where there is a 7 o’clock train from Manchester Piccadilly to London with no passengers on it. The existing system cannot put passengers at its heart, because its decision making process is too disjointed to be able to look at the railway in a holistic way. That is what the Bill is seeking to change.
As all amendments in the group relate directly to the notion of passenger numbers and increasing the number of passenger journeys, I will respond to them as a whole. As a commercial organisation, we believe that GBR will be naturally incentivised to drive up revenue through growing its passenger base and attracting more people to use the railway. GBR must also have the flexibility to determine how it can deliver on that ambition without adverse incentives, for example to congest the network at the expense of passenger experience, being established.
The Bill already includes a duty for sector bodies, including GBR, to promote the interests of users and potential users. That will require GBR to consider during decision making how to encourage new users on to the railway. That is a natural incentive to grow passenger numbers to enable them to realise the benefits of rail travel. That might include working towards encouraging modal shift, extending the network to areas with poorer connectivity or making informed choices to grow different types of services, such as leisure journeys.
In discharging its full remit of duties, including in particular its public interest and making efficient use of public money duties, GBR should make sensible, rounded decisions on where to target passenger growth across the network. It should do that in a sustainable way, and not to meet a passenger target frozen in aspic that might not be appropriate for the needs of the railway at the time. I urge hon. Members to withdraw the amendments.
Olly Glover
I thank the Minister for his comments. I do not doubt that his intentions are genuine and that he would like to see the Bill and GBR lead to greater passenger numbers, but I gently suggest that that cannot necessarily be taken as read. In periods in the past—arguably to a smaller extent since the pandemic, but to a much greater extent going back to the 1980s and before—there was an approach called managed decline. That was a Trojan horse for closing a line of route; intentional efforts were made to reduce passenger numbers. I do not think it can be taken as read that there will always be a desire to grow the network.
Keir Mather
May I test something from the hon. Gentleman’s perspective? The Secretary of State has a lot of oversight over how GBR functions under this new regime. One of her duties, and a duty for GBR, will be to ensure efficient use of public money. Do you not think that that creates a strong incentive for her to drive up passenger use on the railway to ensure that we have a balance of service? Going back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield about the importance of freight, do you not think that the point about the essential correction for freight is important in a way that does not apply to passenger services?
Olly Glover
Thank you, Sir Alec. I say to the Minister that there but for the grace of God go I. I totally understand what he is saying, but it is perhaps slightly paradoxical: if there are all these reasons why it is almost inevitable that the Secretary of State will want to do this anyway, what is the harm of having a provision in the Bill?
The Minister made some very good points about nuance and needing to have the right targets for the right part of the country, but amendment 133 to clause 3 does not preclude that. Critically, proposed new subsection (4B) says that GBR must set and publish “targets”. It does not suggest that there should be one big monolithic target for the entire nation that everything would need to be attuned to.
It would be perfectly sensible for targets to be set by a business unit, or whatever it is going to be—it is currently Network Rail routes and Network Rail regions. There is plenty of room for nuance. This is simply about the principle that GBR should have increasing passenger numbers as a statutory function. I would therefore like to press the amendment to a vote.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 1—Purpose of Great British Railways—
“(1) The purpose of Great British Railways is defined by the following objectives—
(a) prioritising the needs of Great British Railways passengers in decision-making,
(b) delivering reliable, safe and accessible railway passenger services,
(c) providing value for money for passengers and taxpayers, including consideration of the affordability of fare prices,
(d) increasing passenger numbers and growing usage of the network year-on-year,
(e) expanding and improving the network, including services, connectivity, and restoring or adding routes,
(f) modernising working practices and innovating to improve productivity, efficiency, and passenger experience,
(g) supporting economic growth, national productivity and improving connections between towns, cities and employment centres,
(h) improving the experience of disabled and vulnerable passengers and ensuring consistent access to assistance,
(i) ensuring fair and transparent treatment of open access, freight and devolved operators when allocating access and charges,
(j) growing rail freight, including supporting delivery of the national freight growth target,
(k) strengthening the financial sustainability of the railways, reducing reliance on operating subsidy over time,
(l) integrating track and train, simplifying structures, and avoiding duplication, and
(m) supporting multimodal integration with buses, trams and local transport networks.
(2) The Secretary of State and Great British Railways must have regard to the purpose set out in subsection (1) in exercising their functions under this Act.”
This new clause defines Great British Railways’ purpose.
New clause 2—Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators—
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a framework of key performance indicators for Great British Railways (the ‘framework’).
(2) The framework must include targets for each of the following key performance indicators—
(a) reliability, including punctuality, cancellations, short-forming, delays and the reliability of key connections,
(b) safety and security, including safety incidents, security incidents affecting passengers, staff presence, and delivery of safety-critical maintenance,
(c) comfort and on-board experience, including cleanliness, functioning of heating, air-conditioning, and lighting, overcrowding, availability and performance of an internet connection, power sockets and toilet facilities,
(d) affordability and value for money, including the level of fares, availability of discounted fares, availability of flexible fares, transparency of information about fares, and passenger perception of value for money,
(e) passenger growth and network expansion including growth in passenger numbers, number of communities served, service frequency, and provision of new or restored services,
(f) financial sustainability, efficiency and productivity including operating subsidy levels, productivity improvements, delivery of projects on time and on budget, simplification of processes, including an explicit savings target set by the Secretary of State, and
(g) freight growth and performance including rail freight volumes, punctuality, reliability, allocation of freight paths and capacity at pinch points.
(3) Within three months of the end of each financial year, Great British Railways must publish a report on its performance against each part of the framework under subsection (2) during the previous financial year.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay any report required by subsection (3) before Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to set a statutory KPI framework for Great British Railways.
New clause 5—Great British Railways: reporting requirement—
“(1) Great British Railways must publish an annual report.
(2) The annual report must include Great British Railways’ performance against its key performance indicators as set out in section [Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators].
(3) Great British Railways must publish quarterly updates on its performance against its key performance indicators as set out in section [Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators].”
This new clause would require Great British Railways to report annually and quarterly against its key performance indicators.
Keir Mather
I will first address clause 3, and then listen to Members’ comments on the new clauses before responding to them in full.
Clause 3 is fundamental to establishing Great British Railways as the integrated rail body that this country needs. It sets out GBR’s statutory functions, which provide a list of things that GBR is here to do, fulfilling ministerial commitments to set out GBR’s purpose in the Bill. This is not just a technical provision; it is the foundation for a simpler, more accountable railway system.
Currently, responsibilities for managing infrastructure, operating services, setting fares and driving innovation are fragmented across the sector. That fragmentation has led to inefficiencies, duplication, and a lack of clear accountability. The clause addresses that by providing GBR with the statutory basis for bringing those functions together under one roof. It empowers GBR to act as the directing mind for the railway.
GBR will look after railway infrastructure, which includes maintaining it, operating it and making decisions on who can access it. It will provide railway passenger services, set and manage fares, sell tickets or secure that tickets are available for sale. It will provide services that help to run the railway and make it easier for customers to use, even when those railway services are provided by other operators. It will carry out research and development, support innovation, and publish advice and standards to improve the railways. Those functions do not limit GBR, however. The clause also clarifies that GBR can exercise company powers under existing law, so that it can act as a fully commercial organisation, and it provides GBR with appropriate operational flexibility by enabling the statutory functions to be exercised by its subsidiaries.
In short, the clause sets the statutory foundation for a railway that works as one system and is simpler, more efficient and more accountable. Without the clause, it would not be clear to GBR, or to anyone else, what GBR is here to do. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Jerome Mayhew
I do not propose to divide the Committee on clause 3. If the Bill is going to progress, then some version of the clause needs to be in it. We are doing our best to improve it; we have not been successful so far, but I have not given up hope—there is more to come.
New clause 1 is a purpose clause. One of the very obvious gaps in the Bill is that there is no clause setting out its purpose. It is based on a number of objectives, which are set out in subsection (1)(a) to (m)—13 paragraphs. Paragraph (a) sets out the mission that the priority in decision making should be the needs of GBR passengers. That builds nicely on the discussion we have just had.
With a nationalised organisation, we need to go the extra mile to clarify exactly what its focus should be, because it is, by design, a top-down command structure of the state. In a functioning—I stress “functioning”—competitive market, the market will force operators to focus on their passengers, because the passengers are also their customers and that is how they grow their profits. When we take the deliberate decision to move away from market competition, something has to replace it, and the only thing that can replace it is the legislative process. That is why the new clause is so necessary. The priority in decision making needs to be GBR passengers; although we can infer this from statements by the Government, enshrining the mission statement would ensure that it remained a beacon for the organisation to follow.
Paragraph (b) states the objective of
“delivering reliable, safe and accessible railway passenger services”.
I do not think that that is controversial for any of us. Paragraph (c) sets the aim of
“providing value for money for passengers and taxpayers, including consideration of the affordability of fare prices”.
With a state service, the public expect value for money to be the driver, to ensure continued investment and reinvestment in our rail network. At the moment, fares remain a key concern of passengers and taxpayers. The affordability of fares must be one of the primary objectives.
Paragraph (d) points to increasing passenger numbers and growing usage of the network. We do not want to see what happened during the nationalisation era, when service quality fell and people consequently turned to other modes of transport when reliability decreased. Keeping people adopting the railways, as we have seen explode under privatisation, is very important. That links nicely with paragraph (e), which would ensure that the network is continually expanded and improved, with constant analysis of service and connectivity improvements as well as restoring and adding routes.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that paragraph (e) and some of the other provisions will support what I am particularly keen to see: the growth of the entire railway, not just the areas that happen to have a mayor or are part of Scotland or Wales?
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point. One of the stand-out moments from Tuesday’s oral evidence was that given by the mayors, Andy Burnham and Tracy Brabin. What it highlighted, apart from their articulate defence of their regions’ interests, was how different things will be, under the current proposals, in mayoral combined authorities: there will be the right to ask or be consulted on the devolution of aspects of rail to those authorities. That is great as far as it goes—they said that it did not go far enough, but it goes some distance in that direction.
However, what if an area is not a mayoral combined authority? I believe that is the point that my hon. Friend is making: without the direct relationship that the Government are anticipating for mayoral combined authorities, at the expense of other parts of the country, the “purpose” clause becomes more important. That is another reason why paragraphs (e) and (f) and others are helpful.
Many Members and constituents across the country were enthused by the restoring your railway fund and the new stations fund, which have unfortunately now been scrapped by this Government. They were set up in the last Parliament and led to a renaissance of interest in local railway investment and a focus on modernising working practices and innovating to improve productivity, efficiency and passenger experience.
Working practices are not really spoken about in the Bill as it is currently drafted. This is not a new start-up—we have to be quite clear about that: it is building a new organisation out of some very old organisations, including Network Rail. The aim of modernisation is to do more for less. That is a good thing because it means that there is more money left over for further investment in improving infrastructure and improving or increasing passenger services and more left in the kitty to reduce subsidies—the taxpayer support—and by extension reduce the tax burden on our hard-pressed constituents. Doing more for less by modernising working practices and innovating to improve productivity efficiency is an unalloyed good. It should be very important and at the heart of any organisation—yet the Bill is silent on it.
Although I can hear the subtext, but the new clause is not intended to be a union-bashing measure. It is intended to make a dynamic organisation that has its passengers—its users—at the heart of its interests and that there is a focus on ensuring that GBR continues to have growth as part of its objectives. That aligns with the Government’s decision to put growth at the heart of their mission.
Laurence Turner
The hon. Member particularly mentioned workforce productivity.
Laurence Turner
Okay, perhaps we will come back to that. However, the hon. Member also mentioned the restoring the your railway fund, which he talked about as a success. When the last Conservative Rail Minister, Huw Merriman, appeared before the Transport Committee he said, of that programme, that
“The challenge was that a lot of people had their expectations dashed. A lot of business cases were, “Let’s move it to this stage so we can keep the dream alive.” That just wastes money and expertise because you know that scheme is not going to get a return. I have mixed feelings on it as a result.”
Does the hon. Gentleman share some sympathy with that perspective?
Jerome Mayhew
Yes, I do, but then democracy is really messy, isn’t it? If we listen to passengers and our constituents, we hear all sorts of desires that may not be sufficiently persuasive to obtain Government funding, but the process of asking people for their views should not be shied away from. It sounds as though, in the experience of our former colleague Huw Merriman, some rather weak political decisions—or decisions of expediency—were taken. That does not mean that we should move away from the democratic process; we should listen to people. I do not say that the restoring your railway fund was a failure, because we listened and we heard.
I will pick up on the other point because I was sitting down when I barracked the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield: modernisation is not just about working practice. I want to make that really clear: modernising is about productivity enhancement of at-times-sclerotic organisations. I am a former entrepreneur. I ran a business for well over a decade on a much smaller scale than this. At the end, I employed about 1,000 people; I took it from start-up to about that stage.
Even a fast-growth, highly entrepreneurial and—in the views of other people—highly dynamic business such as the one that I was lucky enough to lead had all sorts of internal inconsistencies and inefficiencies, and needed to focus relentlessly on improving working processes and practices. That was right at the sharp end of the private sector. If it was true for my organisation then, think how true it is for a very large organisation such as Network Rail, which has 40,000-plus staff, and will be much bigger still when it becomes Great British Railways.
Paragraph (h) of new clause 1 states the need to improve and consider
“the experience of disabled and vulnerable passengers”.
Key terminus stations have good systems in place but that could be expanded with investment such as in the cross-party Access for All fund, which did huge work to improve disabled access in stations.
Paragraphs (i) and (j) are on a key theme that we have explored throughout our consideration of the Bill: open access and freight. They would ensure
“fair and transparent treatment of open access, freight and devolved operators”
At times it feels like we speak too much about open access in relation to this Bill. If we look at the capacity—the number of passengers covered by open access operators—we see that in percentage terms it is very small.
Jerome Mayhew
I was going to say 1.5%, but maybe it is 2%. Let us call it approximately 2%; I leave rail freight in a separate category. But open access operators have a disproportionate impact on driving competitive challenge.
One of the very significant concerns of the sector, which I share, is that if the very dominant GBR is created and the operator and open access operators are not supported, even though they represent just 2% of passenger transit what will be lost is the competitive comparator for what good operating processes and customer-focused activities for train operations look like. It is disproportionately important that GBR should be held to account practically by the operations of open access operators, so such operators must receive fair and transparent treatment. That is what paragraphs (i) and (j) set out. They would ensure that the system is transparent where we believe that the legislation as drafted is currently vague.
Paragraph (j) enshrines the growth freight targets that we all agree on and that the Government have outlined. Paragraph (k) states the need to strengthen
“the financial sustainability of the railways”
to reduce reliance on subsidy. That should be an objective, and a purpose, of GBR. The taxpayer has lots of things that his or her money needs to be spent on. If we can reduce, over time, the need for subsidy on the railways, that money is freed up either for tax cuts, which make everyone richer, or to be spent on other important priorities of Government.
Meanwhile, paragraphs (l) and (m) speak to another key aim—integration, both of track and train, and of the mayors, with their local transport integration beyond rail, which are important to have. The lack of explicit inclusion in the Bill feels like an oversight that we are more than happy to shed light on for the Government.
Sir Alec, you will be pleased to know that that is it as far as new clause 1 is concerned, but I do have new clause 2 to entertain you with, which is about key performance indicators. The Government have been asked multiple times over the last few months to provide, even in draft, the KPIs that they intend Great British Rail to operate under. This clause is a first attempt to fill the gap that the Government have left by refusing time and again even to discuss what the KPIs will be, other than to say, using their go-to phrase, that they will be “robust”. What does that mean? We do not know.
The new clause would set a statutory key performance indicator framework, which must include targets for a number of areas, such as reliability, safety, cleanliness, affordability, passenger growth, financial efficiency, freight and others. It is necessary because of the failure of the Government. I would be delighted to withdraw it if the Minister were to stand up and say, “These are the KPIs that the Government have in mind—let’s debate them.”
At the moment, we have draft legislation in front of us—we are a scrutinising Committee and we are here for a month to go line-by-line through the Bill to improve it and understand how GBR will be operated—and yet we have no idea what the Government are even thinking on KPIs, which are a central set of objectives. This new clause seeks not to bind GBR or the Secretary of State to rigid targets, but instead to provide an overall remit for where the Secretary of State and GBR must report within.
Accountability is at the core of public trust in nationally run services, and setting targets in statute ensures there is a positive feedback loop for officials—very importantly—and GBR agents to work against. It helps frame discussions and engagement between the Departments and GBR, and allows a number of different datasets and parameters to be considered. The new clause would also require the Secretary of State to publish these indicators and lay them before Parliament.
The KPIs work as a strong starting position by which GBR can judge itself, and how it in turn can be judged by passengers and the public. Again, the Opposition are having to do the Government’s work for them. We should not be in that position. The Government should have brought forward this Bill with the accompanying documentation, which, as we have heard, is missing— 19 important documents and counting.
Finally, I turn to new clause 5. You will be pleased to hear that it is much shorter, Sir Alec. The new clause would give reporting requirements to GBR, continuing the theme of accountability, which new clauses 1 and 2 also have at their core. The layout of the new clause is self-explanatory. Subsections (2) and (3) link to new clause 2 on key performance indicators, and the clause would enhance accountability further, not just by having targets in place, but by having a clear reporting criterion.
In the same way that a Secretary of State is expected to appear in front of Parliament on a rotating basis in urgent questions, in Committees and through written ministerial questions, it is reasonable to expect that GBR should publish an annual report in which it reports on the targets set by the Secretary of State. Given the eminently sensible and logical outcome of the new clauses, I urge the Government to consider seriously on what basis it would not want to create greater transparency.
Rebecca Smith
I will briefly make a few comments about each of the new clauses, though obviously I have already intervened on my hon. Friend. I support wholeheartedly what we have proposed in new clause 1, which is no surprise given that I am sitting next to my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. I want to pick up on what he said about the restoring your railway fund as an additional way of explaining why the lack of regional devolution, apart from mayors, is going to be so important for a lot of our constituents.
I represent a constituency in the south-west that had some really great promises made under the restoring your railway fund, and was going to be able to make progress on a new station and railway line between Tavistock and Plymouth. That is really important if the Government want to see economic growth in the south-west, which they do, because they are investing enormous amounts of money in defence. But if we do not build in at this early stage the ability to see growth for regions that do not have a mayor, and are not likely to have a mayor for some considerable time, I remain unconvinced that the Bill is reassuring enough to say, “Don’t worry, these far-flung parts of the country will get a look-in.”
Keir Mather
Let me first pick up on the points made by the hon. Lady as they relate to devolution, which is incredibly important. We will cover it in more extensive detail later, but it has a material impact on the new clauses we are considering. She is right to point to the fact that mayoral strategic authorities are the lens through which GBR intends to play out its devolution work under statute. That is because we believe that mayoral strategic authorities provide the right lens through which to use the transport network—the rail network in particular—as a catalyst for economic and housing growth. That is due to the powers that devolved mayors have in that space.
I also wish to reassure the hon. Lady that GBR’s ability to engage with local authorities will go far beyond just mayoral strategic authorities. That plays into an important consideration about the structure of GBR as an organisation, which we want to be a lot more flat and a lot more concentrated on ensuring that it can make an important regional difference in every part of the United Kingdom. Through the business units of GBR, we will be able to facilitate that work.
What we do not want to do, however—given any future Government aspiration for more places to have mayors—is to freeze a patchwork programme of devolution into legislation in a way that does not allow us to work closely with a range of devolved areas in future. GBR will be able to engage in that work comprehensively with local authorities, irrespective of whether they have a mayor.
On new clause 1, which seeks to add a purpose to the Bill, I am pleased to say that it largely mirrors provisions that already exist. I confirm that the Bill already makes that clear through the combination of GBR’s statutory functions, which set out what we expect GBR to do, and the shared general duties in clause 18, which set out what we expect it to consider and achieve. Taken together, the functions and duties already set out GBR’s fundamental purpose.
In addition, the duties in clause 18 can already cover the breadth of the outcomes that the proposed new clause is driving at. For example, sector bodies including GBR, and the Secretary of State, will be required to make decisions in the public interest, which includes social and economic benefits. The duties in the Bill are those that will endure and should be at the core of any railway. Instead of setting out a clear purpose, new clause 1 would duplicate many of the provisions already in the Bill and actually make GBR’s purpose significantly less clear.
New clauses 2 and 5 would set key performance indicators for GBR and introduce a requirement for GBR to publish an annual report on them. I can certainly support the intention of the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham that GBR should have a comprehensive set of performance objectives against which it is robustly held to account. I disagree with him, however, on where and how those indicators should be implemented. The right place for GBR’s KPIs is in its integrated business plan, alongside the detail of what activity GBR will be carrying out over the five-year funding period.
There are three main reasons for that, and I also point to the fact that the arrangement is mirrored in other public organisations, such as National Highways, set up by the previous Conservative Government in 2015—its KPIs are not included in primary legislation. First, the indicators should be realistic and measurable, meaning they also need to be grounded in GBR’s specific proposals for delivery. Therefore, it is appropriate that the indicators are developed as part of the business plan, rather than in legislation.
Secondly, key performance indicators need to be able to evolve over time as the railway network and customer needs change. The way an indicator is set out can influence how an organisation behaves, and we should be able to refine the indicators over the course of several funding periods to get GBR to deliver in the way it needs to. Therefore, a more flexible process, such as that used for developing the business plan, works much better than fixing the indicators in legislation.
Finally, it is important that the ORR, in its role of scrutinising GBR’s proposed plans and monitoring GBR’s delivery, is able to assess whether commitments made by GBR are ambitious but also realistic. As the independent expert adviser to the Secretary of State, the ORR should have a clear route to influence the formulation of GBR’s key performance indicators. By keeping them within the business plan, the ORR’s involvement is ensured by legislation. Unlike legislation, the integrated business plan will also be updated, likely on an annual basis, and it can only be updated following scrutiny from the ORR and the new passenger watchdog, which in my view provides additional flexibility and accountability.
I hope that the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham can agree that GBR’s business plan is the right place to develop and set GBR’s performance indicators. Given my explanation, I encourage him not to press his new clauses to a vote.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out his defence of the Bill. The problem with his argument is that, because the Government have gone off half-cocked, the Committee is not in a position to assess whether he is right or wrong on the nature of the KPIs, or even on where they should be, because we have not been furnished with any draft copies of the documents to which he refers. In those circumstances, I feel obliged to press the two new clauses to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
It may help Members to know that we debate new clauses where convenient in the Bill. We will vote on whether to agree to the new clauses when we get to the end of the Bill.
Clause 4
Exercise of functions of Scottish and Welsh Ministers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 30—Rail devolution: Wales—
“(1) Schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) In Section E2 (Rail Transport), omit paragraph 117.
(3) Within two years of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament regulations providing for the transfer of functions relating to rail services in Wales to Welsh Ministers.
(4) The functions transferred under subsection (3) must include, but are not limited to, responsibility for—
(a) railway infrastructure in Wales;
(b) the specification, provision and regulation of railway passenger services in Wales;
(c) the development, publication and implementation of a Welsh Rail Strategy;
(d) the funding, planning, delivery and maintenance of rail enhancement and renewal projects in Wales; and
(e) the regulation of access, capacity, charging and performance arrangements for rail infrastructure in Wales.
(5) No regulations may be made by the Secretary of State under this section unless they have been laid in draft before, and approved by, both Houses of Parliament.
(6) On the same day that the regulations specified in subsection (3) are laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must also publish a statement of rail funding detailing the additional funding to the Welsh Consolidated Fund that will be made by His Majesty's Government as a result of rail devolution.
(7) This section comes into force on the day this Act receives Royal Assent.”
Keir Mather
Clause 4 enables Scottish and Welsh Ministers to delegate their railway functions to Great British Railways, a subsidiary of Great British Railways, or a company jointly owned by Scottish or Welsh Ministers and Great British Railways. That means that, if they wish, those Ministers will be able to take advantage of the benefits of GBR’s joined-up approach of bringing track and train together.
Scottish and Welsh Ministers must consult GBR and the Secretary of State before entering into any delegation arrangement with GBR, and transparently publish the terms of the arrangement. The clause confirms that when GBR delivers functions for Scottish or Welsh Ministers, it continues to comply with its own obligations under the Bill, such as its duties.
The clause provides flexibility and choice for Scottish and Welsh Ministers in how rail services are delivered in Scotland and Wales. It allows for innovative options, such as vertically integrated joint ventures, which can deliver the full cost efficiencies and performance improvements that track and train integration will bring to England, with opportunity for those benefits to extend to Scotland and Wales as well. This approach is in line with our manifesto commitment to deliver the benefits of rail reform to the whole of Great Britain and has the full support of the Scottish and Welsh Ministers. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Jerome Mayhew
I thank the Minister for his brief explanation of the clause. Under clause 3, the Committee was able to discuss the principles of the future structure of GBR, but clause 4 is the first instance of one of the open wounds that the Bill might create.
The devolutionary functions of the Bill seemingly reopen aspects of the West Lothian question by failing to provide clear lines of power between the devolved nations, regions and Whitehall. The elephant in the room is the future surrounding England and Wales projects. We know from the evidence we heard that the Welsh railway is very different from, for example, the Scottish railway; 80% of all rail travel in Wales is cross-border, so it includes elements of English travel, as we can tell by Labour’s recent announcement that East West Rail and the Hull to Liverpool lines are being classified as England and Wales projects. Some members of the Minister’s party in Wales might think that is a bit of a stretch at the very least.
The Government’s position has consistently been based on the fact that infrastructure is not subsequent to Barnett consequentials in Wales, and therefore should not be allocated to Cardiff Bay. However, the Minister’s own Labour party colleague in the Senedd, Cabinet Secretary for Economy Rebecca Evans MS, said:
“Wales will have missed out...as a result of the incorrect classification of HS2 as an England-and-Wales project.”
That was Labour’s position when it sat on the Opposition Benches, and it is seemingly still the position of the Labour Government in Cardiff. Is it still the position of the Minister and of Labour?
Clause 4 allows the Scottish and Welsh Governments to maintain their nationalised railway structures within ScotRail and Transport for Wales. It is prudent that the Government maintain their and GBR’s final say in these matters, as set out in subsection (2). However, much of the relationship is predicated on the memorandum of understanding, which is missing in action and is not explicitly established in the clause. It is important to ensure that the Government are thinking clearly about the nature of the relationship they wish to maintain with the devolved nations, as this framework will exist within the future memorandum of understanding—which none of us has seen. That will be particularly important should the Wales Act 2017 be amended at some stage, given that Welsh devolved powers are a live political issue. Will the Minister explain Government’s approach to future transport devolution in Wales, given his party’s comments on rail funding?
Olly Glover
I wish to speak in favour of new clause 30, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), who is the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for Wales. His new clause seeks to remove rail transport from the list of powers reserved to Westminster and to require the UK Government to transfer responsibility for rail in Wales to Welsh Ministers in the Senedd within two years. In practical terms, that would mean responsibility for rail infrastructure, investment decisions and long-term strategy in Wales sitting with the Welsh Government, rather than being controlled by the UK Secretary of State or Great British Railways. It would put Wales on the same constitutional footing as Scotland, which already has those powers.
The reason this matters is that, under the current arrangements, Wales has consistently lost out. Because rail is not devolved, Wales has no protection when England-only rail projects are classified in ways that deny Wales consequential funding. That has resulted in Wales missing out on billions of pounds of investment from projects such as HS2, Northern Powerhouse Rail and East West Rail, while the Governments in Scotland and Northern Ireland have received consequential funding to spend on their own rail projects.
The new clause would align responsibility and accountability, and ensure that decisions affecting Welsh rail are made in Wales. I believe that this was a campaign backed by Welsh Labour MPs prior to the general election, so I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Keir Mather
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I will start by addressing new clause 30, which would require the full devolution of responsibility for rail services and infrastructure in Wales.
The Bill is designed to bring strategic direction, accountability and oversight of the rail system into a single coherent framework, reflecting the fact that railways operate as an integrated cross-border network. Reserved powers play an important part in maintaining that integration. Retaining responsibility for rail infrastructure at UK level supports coherent strategic planning, consistent standards and efficient operation across England and Wales, including on routes that serve communities on both sides of the border.
The new clause would introduce new statutory boundaries into a network when we most need to simplify governance and reduce fragmentation. By reopening the devolution settlement and mandating the transfer of responsibilities that are already being addressed through strengthened partnership working, it risks diverting attention from implementation and delivery. The Bill already enhances joint working.
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
The debate around the devolution of rail in Wales is absolutely worthy of further consideration, but I am not convinced that it would be right to do so as part of this Bill, which surely has to reflect the current situation, as the Minister is rightly pointing out. We heard evidence from a Transport for Wales official that they really welcomed the partnership working between the UK Government, the Welsh Government and TfW, as well as future collaboration and the work that has been done on the heads of terms for the memorandum of understanding. They felt that the progress made is moving us towards a different scenario, but we need to work with the situation as it stands now.
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend echoes a theme that we have heard throughout this debate: that those who live closest to the railway and the service it provides know best about its operation, and that includes on a devolved basis. He also rightly points to a number of themes that were brought to light during oral evidence by the representative from Wales, who pointed out that developing operational understandings, as we are with the Scottish and Welsh Governments through the MOU, is an iterative process done on an operational level, and freezing it in aspic is therefore not to be advised. The heads of terms already exist for Members to scrutinise.
The Bill already enhances joint working, improves accountability and safeguards the benefits of an integrated cross border railway. The approach in the Bill will be supported by the memorandum of understanding between UK and Welsh Ministers, which will set out arrangements for co-operation on matters such as cross border services and infrastructure interfaces. This provides a clear and structured basis for engagement with Welsh Ministers without requiring the statutory transfer of reserved rail functions or creating additional legislative complexity and uncertainty.
The new clause would require a separate statement on funding for the Welsh consolidated fund. That is not necessary, as information on funding for Wales is already published through established mechanisms, such as His Majesty’s Treasury’s fiscal documents on spending reviews and block grant transparency publications, which provide clear and routine transparency without creating a rail specific statutory process.
The new clause risks undermining the integrated approach set out in the Bill by requiring changes to reserved matters that could weaken the coherence of the rail network. The Bill as drafted has the full support of the Welsh Government and preserves the existing devolution settlement. I therefore urge hon. Members not to move the new clause and commend clause 4 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Co-operation with relevant local government bodies
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 232, in clause 5, page 3, line 37, at end insert—
“(2A) Where no arrangement between Great British Railways and a relevant local authority exists, the relevant local authority may appeal a decision made by Great British Railways affecting passenger rail services within its boundary under section 67.”
This amendment is designed to give Mayors the right to appeal GBR decisions to alter passenger services in their area to the ORR in the event of no partnership existing.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 214, in clause 5, page 4, line 11, at end insert—
“(d) a county council, district council or unitary authority with statutory transport responsibilities.”
This amendment ensures that non-mayoral local authorities are included in GBR’s duties to share information and coordinate rail and transport planning.
Clause stand part.
Jerome Mayhew
Thank you very much, Sir Alec. We are making progress—it may not feel like it, but we are. Courage! We’re getting there.
Clause 5 deals with co-operation with relevant local government bodies. It is not going to be a bestseller, but it is important, just like every clause in the Bill. It delves further into the devolution of powers. It is hard to quantify the clause while the Government’s devolution Bill continues its progress through the House, which creates an awkward chicken and egg scenario. The challenge with the clause, about the nature of the devolution of powers across local government, really ends up bleeding into clause 6. I am concerned that the Government and, by extension, GBR will end up picking and choosing who they wish to accept consultation decisions from.
Clause 5(1) specifically uses the word “may” when referring to arrangements between GBR and local government. It states:
“Great British Railways may enter into arrangements with a relevant local government body about the exercise by Great British Railways of its statutory functions in relation to railways and railway services in the body’s area.”
There is no clear obligation to provide any functions to mayoral combined authorities, mayoral combined county authorities, passenger transport executives or integrated transport areas. Can the Minister help me and the Committee by clarifying what functions he has in mind in relation to this clause? How would it work in practice? Will there be guidance on it, and when will we have it? Has that work been done yet? If it has, why has it not been shared with the Committee, with its obvious corollaries? If it has not been done, why not?
That leads me to amendment 232 in my name, which would create a new subsection (2A) of clause 5 as follows:
“Where no arrangement between Great British Railways and a relevant local authority exists, the relevant local authority may appeal a decision made by Great British Railways affecting passenger rail services within its boundary under section 67.”
To bring the amendment to life, we need to refer back to the evidence from Mayors Brabin and Burnham on Tuesday. The amendment would give mayors and other regional leaders the right to appeal GBR decisions to alter passenger services in their area. They would be able to appeal to the ORR, because it would be an independent appeals process, in the event that there was no partnership in existence. In their evidence, Mayors Burnham and Brabin were clear that they expected—in fact, I think Mayor Burnham said he would insist on—greater powers to influence rail in their regions. The amendment would help to achieve that through a continued role for the trusted and impartial Office of Rail and Road.
At this stage, I should make it clear that while the power to appeal is set out in clause 67, the governance—what that appeal can look like—is set out in clause 68. I think I am right in saying that it was described as not being worth the paper it is written on as it is drafted, because it limits appeals to judicial review proceedings in the High Court where there is an error of law. There is strong evidence before the Committee to suggest that that clause should be amended to allow an appeal on the merits, and amendment 232 needs to be taken in conjunction with future amendments that we will put before the Committee to do exactly that. It is intended to include in the Bill the provision for an appeal on the merits to the independent ORR, in order to give succour to mayors and other leaders of regional transport authorities where GBR chooses to run roughshod over their local plans.
Olly Glover
The Lib Dems think that clause 5 is along the right lines, and it is good that the Government are proposing to enshrine the principle of local consultation and dialogue into the Bill, because that is important for getting our railways and transport on a better footing. With the greatest respect to all Members present, too much in our country is dictated from Whitehall. We need more devolution; we need to listen more to local voices, and that applies as much to railways and transport as it does to anything else. I do, however, see merit in Conservative amendment 232, which is intended to strengthen some of the provisions of clause 5.
I will briefly say a little about Liberal Democrat amendment 214, which we see as a very simple and uncontroversial amendment. If the Minister does not intend to support it, I would genuinely be interested in why. It is simply based on the principle that clause 5 focuses on mayoral strategic authorities, but, because of the ongoing state of flux that local government reorganisation is in—I will not use any stronger words than that—we do not yet know exactly what the final structure will be; we do not know whether everyone is going to get a mayoral strategic authority. I am not an expert on the south-west of England—the hon. Member for South West Devon, sat next to me, is—but I keep hearing, for example, that Cornwall may not be part of a mayoral authority. Surely, it is not the intention of clause 5 to say that GBR would not have to engage with whatever local or regional authority there ends up being in Cornwall, if not a mayoral strategic authority.
Jerome Mayhew
This Committee has been a good example of the hon. Gentleman’s party and mine working collaboratively to improve the Bill. While he knows that I agree with the direction of travel that his amendment has in mind, I question its extension to an organisation as small as a district council. Given that district councils are a feature of two-tier local government—there will be a county council above them—can he explain why he thinks it is sensible to include them in the amendment?
Olly Glover
I encourage the hon. Gentleman not to get too carried away by the points on which we have agreed so far, because there will be plenty on which that is not the case. I also encourage Government Members not to get too excited, because I have agreed with them on plenty of things as well. Hopefully that shows that our politics can be more serious and less juvenile and we can all find things on which we agree. Before I make myself feel even more sick, I shall carry on.
I understand what the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham was saying. The intention of the amendment is not to suggest that GBR should be engaging with district-level authorities by default. Once local government reorganisation is complete and coherent, there will not be any district councils, so that bit will be rendered null and void. The aim is simply to cover all our bases, because we do not know where local government reorganisation will take us. Until we get there, it is important that whatever the voices are in a given part of the country, they are heard.
Local government is so complicated. It is different in so many bits of the country—even places right next to each other. My constituency covers South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse, which have district and county, and then next door in West Berkshire it is unitary. Even there, even in parts of the country that used to be part of the same county—I hope the Campaign for Historic Counties is listening; I do sometimes engage with its Facebook comments—
Rebecca Smith
Knowing the hon. Member’s enthusiasm for all forms of transport as I do, I would like to build on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham made about amendment 214 in respect of district councils, and ask whether it would have been better to use the term “a transport authority”, which may well have linked it more clearly to the Bus Services Act 2025. That new bus legislation allows council-led transport authorities to control bus services. Perhaps that would have been good, safe ground to be on, which might well have enabled us to be more supportive.
Olly Glover
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I think that absolutely was our intention. Perhaps the placement of commas, or semicolons or colons, or dashes if one prefers them—I cannot stand them personally, but some people love them—would have made that clear. The key thing that we are getting at, the thing that is critical, is the last five words of our amendment:
“authority with statutory transport responsibilities.”
We listed all the ones before that just because it is all so complicated and convoluted. But that was absolutely the intention. I think it is perfectly possible, if the Minister can offer an assurance that the intention is not to exclude any parts of the country that do not benefit from mayoral strategic authorities and can say a little about how he feels that the gap in clause 5 will be covered, that that will be enough to give us some assurance.
Edward Argar
I will speak relatively briefly about a slightly tangential but linked point about co-operation with local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham has already made the point about non-mayoral authorities. Whatever the direction of travel by the Government, there will still be a significant number of areas not covered by a mayoral authority when the Bill—should it pass through Committee and the House—comes into effect. I think that the wording of clause 5 risks excluding, even if only for a time, a number of relevant local authorities.
I have broader concerns about the duty to co-operate—the duty to work together. Rightly, it focuses on the operation of the railways, and that link, I suspect in intention if not in drafting, with transport authorities. However, there is a need—if this is not written in the Bill directly, perhaps the Minister can explain how he envisages it working in practice—for broader co-operation by GBR with local authorities.
To give an example, in Syston in my constituency, we have the very real challenge of flood risk around the brook that runs through the centre of the town. Lots of work has been done by the local flood group and others to reduce that risk and to get the Environment Agency to take steps to clear the brook, which I have also been very active in, but one of the key issues that remains is a pinch point in the brook under a railway bridge, an asset of Network Rail. The problem is a footpath that is built alongside, under that bridge, that takes up a chunk of what could be waterway with a bank. An idea has been advocated to me by members of that group, and especially by Chris—I will not use his full name—who is a very active member. He suggests, “Couldn’t Network Rail be persuaded to remove the footpath and the bank and instead come up with an engineering solution, a metal bridge or metal footpath, that allows water flow underneath?” That sounds like a sensible and practical idea, and I will of course press it with Network Rail, but I use it as an example of an issue that often occurs when railway assets are, quite rightly, very carefully protected by Network Rail because of the impact on passenger trains and safety aspects.
The situation can be incredibly difficult. I have not yet tried my luck with Network Rail—hopefully it is listening and might be receptive—but it can be very difficult to get it to agree to change its assets at the request of the local flood authority or council, for example, and co-operate because it sees that as a significant expense and a potential disruption to the railways. While I hope that I will receive a constructive response in due course, will the Minister address how, if he is not including this in the Bill, he would envisage GBR being obliged to work in a co-operative and constructive fashion with local authorities and other public bodies when their assets are part of the mix of that conversation?
Rebecca Smith
I will touch briefly on two points that are not necessarily related, but overlap. First, let me build on what my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham said about the word “may” in clause 5(1). Anyone who was at the oral evidence session earlier this week would have heard the Manchester and west midlands mayors talking about wanting a meaningful relationship. They could not pinpoint exactly what meaningful would look like, but the gist was a desire to make sure that the relationship has some “oomph” or a decent foundation to it. I am therefore concerned about the use of the word “may”. Will the Minister define what “may” means and when “may” might happen? Ultimately, that is potentially the biggest get-out clause for not having to act. I know that that is not the intention, but I do not think that the Bill as drafted clearly describes that.
I referred earlier to the general premise of devolution and the Minister tried to reassure me about devolution outside strategic mayoral authorities, but I still do not think that the Bill is clear enough about what is going to happen. Given that the Bill sets up a railway system that the Government hope will last forever, it is not clear how other parts of the country will come into play. The Transport Committee has debated that and heard lots of evidence as well. The question remains. While I appreciate the Minister’s reassurances, they do not go far enough to help me and many others across the country to understand what is in the Bill for them regarding local control and power.
We have debated changing language today and I have already talked about the potential for referring to “local transport authorities”. I am intrigued about why subsection (5)(c) is the end of the line. It refers to a
“Passenger Transport Executive for an integrated transport area.”
Why does this not go further? We know that the Government have huge intentions for devolution and local government re-organisation but, despite their best intentions, that might not come to pass in the way they think.
How can the Bill be changed to reflect areas of the country that do not have a mayor or any of the bodies included in subsection (5)? How will the Government ensure that the whole country benefits from GBR, not just those areas that have great, charismatic mayors—of all colours? They keep being brought in front of the Select Committee as the solution to all of our transport problems, but unless other areas in the country get a mayor, they will not see the benefits of any of it. I know that that is the Government’s intention, but I genuinely do not think that it will be the reality for a number of years.
Keir Mather
I turn first to the definition of “may”, which feels as philosophically profound a point as it does a political one. I interpret “may” differently to the hon. Lady. Mayoral strategic authorities, and other local government organisations across the piece, have incredibly divergent aspirations, ambitions and existing structures through which they may want to realise their local transport opportunities and overcome challenges. Using “may” gives them the opportunity to explore the full range of them in a way that is not over-prescriptive. If we combine that with the role that mayors can have in the system to exercise accountability, that provides sufficient safeguards for the mayoral piece of the puzzle.
More broadly, building on the point made by the hon. Member for South West Devon and the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston about what the reality could look like, it goes back to the operational reality that we do not want GBR to be set up as a highly consolidated, top-down organisation that does not have a presence in local people’s communities. On the other hand, GBR’s integrated business units will provide closeness both to the people who maintain assets that are directly related to the railway, and to local government representatives, who will have a very refined view of how the system meets passengers’ needs.
Rebecca Smith
The Minister’s point speaks directly to something else I am concerned about: how the business units relate to local government areas. His explanation still uses language that makes it sound like the authorities will be much smaller, granulated local authorities rather than larger strategic ones. Can the Minister help me to understand how the business unit will work in an area that does not have a mayoralty—that top level of devolution—in place?
I do not want to be parochial, but two railway companies currently provide services in the south-west, and there are three in the far south-west, if we look at some of the other routes down from London to there. If there is a business unit, what is it controlling? Is it controlling the entire south-west? Is it controlling the railway company providing that service? Does it have to be linked to a level of devolution, or will it exist anyway, meaning that local councils, such as the one in my area, would still refer to them?
Keir Mather
The hon. Lady will have to forgive me, but I do not want to be over-prescriptive, and that is for two reasons. The first is that, as she outlines, there are very different cases in different local areas, and I want integrated business units that are set up as part of GBR to be responsive to those particularities. Those matters are part of operational design, which necessarily does not sit in the Bill, because we do not want GBR to be frozen in aspic through legislation. We want its operational workings to be future-focused and agile, as we would want any private organisation to be, which the shadow Minister has outlined.
Secondly, however—this relates to the Conservative and Liberal Democrat amendments—I do not want to create phantom clauses in the Bill and build in accountability structures for council systems that may be replaced by mayoral strategic authorities. We talk a lot about Christmas tree Bills in this place, but I envisage this as more of a bonsai Bill, with each part perfectly formed and maintained, so I do not want to put provisions into statute that quickly become irrelevant.
I thank the shadow Minister for tabling amendment 232, which would create an appeals process for relevant local authorities when a GBR decision affected rail services in their area. The Government support a more locally focused railway and an enhanced role for mayoral strategic authorities. Local partners know their areas best, and that is why GBR will agree partnerships with mayoral strategic authorities to enable close collaboration and joint working on local priorities.
We believe that the amendment is not necessary because clauses 81 to 84 require GBR to consult with mayoral strategic authorities and receive advice from relevant local authorities. Those are the proposed mechanisms through which mayoral authorities will be engaged when one of GBR’s decisions could have a significant impact on the local area. At that point, GBR can receive advice from relevant local authorities and will co-operate with them to find a workable solution. It does not make sense to require a statutory appeals process for something that engagement via other routes can easily solve. I also point to the fact that mayors can appeal the capacity plan or appeal against access decisions if they are aggrieved by them. They can also go to the ORR if GBR ignores the transport strategy, under the existing legislation.
The shadow Minister raised a really important point about the partnership practitioner guide, which was published earlier this month to set out how those partnership models might work. He asked me to point to which functions we have in mind through those models. It could be mayors agreeing local fare packages with GBR as they relate to passenger services, such as through the Bee Network. Hopefully that provides him with a little more detail, but if he has subsequent questions, I will be happy to answer them.
Amendment 214 would enable GBR to enter into arrangements with all tiers of local government, rather than just mayoral strategic authorities. As I have mentioned, the provisions in clause 5 are pitched at that level to reflect the growth of MSAs across England and the role that mayors can play in convening local partners and tackling regional challenges. That level of authority also represents the appropriate scale and capability for integrating rail with wider public transport, and the provision on the intersection with buses is obviously of great importance to the Committee.
Rebecca Smith
I thank the Minister for the further detail that he has provided. A lot of these regions feed into London and the big cities. If local councils are holding their local business units to account, how does that connect with services going from those regions to big cities such as London or Birmingham?
Keir Mather
The hon. Lady’s comments speak to the advantage of an integrated railway with a single point of accountability—whether that be at the local level, or through an integrated business unit or GBR’s HQ functions in Derby. The reason for having integration is that accountability is not diffuse, as one single point of contact at the local level can radiate through the system to ensure that local residents get what they need. Beyond that, there are the duties that underpin GBR’s need to promote the interests of passengers as being both a national consideration and something that local businesses should have regard to.
Clause 5 also enables GBR to co-operate with relevant local government bodies, such as MCAs, by entering into formal partnership arrangements with them or by sharing information. The clause does not detail what the co-operation arrangements should be, as every local area is different, but arrangements could include local authorities funding GBR for additional services or enhancements beyond the national baseline. The information-sharing provisions can also allow for more integrated transport planning, for example, so that new bus stations can be located alongside new train stations. This provision enables GBR to co-operate with local authorities, allowing local areas the opportunity to genuinely shape the railway and have greater influence over services.
I have heard from many mayors and MPs that this is how the railway should work, and I know that a lot of members of the Committee have local priorities that the clause can help to deliver. In the future, GBR will be accountable for every part of the railway, and it should be able to do sensible business with every Member of Parliament to get the right outcomes for everyone. I commend clause 5 to the Committee.
Jerome Mayhew
I listened carefully to the Minister’s explanation as to why, in his view, amendment 232 should be withdrawn. He said that GBR will agree to co-operation with mayoral combined authorities. He also said that other parts of the Bill contain a duty to consult and a requirement to receive advice from mayors, but there is no requirement to listen to that advice. As a result, the decision-making power remains with GBR, not the regional area that is most affected by the decisions, which the Minister, on a number of occasions today, has already said is best placed to decide the needs for its local community. That is fine—if the Minister wishes to keep the word “may”, it is, of course, his right to do so. However, if the less powerful of the two people in the relationship disagrees with GBR’s decisions, they need to have some form of recourse to an appeal. For that reason, I believe that the appeal process set out in amendment 232 remains important and that the amendment should be put to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 6, page 4, line 15, after “with” insert “Secretary of State and”.
This amendment maintains the Secretary of State’s statutory co-operation duty with Transport for London to keep the position in line with other mayoralties.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 8, in clause 6, page 4, line 17, after “Railways” insert
“and the Secretary of State”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.
Amendment 9, in clause 6, page 4, line 19, after “Railways” insert
“and the Secretary of State”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.
Amendment 10, in clause 6, page 4, line 21, after “Railways” insert
“and the Secretary of State”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 7.
Jerome Mayhew
Clause 6 deals with co-operation between GBR and Transport for London. The clause seems to exist in direct juxtaposition to clause 5, and, interestingly, to the general spirit of the Bill expressed in other clauses. While many aspects of the Bill bring powers back to the Department for Transport, GBR and the Secretary of State’s office, the clause is unusual in being one of few examples where those on the Treasury Bench do not seem to want to be involved. That is out of character. Through the clause, the Government seek to remove the Secretary of State’s position in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and replace that responsibility with a similar one for Great British Railways. That is not based on enhancing accountability or strengthening value for the taxpayer, which should be core principles of the Bill.
The clause presents special status for Transport for London that is not enjoyed by other mayoral combined authorities; that relates to a point that Committee members will recall Andy Burnham making during our oral evidence session on Tuesday. He expressly referenced the difference in how the Greater Manchester mayoral combined authority is treated on transport matters compared with how TfL is treated. We need to ask why that is. Mayor Burnham’s evidence highlighted that difference, yet the Government have given no effective answer about the rationale behind treating large, regional mayoral combined authorities differently from Transport for London.
The amendments in this group seek to correct that, proposing that, until such a time when the other mayoralties require their own special dispensation, which clause 5 of the Bill actively prohibits, clause 6 should be amended to maintain reference to the Secretary of State, and include the Secretary of State and GBR side by side, so that the relevant subsections of section 175 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 refer to both “the Secretary of State” and “Great British Railways”. That would ensure that the Secretary of State continues to have a duty of co-operation with TfL, alongside GBR.
Daniel Francis
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. As a Member of Parliament for a London constituency, and as a former member of the London TravelWatch board who understands some of the passenger watchdog issues in London, it is incumbent on me to speak to some of the clauses.
Of course, the GLA Act 1999 originally gave the liaison power to the Strategic Rail Authority, not the Secretary of State, and it was the Railways Act 2005 that amended the words “Strategic Rail Authority” to “Secretary of State”. Clause 6 will in fact put back the relationship that was there in the original 1999 Act, so that the actual rail operator, rather than the Secretary of State, has that liaison right with Transport for London.
Look at how the passenger interacts with some of those services. Some people living in the very northern part of my constituency—I have a very small part of Abbey Wood in my Bexleyheath and Crayford constituency—use Abbey Wood station, where rail usage has trebled since before the pandemic. During that time, we have seen the introduction of the Elizabeth line and the nationalisation of Southeastern, and the station has been transferred from Southeastern’s operation to Transport for London’s. Yet there are three different railway services serving that station: the nationalised Southeastern, the privatised Thameslink and the Elizabeth line, which is operated by Transport for London. There therefore absolutely has to be liaison by the operator, not the Secretary of State. Under this arrangement, Southeastern and Thameslink would come under one ownership, under Great British Railways, and with Transport for London.
Also, if my constituents catch the Bexleyheath or Barnehurst service to London Victoria, or to Denmark Hill, if they are using King’s College hospital, they will use a service that is currently operated by Thameslink but on a line that also has Southern and Southeastern services on it, as well as TFL services on the Windrush line. The liaison power should therefore be with the operators, not the Secretary of State. If we went down the Opposition’s route, we would be saying that that liaison should be between the Secretary of State and the Mayor of London. However, it should rightly be between the rail operators, given that stations such as Denmark Hill or Abbey Wood have Transport for London services, and there will be some stations operated by Transport for London, but some stations, such as Denmark Hill, will be operated by Great British Railways. That is where the liaison powers should lie, and as I say, that will bring us back to the original arrangement under the 1999 Act. For those reasons, I oppose the amendments and support clause 6.
Keir Mather
Let me begin by addressing the point made by the shadow Minister about the discrepancies in the system in Greater Manchester as it applies to London. It is not wholly correct to say that we are treating these two things inherently differently. The co-operation clause, which applies to all MCAs including Manchester, is new, but for TfL it is also set out in the GLA Act. To make this work for TfL, we have therefore to tweak the legislative system.
I thank the shadow Minister for his amendments 7 to 10, which together propose including the Secretary of State, alongside Great British Railways, in the clause requiring co-operation with TfL. Clause 6 requires that GBR and TfL co-operate on railway matters. That includes co-ordinating TfL and GBR passenger services and sharing relevant information. It will also enable GBR to work collaboratively with Transport for London to strengthen its local influence over the railways and support integration with other transport modes.
The railway responsibilities included in the clause, such as the co-ordination of passenger services, will be GBR’s, not the Secretary of State’s. Including the Secretary of State here would risk undermining the principle that GBR is the railway’s directing mind, and would widen the scope of the Secretary of State’s role under the new regime.
The shadow Minister will have heard the Government make clear commitments that this will not be a railway run by politicians. Clearly, the Secretary of State does not need to be involved in GBR’s relationship with Transport for London or in its passenger service responsibilities. Those relationships are operational ones and do not need political interference. I therefore urge him not to press his amendments to a vote.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, and to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford for giving his lived experience of the TfL area. I am partially convinced. I will not press this amendment to a Division, so I think we can move on.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Keir Mather
I beg to move amendment 165, in clause 6, page 4, line 25, after “functions” insert
“(within the meaning of the Railways Act 2026)”.
This amendment defines GBR’s statutory functions in the substituted section 175(3) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 156 and 157.
Keir Mather
The Government are committed to creating a more locally focused railway under GBR. Provisions in the Bill and ongoing engagement with local government partners demonstrate the strength of that commitment.
These amendments are primarily technical in nature, but they will support more effective co-operation on local railway matters. Amendments 156 and 157 bring freight into the scope of clause 6, which requires GBR to co-operate with Transport for London on railway matters.
Clause 6 amends section 175 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which requires the Secretary of State and TfL to co-operate with each other on passenger services. I have already spoken about why we are transferring this duty to co-operate from the Secretary of State to GBR. However, since GBR will be the directing mind of the railway, an operator of passenger services and the manager of its network, it is now appropriate for this duty to include both freight and passenger services.
This Government recognise the importance of freight and intend to ensure that freight is promoted within the Bill, as well as in future engagement between GBR and TfL. It was always this Government’s intention that GBR and TfL should work effectively together in the reformed railway. These amendments ensure that that can happen in a holistic way.
Amendment 165 is a minor drafting amendment to ensure that when people read the Greater London Authority Act 1999, they know to refer to this Bill to find out what GBR’s statutory functions are.
Jerome Mayhew
I agree with the Minister’s characterisation that these are largely technical or tidy-up amendments. It is right to include freight in the duty to cooperate with TfL. I am glad that the Government have tabled these three amendments and we have no objection to them.
Amendment 165 agreed to.
Amendments made: 156, in clause 6, page 4, line 26, after “passenger” insert “and goods”.
This amendment and amendment 157 add GBR’s statutory functions in relation to freight services to the functions in relation to which GBR must co-operate with Transport for London.
Amendment 157, in clause 6, page 4, line 26, at end insert—
“(7) In subsection (3A)—
(a) after ‘passenger’ insert ‘or goods’, and
(b) after ‘passengers’, in both places it occurs, insert ‘or goods’.”—(Keir Mather.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 156.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Keir Mather
Clause 6 amends the Greater London Authority Act 1999 by updating section 175. This will update the current statutory basis for TfL’s co-operation on railway matters by replacing references to “the Secretary of State” with references to “Great British Railways”. This includes co-ordination regarding TfL and GBR services, and requirements to share relevant information. It also enables GBR to work collaboratively with TfL to strengthen its local influence over the railways and support integration with other transport modes.
These arrangements may include financial contributions from TfL to GBR for additional services or enhancements beyond the national baseline. For example, TfL could commission GBR to increase train frequencies on suburban routes, or to improve station facilities to align with the Mayor of London’s transport strategy. Information-sharing will also enable integrated planning, improving co-ordination between GBR services and TfL’s multi-modal network.
That approach reflects the Government’s commitment to empowering local leaders through statutory roles and supporting integrated transport solutions. This collaborative working will help to deliver better outcomes for passengers and communities by aligning rail services with London’s priorities. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister has set out his views on this clause clearly. We have already explored the difference of opinion about whether or not it should be the Secretary of State and GBR that collaborate with TfL. However, the direction of the clause is an eminently sensible one and we do not wish to stand in its way.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Nesil Caliskan.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench Business
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Transport Connectivity: Midlands and North Wales
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered transport connectivity in the Midlands and North Wales.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss, and to open this debate on a subject that goes to the heart of economic opportunity, social mobility and quality of life.
Connectivity determines whether people can easily get to work, get to school and get out and about. For communities such as mine in Aldridge-Brownhills, the state of our transport links will decide whether young people can access opportunities and whether businesses can grow. Reliable transport and good connectivity are not nice-to-have extras; they are fundamental to how well off and connected our region is. Right now, we must do so much better. Today, I will focus on three areas where I believe ambition has been promised but delivery is falling short: buses, rail infrastructure and our roads.
For many people, buses are the only form of public transport available, not least in my constituency, which still does not have a single railway station. Bus fares matter, particularly for young people. If we are serious about opportunity, we cannot price young people off the network. Other regions have recognised that and acted. In Tees Valley, the Conservative mayor, Ben Houchen, introduced a £1 bus fare for everyone aged 21 and under, and it has been a clear success. It has boosted ridership and helped young people get to work, college and their apprenticeships. Wales has followed suit by rolling out £1 single fares for 16 to 21-year-olds across the country, and there are plans to extend the scheme further.
My constituents are left asking a simple question: why not the Mayor of the West Midlands? Our Labour mayor so often talks about fairness and inclusion, yet young people in our region continue to face some of the highest bus fares in the country. While other areas are cutting fares to widen opportunity, young people in my constituency are still paying full price to get to work or education.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Lady agree that the issue is not just fares but routes? Derbyshire had a 60% loss of bus routes in the 15 years up to 2023. Would she say that it is hugely disappointing that for such a long time, most of which was under her party’s Government, bus routes have been slashed?
Wendy Morton
What I would say is that, although I am not an expert on Derbyshire bus routes, I absolutely recognise the importance of good connectivity. In the west midlands, constituents regularly ask me, “Why has this bus route changed?” or, “Why has that bus route changed?” So it absolutely matters to our constituents.
On connectivity, the lack of fairness for young people is not inevitable. We have seen that targeted youth fares can work, but what is sadly missing in the west midlands is not evidence but political will. If fairness and inclusion really are priorities, a west midlands youth bus fare scheme should be delivered quickly.
Alongside that, our mayor has promised a transformation of the bus network through franchising. In principle, greater local control can offer integrated routes, reasonable fares and improved standards, but the mayor needs to be honest with us about the timetable and the cost. Franchising will not deliver meaningful change for many years, and the funding currently allocated is a fraction of what will ultimately be required to deliver the scheme. Greater Manchester’s experience shows that franchising takes times and significant investment.
In the meantime, our bus services remain unreliable and under-resourced. Once again, passengers are promised jam tomorrow. Transport users need buses that turn up and fares that they can afford, not more empty words.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady represents one part of the west midlands; I represent another part—the last seat in Staffordshire, which is on the Cheshire border. Many of the challenges that my constituents in Madeley, Audley, Wolstanton and Clayton have raised with me are related to the role that private companies, like D&G Bus and First Bus, play in delivering the bad or unreliable services to which she refers. Is it not the case that, as well as political will, we need those bus companies to step up and deliver?
Wendy Morton
I absolutely agree; there needs to be a wide approach to make this happen. I know from casework that we sometimes need to write to companies and ask them what is happening with a specific bus service. I just want a better bus service for my constituents, so that they can get to work or education. I remember growing up in a rural area—it was not in the west midlands—where we had one bus service a week. Young people in particular need access to good transport.
Going back to the issue of franchising, there is a long-term ambition, but interim action is essential. That means supporting new routes and the routes that we have now. Improving reliability is so important, as is addressing fares. We cannot pin all our hopes on reforms that are a decade away while services deteriorate in the present. The gap between promise and delivery regarding our buses must be closed as a matter of urgency.
That gap is even more stark when we turn to rail. The midlands rail hub is the single most important rail project for our region—
Wendy Morton
We agree on many things—alongside Aldridge train station, of course. The midlands rail hub would unlock capacity, allow more frequent services, and make new and reopened stations viable. However, when I ask Ministers whether the scheme is fully funded, the answer is always the same: £123 million has been allocated, not to deliver the project but merely to progress the next phase of development. The remainder, which is an estimated £1.75 billion, is still described as being
“subject to future funding decisions.”
We were told that the midlands rail hub would be delivered in full. The previous Conservative Government committed £1.75 billion in the 2023 Network North plan to deliver it. That funding has since been pulled by the Labour Government, leaving the full delivery of the project in limbo. I would be happy if the Minister could provide, in his response to this debate, the clarity that this project is fully funded to delivery, because it is critical to making sure that the west midlands, and the greater part of the region, keeps on moving, and we have that much-improved connectivity that enables new routes to be opened up and greater passenger capacity. The Government now talk about Northern Powerhouse Rail, but without the midlands rail hub there will be no midlands engine to power it. We need both, and we need them to be delivered.
There is the same uncertainty when Ministers are asked about passenger services on the Sutton Park line, which remains freight-only. Any future passenger use is said to depend on additional capacity, which is the very capacity that the midlands rail hub was meant to provide. There is no timetable, no commitment, and sadly no plan. This is policy paralysis; infrastructure is not funded and then a lack of infrastructure is used as the reason why nothing can progress. The midlands rail hub either will or will not be built, but indefinite reviews and partial funding help no one, least of all residents in my constituency and across the west midlands, and our local businesses.
That brings me to Aldridge train station. It will come as no surprise to the Minister that I am raising this. Why? Because it matters. Aldridge is a major settlement of some 25,000 people, but it has been without a passenger railway station for decades, despite clear demand and a growing population. Under the previous Mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street, funding was identified, land was secured, and the project was moving towards delivery. Local people were given a timeline and told that a new station was coming. Then priorities changed. A review happened. Funding was redirected. The project was placed under review and Aldridge train station was pushed into the long grass—some might say, into the sidings. It did not fail a business case; it fell victim to political decisions, with the Government allowing the secured funding for the station to be moved to pet projects of the Labour Mayor of the West Midlands.
Rest assured, I will continue to raise this issue at every opportunity, as the Leader of the House is all too aware from Thursday business questions, because it matters. When pressed on rail expansion in the north and east of the west midlands, the answer is always the same—future funding, future capacity, under review. Aldridge is told to wait. Sutton Park is told to wait. But my constituents have waited for long enough.
I want to highlight the importance of open-access operators. Services such as the proposed Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway could bring new connectivity and competition, with trains running along the Sutton Park line through Aldridge—but because Aldridge still has no station, those trains will pass straight through. Open access has a role to play, but only if the infrastructure is delivered. Supporting open access must go hand in hand with delivering projects such as Aldridge station. I am hugely supportive of this project, but it must stop in Aldridge.
I have focused on public transport, but roads are equally critical. In Aldridge-Brownhills, our roads remain very much the backbone of local travel. Here too, our development needs are racing ahead of infrastructure. Large-scale housing proposals—another topic I regularly raise in this House—on green-belt land around Stonnall Road and Bosty Lane would add hundreds of new homes without the road upgrades needed to support them. Those roads already feed into Chester Road, which is sadly an accident blackspot, with a tragic history of serious injuries and fatalities.
Dave Robertson
The right hon. Member and I have both done some work on Chester Road—a place where one of my constituents lost their life a number of years ago. Is the right hon. Member able to update us on any conversations she has had with Walsall council about that area? I, and my constituents, would greatly appreciate that.
Wendy Morton
As the hon. Gentleman rightly indicates, this is an issue where we share an interest. He can rest assured that I do and will continue to raise it with Walsall council. It really does matter. I know the case that he refers to. What happened was a tragedy.
Local campaigners such as SCAR—Stonnall Campaign About Roads—have long called for action. I pay tribute to some of our local road safety campaigners—Jayne Preston, who will love having a mention in this place, even though it is in sad circumstances; and also Colin Roberts. They have done tremendous work and continue to raise the issue of road safety and that of the victims as well. Let me also take the opportunity to acknowledge the charity RoadPeace, a national charity for road crash victims, with which I have worked locally. For more than three decades, the charity supported bereaved families and campaigned for safer roads. Its recent closure as a charity is deeply saddening. It should remind us all of the human cost of what happens when we get road safety wrong.
While I welcome some recent funding for safety measures on Chester Road near this particular blackspot, residents are rightly asking where the wider plan is. We cannot add hundreds of homes without first investing in the roads and the junctions that residents rely on every day, even before any more homes are built. This will be development without infrastructure. If housing targets are imposed, which is very much what is happening in the west midlands in my area, infrastructure funding must be part of it. Roads, junctions, traffic management and public transport links must come before houses are occupied, not years afterwards.
The midlands and north Wales do not need more warm words or long-term plans that never quite materialise. We need transport that works at a price that people can afford. Across buses, rail and road, the pattern is the same: ambition without delivery; young people priced off the buses; rail schemes left half funded; towns told to wait; housing built without infrastructure. Things do not have to be this way. We know what works, but what is missing is action and delivery. I gently say to the Minister that if the Government want people to believe in their plans for growth, they must start matching ambition with delivery.
Our region is ready to play its part, but it cannot do so with stalled projects and permanent delay. Our communities have waited long enough. It is time to stop reviewing and deferring, and to start delivering the transport that actually works. I genuinely look forward to hearing from the Minister about how he intends to make this happen. I will happily meet with him to discuss Aldridge station, to see what more we can do to ensure that the Mayor of the West Midlands understands why this matters, why I keep banging on about it, and why I will keep doing so until it is delivered.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak with you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I will focus most of my speech on Rugeley Trent Valley station, which is of interest to my constituents, particularly those in Rugeley and Brereton, even though it is technically just over the border in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson)—a neighbour constituency-wise and in the Chamber today.
As we know, transport connectivity does not stop at constituency or council boundaries, and neither does the impact of stations where the facilities are not adequate for everybody. Rugeley Trent Valley is a striking example. The station has three platforms, yet only platform 3, serving trains towards Lichfield and London, is step-free. Platforms 1 and 2, serving far-distant locations like Birmingham, Stafford and Crewe, can be reached only via a steep footbridge. In practice, wheelchair users, parents with prams, older people and those with limited mobility are effectively barred from using two thirds of the station. With the delays that often characterise Avanti West Coast services and short connection times, running across from one platform to the next is simply not an option for many of my constituents.
Let me give some real-life, human examples. One constituent in her 80s told me that she can no longer visit her family because she cannot carry a suitcase up and down the steep staircases safely. That highlights how the barriers are not limited to wheelchair users. Another constituent recounted travelling with a friend who has serious mobility issues from the waist down. He arrived at the station to discover that the only way for him to catch their connecting train was to physically haul himself up and down the stairs. Station staff did what they could, but goodwill alone cannot overcome infrastructure that excludes so many people in our communities.
People are desperate to make journeys for work, healthcare, or family reasons, and they will often attempt unsafe routes if no accessible alternatives exist. While the British Transport police and station operators do what they can to manage risks, long detours or temporary measures are no substitute for basic dignity and safety.
Using the database of the Office of Rail and Road, I noticed that more than 200,000 people exited and entered Rugeley Trent Valley station in 2024-25. A constituent highlighted that other stations on the network, even ones with fairly similar footfall or electrified lines, such as Kidsgrove station near Stoke-on-Trent, have been upgraded with lifts, waiting rooms, and toilets. Clearly, it is not a question of engineering impossibility, but of prioritisation.
West Midlands Trains and London Northwestern Railway have told me that they fully support installing lifts at Rugeley Trent Valley. They acknowledge the station’s accessibility issues and the impact on passengers, but as many hon. Members will know, major upgrades such as this fall under Network Rail’s Access for All programme, which is always heavily oversubscribed. Over 2,500 stations in the country require upgrades, and Network Rail applies strict criteria, prioritising stations by passenger numbers and the proximity of the next accessible station. For Rugeley, nearby stations such as Stafford or Lichfield Trent Valley score higher under that system.
Although Rugeley has been discussed and even shortlisted in the past, the next allocation of funding is still several years away. In the meantime passengers are offered so-called mitigations, such as being carried to the next accessible station and sent back again or provided with discretionary road transport. For many of my constituents those are simply not viable or dignified solutions. They are workarounds for systemic failure, showing exactly what regional inequality looks like, with smaller towns often having to wait endlessly at the back of the queue while people with the greatest need are left to navigate shortcomings in the system.
Dave Robertson
My hon. Friend elucidates the problems that we face at Rugeley Trent Valley station. He is a doughty campaigner and it is a pleasure to work with him and to follow his lead. The issue affects not only his constituents but a number of mine as well. I want to go back to his remark that, “The next station is Lichfield Trent Valley.” Very few people in this room will have tried to do that journey, which is not simple. There is no direct road linking the two places. We have to go through Armitage in a circuitous route. Sometimes just looking at the distance between two stations is not sufficient; we have to look at travel times as well. The practicalities of being able to do that I feel are sometimes overlooked by the Access for All process. He was making an excellent point and I want to reinforce that.
Josh Newbury
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the plethora of issues we have at Rugeley Trent Valley, which are not restricted to the footbridge. Coming in and out of the station, travellers are met with a national speed limit rural road with very poor visibility from both sides, so the problems at the station are plentiful. Even though it provides a fantastic facility for people to be able to get to destinations as far away as London, it really is not set up very well to handle that level of traffic.
On a more positive note I would like to highlight progress on the midlands rail hub, which will strengthen connections across the west midlands and help more people to get around quicker and easier. I hope and expect that the rail hub will have a positive knock-on effect on the whole region, including on the Chase line that serves my constituency. The project is an example of how investment can make a tangible difference to everyday travel and I welcome the Government’s commitment to progressing the project and delivering improvements, as confirmed in the Budget.
It should also be said that the vast majority of public transport journeys in Cannock Chase are made on buses, and it is buses that often feature heavily in my postbag. I was immensely proud to serve on the Bill Committee for the Bus Services Act 2025 and to support legislation that begins to address the long-term decline in our bus services. Under the previous Government, not only were more than half of all routes in my constituency lost, but the frequency and reliability of services were eroded. I very much welcome the unshackling of councils when it comes to setting up publicly owned bus companies and seizing the opportunities to take back control of fares, routes and timetables, for which my constituents have been calling for many years.
The Act is on the statute book, so now the ball is in the court of Reform-led Staffordshire county council, which so far seems to be showing the same lack of interest in boosting bus routes and taking advantage of franchising as the previous Conservative administration. For residents in parts of my constituency that need reliable buses the most and yet do not live on a route at all, such as those in the Norton East area of Norton Canes, Slitting Mill and Etchinghill in Rugeley to name a few, action is urgently needed.
Adam Jogee
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and county neighbour for giving way. I just want to give voice to the people in his constituency who he has just referred to, as well as people in Newcastle-under-Lyme and north Staffordshire. On that urgent need, I join him in urging the county council to get its act together and do so quickly.
Josh Newbury
I thank my colleague from Staffordshire for backing up my point. We all have examples in our constituencies of where powers are urgently needed and where they could make a massive difference if the council gets its act together, as my hon. Friend says, and gets on with it. He knows that rural parts of our constituencies are often the areas that are the worst served and therefore the most isolated.
My constituents see every day the impact of regional transport inequality, whether it is a bus that never comes or a platform that cannot be reached. I welcome the Government’s determination to put fairness and accessibility at the heart of transport policy, and I will continue to work constructively to ensure that Cannock Chase receives the investment it needs.
Looking ahead, I hope the Department for Transport ensures that accessibility is key to funding decisions, so that towns like mine do not continue to be left behind. I would also welcome clarity from the Minister on what short-term measures could be introduced while longer-term solutions are delivered, so that passengers are not forced to choose between safety and independence and making essential journeys. By working together I am confident that all residents in Cannock Chase and across the midlands can access a public transport network that is safe, reliable and inclusive.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate with you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I thank those who have already spoken.
I am here to talk about rail. I would love to talk about buses, but I do not think I will have time. Specifically, I would like to address the midlands rail hub, which the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) has already spoken about. The project was conceived under the previous Conservative Government, and I do not shy away from that. Unfortunately, it then sat on a shelf gathering dust, and there was no real movement on it until after the election, when this Labour Government came in.
Wendy Morton
I cannot resist. When we were in government, we committed to the midlands rail hub in the big Network North announcement made before the general election. We also committed the funding.
Dave Robertson
The right hon. Lady mentions the Network North money. It was a mythical project last seen leaving London, carried by Dick Whittington riding Shergar. The money simply did not exist. This Labour Government found the money for the project in the Budget, but it is not only the money. The alliance for delivery has already been appointed, and things are moving at pace. I very much hope to see spades in the ground this year, moving the project ahead, so that we can all start to benefit as soon as possible.
Wendy Morton
Thanks very much. Again, on the point of funding, is the hon. Gentleman sure that his Government have fully committed all the moneys needed to deliver the midlands rail hub in full, not just one part of it?
Dave Robertson
The right hon. Lady drives at that point again, but what we are seeing is the difference between words from one side of this House and action from the other. We have seen that in large parts of my constituency over a number of years. However, I will now seek to make some progress rather than be sidetracked by the numerous failings of the previous Government.
The midlands rail hub is a huge boost to travel across our region. It will increase rail capacity in Birmingham, leading to 300 trains passing in and out of the nation’s second city every single day. The benefits will be felt across the east midlands, the west midlands and beyond, with extra services from the midlands to Wales forming part of the project.
For Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages in my constituency, the midlands rail hub will mean a doubling of the number of hourly trains on the cross-city line to Birmingham—the busiest commuter line in the country outside London. Services were slashed under the previous Government, and we need the midlands rail hub to get them back on a sustainable footing in the long term.
The rail hub is an important investment, but it cannot be the end of the story for the midlands. For far too long, there has been far too little investment in transport in our region and neighbouring regions. I am very aware that I am sitting next to an MP from the east midlands. London and the south-east enjoy a fantastic turn-up-and-go service that we in the midlands can only dream of. We are now seeing investment in the north with Northern Powerhouse Rail, and it is right that we have that rebalancing, but we cannot overlook the bit in between.
In my area, the next step is clear: the midlands rail hub. Following that, we need to look to reopen the Lichfield-Burton-Derby line—the South Staffordshire line—for passenger services. This existing train line already carries passengers; it just does not have stops. It is a diversion route that trains have to use, so drivers have maintained route knowledge. Previous scoping work for the project suggested it could deliver, at a minimum, a £7 million boost to our area’s economy.
The route would halve public transport journey times from Lichfield to Burton and cut journey times from Sutton Coldfield and Lichfield to Derby and Nottingham by up to a third. It would mean easier travel for work and leisure, and crucially, it would mean easy access from my constituency to the University of Derby. It would also take pressure off the heavily congested A38, which runs parallel to the railway. Reopening this line would open up the possibility of a new station in the village of Alrewas to serve the National Memorial Arboretum, which is a fantastic facility that I advise everybody to visit. Unfortunately, that is very difficult on public transport.
Our national centre for remembrance is shockingly underserved, and not only by train links. The only bus option from Tamworth is currently being rerouted on a miles-long detour because Chetwynd bridge, which crosses the River Tame next to the arboretum, is closed to heavy vehicles due to maintenance problems. Despite support for the project from my predecessor, the Conservatives never funded the business case for the South Staffordshire line. I want to see action on Chetwynd bridge and that business case coming forward, so that we can really start to drive improvement in rail connectivity not only within regions but between regions from the west midlands to the east midlands. The South Staffordshire line is a fantastic place to start on that.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for bringing forward this important debate on transport in the midlands—which is one of my favourite subjects, so I had to be here for it. I represent North West Leicestershire, so my focus will inevitably be on the east midlands.
My constituency is at the heart of the national forest, and East Midlands airport rests at the very top of it. However, in tune with other semi-rural constituencies, we have no passenger rail at all, and a pretty poor level of bus connectivity. As North West Leicestershire is also not in the East Midlands combined county authority, it will not directly benefit from the financial settlement allocated to the city regions, so I would welcome the Minister’s view on how the areas within the midlands that are not covered by devolution can get their fair share of transport connectivity.
Before I came to this place I sat on the highways and transport committee at Leicestershire county council. I know at first hand how poor transport funding has been under the last Conservative Government, including in Leicestershire, with 62% of services being cut in my constituency alone. As a county councillor, I lost count of the number of notifications of bus service changes I received, which included cuts. Bit by bit, those changes cut off public transport access to healthcare, college, work and leisure.
Through new funding, thanks to our Government and our clear commitment to public services, we can restore some of that, although it can be frustratingly difficult to liaise with our county colleagues to get the changes in services that our communities desperately need. It still feels disjointed and patchy, and I know the issue will not be solved overnight.
In 2023-24, the east midlands had the lowest transport spending per head of the population at just £368 per person, compared with the UK average spend of £687 and the London spend of £1,313. Between 2019 and 2024, research shows that the east midlands received £10.8 billion less in funding than it would if it had been allocated just at the average, not at the London level.
Catherine Atkinson
My hon. Friend is very effectively making an important point. As she has set out, between 2019 and 2024, the Conservative Government gave the east midlands a quarter of the funding that they gave to London and half of what they gave to England on average, and I know that her area does not benefit from the £2 billion that our brilliant East Midlands Mayor Claire has secured for transport. Does my hon. Friend agree that if our regional transport was more equal, it would create more prosperity, economic growth, social equality and regional development?
Amanda Hack
The economic benefit of effective and connected transport is there for us to see. Having never worked in London before, it always surprises me how easy it is to get to places—if a bus or train gets cancelled, it is fine, because there is one five minutes away. If a bus gets cancelled in my constituency, people need to get a taxi or they will not get home. That is the inequality that we see.
What does this issue mean in my constituency? Around 87.4% of households in North West Leicestershire have access to one car or van, compared with 61% in Manchester and 22% here in London. With the lack of available and reliable public transport, more people are forced to rely on personal transport, thereby increasing the volume of cars and vans on our roads. That also has a devastating impact.
Some 80% of east midlands commuters drive, and the average number of rail journeys per resident is just seven per year, which is half the rate of the west midlands and a third of the east of England. In fact, East Midlands airport has the highest proportion of travellers getting there by car, at 91%, which is mainly down to it having the lowest connectivity of all airports across the UK. We have to think about transport connectivity—railways, buses—and how we get to our airports.
North West Leicestershire has not had a passenger rail service since the Ivanhoe line closed there in the ’60s. My constituency relies heavily on buses, but I will say much more about the Ivanhoe line next week in a dedicated debate on the subject.
I have done a little research on how my constituents get to their nearest train station. From Coalville, the station is about 12 miles away, and it would take an hour on public transport to get to Loughborough or Leicester—far too long; it would be about 30 minutes by car. It would also take about an hour to get from Ashby-de-la-Zouch to Burton train station, but that would include more than one bus, which could be problematic for travellers, who are really reluctant to take multi-bus journeys because one of the buses might fail to come. Residents in Kegworth have the most convenient public transport journey to a train station—to Loughborough, which takes just 36 minutes. However, East Midlands Parkway train station is only a few minutes by car.
We are massively underserved as a result of this connection problem between rail and buses. The fact is that my constituents have to make ridiculous, non-efficient journeys just to get where they need to be. I would welcome the Minister’s view on how the difficulties of connecting communities are a real barrier to growth, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) mentioned in her intervention.
My constituents tell me that they are driving to get to the train station anyway, often in the wrong direction, so they might as well continue by car to their destination and avoid getting on the train altogether. That means more cars on our roads and more pressure on our road network.
Obviously, I have given simple examples, but I want to think about what the situation means for my constituents when they are trying to get to work, school or hospital. Accessible, efficient, reliable public transport should not be a luxury; it should not be a postcode lottery, but that is what it seems to be. When I meet young people across my constituency, they tell me that the public transport situation is a huge barrier to getting the training opportunities—the apprenticeships and classes—that they want and deserve.
Recently, a resident of Ashby-de-la-Zouch got in touch about their daughter’s problems in getting to college in Loughborough. I thought it would be useful to share their words:
“The number of buses are extremely limited and this results in her leaving the house at 06.30 am and not returning until 7 pm with several hours waiting in and around bus stops”
—for a girl of 16, that is not ideal.
“Secondly, the service has on multiple occasions failed to turn up and left her in Loughborough without a way of getting home other than hoping my wife or myself are able to pick her up.”
When a young person is trying their best to get their life on track, the very last thing we should be doing is putting additional hurdles in front of them. Yet for too many, transport—or the lack of it—becomes a deciding factor in whether they can engage in their chosen education at all.
If we get transport connectivity right, the impact on individuals, families and the long-term prosperity of our regions can be transformational. I cannot continue to accept a situation in which my constituency has an international airport yet has no passenger rail and such poor bus services.
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
Order. I warn hon. Members that there may be a vote soon.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate.
Transport links are essential to our economy, tourism, trade and everyday life, but all too often they have been neglected. Up and down the country, people in businesses have been plagued by an inefficient, unreliable and unaffordable public transport system, which was completely neglected by the former Conservative Government. Now, as with many other areas of our creaking infrastructure, the public find themselves wondering when the change promised by the Labour Government will finally arrive, as if it were another heavily delayed train.
As we have heard at length today, too many rural communities remain effectively cut off from public transport. I grew up in Market Rasen in Lincolnshire, and I distinctly remember the frustration of simply trying to get to Lincoln—or beyond, to Newark or Nottingham—given the unpredictable and unreliable single-carriage trains that filled the air with thick, black diesel smoke.
Those challenges impacted the job opportunities of the people I grew up with and left our local economy—though beautiful and traditional in its own way—hanging off the edge of the rest of the east of England like a loose thread. It is startling that now, more years later than I care to admit, very little has changed. I am going to channel the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and join his calls for improved services to Market Rasen, including a direct link to King’s Cross, which may well improve my home town’s connection to the rest of humanity.
We have already heard how suburban communities such as Smethwick and Solihull, Loughborough and Long Eaton have suffered for years with poor train and bus services. In fact, it could be said that suburban towns do not get the attention that they deserve in the wider debate about this issue. As someone who represents a suburban town on the outer bounds of London, I reassure Members present that the problems discussed today are not completely alien to those faced by commuters in Sutton. Having lived in rural Lincolnshire, lived and worked in Lichfield, Ilkeston and Nottingham, and travelled to Broughton in north Wales for years on the train and bus services, I have personally suffered the impacts of that lack of connectivity.
Improving people’s lives, however, is not just about grand plans for infrastructure—even though as an engineer and recovering transport planner, I do wish that all problems could be solved by it—it is also about delivery and real funding for those projects, coupled with good leadership and real results. That is why the Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s announcement last week that they are backing the long-standing Lib Dem calls to finally deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail—a clear Lib Dem win if ever I saw one. The plan, following the completion of Northern Powerhouse Rail, to build a new rail link through the midlands from Birmingham to Manchester is also welcome.
Dave Robertson
It is always great to see the Liberal Democrats finding a south-east MP to come and talk about transport in the midlands and north Wales. The hon. Member mentioned the well-overdue news that the Government will be following through on the rail improvement projects and building north to south, rather than south to north—as they always should have done. I wonder if he would like to reflect on the fact that the areas that returned massive Labour majorities are now seeing the investment from a Labour Government, so is he absolutely certain that he wants to claim that as a Liberal Democrat win?
Luke Taylor
When we see the investment going in, the tracks being laid and the services turning up to stations, I think we will agree that that is a win for any Government. For too long, we have seen empty promises that have not been funded and have not arrived, so perhaps we should all pause our congratulations and backslapping until those projects finally materialise.
With just over £1 billion of funding allocated for those projects so far, however, we had hoped for something more concrete. Indeed, beyond the headline that up to £45 billion can be spent, the mere £1.1 billion commitment to spend another five years making a plan to make a plan to consult on a consultation is cold comfort to those whose dreams of a truly joined-up economy rest on the delivery of this project—those are the dreams of not just businesses and councils, but ordinary people and community groups. The Government have not yet done enough to convince us that, following a decade of broken promises and distant dreams for transport in the north, we are actually on the cusp of real change.
For communities that have been waiting for rail upgrades for years—like a young boy waiting for the train to Lincoln on the platform at Market Rasen station—there will be another long wait before we see spades in the ground. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the Government to go further and faster, like the trains that we so badly need, to improve transport links in the midlands and north Wales.
The economy of our entire country will benefit from reversing years of overlooked investment in transport systems. The statistics make that clear, with my home region of the east midlands receiving the lowest transport spending per head in 2023-24 at just £368 per person—a quarter of that in London and half of the average for England. Wales received just £566 per head, compared with an average of £693 in England and £763 in Scotland. Passengers and businesses across the midlands and north Wales deserve better, and the Liberal Democrats will continue to hold the Government’s feet to the fire in delivering improvements for them.
To reiterate, we do not pretend that the challenges that the Government inherited are easily fixable. The British railways were left in a terrible state by the previous Conservative Government, but nearly two years on from the general election, many Brits remain fed up with the state of the British railways—with a network still plagued with delays, high ticket prices and overcrowding.
The Government would do well to remember that most passengers just want the strong delivery and good leadership that I mentioned, regardless of who owns the railways. People want better, more reliable and more affordable services—full stop. If nationalisation fails to make the impact that it promised, as the early warning signs indicate may be the outcome of the Government’s intervention, nothing will have changed.
In the spirit of constructive opposition, I invite the Minister to consider how the Government might align their plans more closely with the Liberal Democrat plans for our railways. Namely, I invite the Minister to meet my Liberal Democrat colleagues to discuss introducing a passengers’ charter like that laid before the House yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). It would go a long way towards offering passenger protections on reliability, accessibility, affordability, amenities such as wi-fi and toilets, and seat guarantees. It could be folded into the ongoing development of the Railways Bill. Similarly, will the Minister outline how the Government plan to significantly extend the electrification of Britain’s rail network without committing, as we have done, to a 10-year plan for more electric trains, greater investment in batteries, and ensuring that all new lines are electrified as standard? Such measures could make a huge difference to the carbon impact of our train network, including by creating new capacity for freight to be carried by rail rather than road, while delivering real results for passengers at the same time.
Finally, I invite the Minister to outline why the Government are not working with local authorities, not just in the midlands and north Wales but across the nation, to unleash the pent-up capability of transport-led economic growth in our towns and cities. The repeatedly delayed Leeds tram would be a great start, as would—if you will indulge me, Ms Furniss—extending the Transport for London tram to Sutton. However, I imagine that the Minister will be able to discuss some of these matters with the Mayor of Greater Manchester face to face much sooner than he had anticipated when he woke up this morning.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing this important debate. It is not the first time that I have heard her make the case for Aldridge station, which she does with considerable force. She has been not just consistent but consistently impressive and determined in her campaigns for that station, and on wider transport issues, particularly in the west midlands.
Much has been said about the daily reality facing passengers, businesses and communities across the midlands and north Wales region, where ambition has too often outpaced delivery. Transport is not an end in itself; it is the wiring that allows our economy to function and when that wiring is faulty, growth stalls, opportunity narrows and communities are left behind. That is nowhere clearer than in the midlands. A recent report by the Centre for Cities put it starkly, stating that
“Transport is the wiring that allows urban economies to function”
but that in large UK cities outside of London that wiring is simply not working as it should. Today, with a fragmented network, only around 600,000 people, just 20% of the city region, can reach Birmingham city centre efficiently. But with properly integrated transport, increased bus frequency and reduced journey times, that figure could rise by over 250,000 people—a 44% increase—and take connectivity to nearly 30% of the city region. That is not a marginal gain; it is the difference between a city region that functions as a single labour market and one that does not.
Buses, of course, remain the backbone of local transport, particularly for young people and those without easy access to a private car or to rail. Targeted youth fares, such as those introduced in Tees Valley and Wales have shown what can be achieved, but fares alone are not enough if services are unreliable, infrequent or poorly connected to rail and tram networks. Integration is the missing piece. Joining up existing networks so that they function as one system is the fastest and most cost-effective way to improve public transport in England’s major cities outside London. With greater devolved powers, metro mayors can increase frequency, reduce journey times and better connect buses with commuter rail and tram networks, but only if national Government provide clarity, consistency and backing.
The consequences of poor co-ordination are most visible on rail. The midlands rail hub, about which we have heard a lot in this debate, is critical to unlocking capacity, improving frequency and enabling stations and services that would better connect communities across the region, but instead of certainty, we have partial funding, endless reviews and projects left “subject to future decisions”—a phrase worthy of whatever sequel comes to “Yes Minister”.
This matters not just for the midlands but for north Wales too, particularly when it comes to open access rail, which has the potential to deliver connectivity more quickly and introduce genuine competition. Proposals from Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway to operate direct services between Wrexham and London would significantly strengthen links among north Wales, the midlands and our capital. That is exactly the kind of market-led connectivity that can expand access to jobs, education and private investment.
But open access services can succeed only if the supporting infrastructure is in place. Capacity constraints, missing stations and poor integration with local transport risk meaning trains pass through communities, rather than serve them. If the Government are serious about improving connectivity across the midlands and north Wales, they must ensure that decisions on infrastructure enable new services, such as the WSMR, rather than frustrate them.
The wider connectivity challenge is felt acutely around Wrexham industrial estate—one of the largest in Europe. Major employers there, including JCB, Platts Agriculture, Kellogg’s and Net World Sports, have highlighted persistent difficulties for workers travelling from the surrounding villages due to poor public transport links into the estate. There was a welcome announcement of a new bus network designed to link communities with industrial estates in the Flintshire and Wrexham investment zone, but business and residents alike are still waiting for the detail: routes, frequency, timelines and how the services will integrate with existing rail and bus networks.
Connectivity is about not just long-distance rail, but whether someone can reliably get from their village or town to work on time and at a reasonable cost. Without last-mile integration, growth zones risk becoming isolated islands of investment. Those challenges are mirrored elsewhere in north Wales: the A55, the north Wales main line and the Menai crossings are strategic routes not just for Wales but for the entirety of our United Kingdom, yet road projects have been frozen, rail electrification funding has been withdrawn, and a blanket 20 mph policy has been imposed without regard for the economic impact—or any regard for common sense. Labour’s explanatory memorandum acknowledges that default 20 mph limits could cost the Welsh economy up to £9 billion, yet the policy was forced through, despite a record-breaking Senedd petition opposing it.
Only yesterday, it was confirmed that repairs to the Menai suspension bridge, one of just two crossings linking Anglesey to the mainland, will be delayed yet again, and that it will now stretch into 2027. That grade I listed structure, approaching its 200th anniversary, remains subject to weight limits and traffic lights, and there is still no long-term plan for resilience. That is not a minor inconvenience; it affects emergency response times, supply chains, tourism and livelihoods. That is why the Conservatives have consistently argued for a third Menai crossing, working constructively to deliver the infrastructure that north Wales needs.
In the midlands and north Wales, the pattern is the same: ambition without delivery, promises without integration and growth plans without the connectivity to support them. If the Government are serious about growth and levelling up, they must focus on delivering better transport connectivity now, joining up existing networks, backing proven projects, supporting new rail services and ensuring people can get to work, education and opportunity. The Government’s call for evidence on an integrated national transport strategy closed in February 2025, but we are still waiting for the outcome. I therefore ask the Minister when the results of that consultation will be published, and how they will support better connectivity across regions such as the midlands and north Wales, rather than adding further uncertainty.
As Jonathan Spruce, a trustee of the Institution of Civil Engineers, told the Transport Committee, planning transport without an overarching framework is
“like trying to solve a jigsaw without the picture on the box”.
The Government must help put that picture in place so that regions can plan, spend and connect with confidence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate, and for her continued advocacy for her constituents in the wider west midlands.
Transport connectivity is not just an abstract policy issue; it shapes people’s daily lives. It is how they get to work, education and healthcare, and stay connected to their loved ones and communities. Connectivity sits at the heart of this Government’s mission to drive economic growth, unlock housing and tackle regional inequality. We are moving away from fragmented, short-term decision making, and towards an integrated, people-focused system. Our ambition is clear: a transport network that works for everyone, wherever they live.
The midlands has long been a national transport heartland, from historical canals and industrial-era railways, to engineering leadership in Birmingham, Derby, Coventry, Solihull and beyond. The region has always known that connectivity drives prosperity. That legacy continues today, with metro expansion, HS2 and innovations such as Coventry Very Light Rail, which I was very lucky to see myself, cementing the midlands as a historical engine of growth and a test bed for the next generation of connectivity.
In supporting new public transport connectivity across the West Midlands combined authority, we confirmed £15.6 billion for transport for city region settlements, including nearly £2.4 billion for the region up to 2032. That complements the £5.7 billion already allocated through the city region sustainable transport settlement. That long-term funding will deliver integrated transport at scale and end fragmented uncertainty.
Simon Lightwood
I have a lot to get through, and I would really like to respond to the right hon. Member’s points in due course.
Exciting progress is already visible because this Government is backing Mayor Richard Parker’s plans. Metro extensions, new rail stations, the Dudley Interchange and a new active travel corridor are transforming connectivity for millions across the region. Connectivity, however, does not stop at mayoral boundaries. Through the consolidated transport fund, all local transport authorities will benefit from more predictable, flexible and aligned funding. More than £1.3 billion will be delivered across the west midlands by 2029-30 to strengthen the links between our towns, cities and rural areas.
To embed this investment, we will soon set out the integrated national transport strategy, mentioned by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). It is a people-centred approach that recognises that different regions face different challenges. It will focus on reliability, safety and accessibility, and closer alignment between transport, housing, healthcare and public services, ensuring that connectivity supports equality and opportunity for everyone.
We are the country that created the railways, and they are an iconic part of the heritage of the west midlands. Through Great British Railways, we are building a simpler, more unified railway that delivers reliable, safe and better-value journeys for local people, putting local priorities front and centre to deliver what communities actually need. In that context, the midlands rail hub is a clear example of how targeted rail investment underpins economic growth and housing delivery.
Simon Lightwood
I am going to stay consistent. Members have made a lot of points, and I would like to respond to them. I have a lot to cover.
In July 2025, the Chancellor committed to progressing to the next stage of the midlands rail hub. Once delivered, it will enable up to 300 additional trains each day to travel in and out of central Birmingham, as well as improving services at 50 stations, transforming regional connectivity and providing the capacity needed to unlock sustainable growth.
The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills will know the difficult decision this Government inherited on HS2. Past mismanagement had led to significant cost increases and delays. Nevertheless, this Government have taken decisive action to reset the programme and progress delivery at the lowest reasonable cost. Recognising the importance of strengthening connectivity between the west midlands and the north-west, on 14 January, as part of our plans for Northern Powerhouse Rail, we set out our long-term intention to deliver a full, new rail line between Birmingham and Manchester.
I appreciate that taking this responsible, long-term decision on future capacity needs on the west coast main line will prolong the uncertainty for residents and businesses along the route. We will listen to the concerns of businesses, residents and hon. Members when making decisions about land powers, and we will work with them, and with HS2, to ensure that we minimise the disruption to people’s lives as far as possible. I understand that a number of affected hon. Members are meeting the Secretary of State and the Rail Minister next week to discuss this issue, and I thank them for raising some of those concerns today.
We also recognise that railways in Wales have seen lower levels of enhancement spending in recent years, and we are taking action to put that right. The 2025 spending review and infrastructure strategy recognised Wales’s long-term infrastructure needs and committed to delivering at least £445 million of rail enhancements to realise them. That funding will invest in both north and south Wales, fixing level crossings, building new stations and upgrading existing lines. The plans for future rail investment in Wales are being made in close consultation with the Welsh Government, who will be consulted ahead of the next spending review so that Wales’s long-term infrastructure needs continue to be recognised.
We also recognise the interest of the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills in open-access applications for Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway. Open access will continue to have a role in the reformed rail sector, and we understand the potential connectivity benefits that the Wrexham, Shropshire & Midlands Railway proposals could deliver. We have provided conditional support for that application, subject to the ORR and Network Rail being satisfied that services can be accommodated without compromising network performance or adversely affecting the rights of other operators.
Buses remain the backbone of public transport, and they are the everyday lifelines that keep our communities connected. The Bus Services Act puts passengers firmly in control, driving better services and stronger local accountability. From ’26-27, over £3 billion in funding will boost local services nationwide, including £700 million in local authority bus grants. The west midlands alone will receive £264 million to improve reliability, coverage and affordability. For the first time, our funding formula recognises rurality, ensuring that isolated and underserved communities get the support they need.
Cars are, of course, the most common and dependable way for people to get around. Well-maintained road networks keep our economy moving and daily life running smoothly. By ’29-30, we will be investing over £2 billion every year in local road maintenance, which is double what we inherited. That will give councils four-year certainty over their funding, so that they can shift from patching up potholes to making sure—
Catherine Atkinson
According to the RAC, Derbyshire has the worst potholes in the country. East Midlands Mayor Claire Ward has announced £121 million for road maintenance, which is a 60% uplift on last year’s funding. But with Reform in control of the county council, the number of potholes in Derbyshire is still absolutely abysmal. With both our mayor and our Government giving the funding that is needed, how can we ensure that local authorities such as Reform-led Derbyshire county council actually get on and fill our potholes?
Simon Lightwood
My hon. Friend is right to recognise the historic levels of funding going into local areas, which are almost doubling by the end of this Parliament. We increased funding this year from £1.1 billion to £1.6 billion, which came with conditions about publishing transparency reports on their websites. The multi-year funding that we have announced will also come with some conditions and incentives, to make sure that we turn the attention of local authorities from just patching those potholes—going back to fill them again and again is not a good use of taxpayers’ money—to preventing them from forming in the first place and ensuring that we fully resurface roads. That accountability will be there for all our constituents to see where the council is or is not doing its job. If it does not spend the money, we will pass it on to a local authority that will.
To come back to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), we are providing the East Midlands combined county authority with £2 billion through the transport for city regions fund, with the east midlands receiving £450 million from the local transport block. That means the east midlands will receive significantly more local transport funding per head than the England average in the coming years—£561 per person against an average of £391.
Amanda Hack
I want to reflect on those numbers. The east midlands mayoralty is not the east midlands. It covers only Derbyshire, Derby, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire. How does the rest of the east midlands fare in terms of funding?
Simon Lightwood
My hon. Friend jumps ahead of my next comment. The Department is providing all local transport authorities with a multi-year consolidated funding settlement, delivering on our commitments in the English Devolution White Paper to simplify funding. Leicestershire county council will be allocated £22.5 million in local authority bus grants over the next few years, in addition to the £8.2 million it received in 2025-26. It is then for her local authority, which I appreciate is a Reform council, to use that funding to the best effect. She touched on bus services. What I would politely say to her local authority is that it has the funding and the powers—it should get on with the job.
I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills for her comments on Aldridge station. She is a former Minister of State in the Department for Transport. Mayor Andy Street failed to use the £1.05 billion allocated to him in 2022 to fully develop designs for Aldridge station when he had the chance. This Government have allocated a record £2.4 billion in transport for city regions funding for the West Midlands combined authority.
Simon Lightwood
I will finish my point.
Mayor Richard Parker is delivering on local priorities and taking forward schemes that are good value for taxpayers and will deliver real improvements. Perhaps the right hon. Lady would like to explain, when she intervenes, why the previous mayor did not use the money allocated to complete the design work on Aldridge station. There is £3.6 million allocated from the city region sustainable transport settlement funding for development from this mayor, with a report due later this year.
Wendy Morton
Let us be absolutely clear that Mayor Andy Street allocated the money for Aldridge station. I questioned both the Transport Secretary and the Treasury about that money, and I had a reply explaining that this Labour Government had moved the money out of the budget for Aldridge station. Had the mayor left the money in place, Aldridge station could have been funded and delivered by 2027. The only money that Mayor Parker has allocated to Aldridge is for doing some initial groundworks. The business case is already there. This is not about funding; it is about politics, I am sad to say.
Simon Lightwood
Mayor Andy Street failed to deliver a fully developed design for Aldridge station. When we promise to deliver something here, we will do it with a sound business case. [Interruption.] He did not have the designs, and he failed to deliver. There was £1.05 billion to deliver it, and he did not do that.
There is now £3.6 million, which this mayor has invested sensibly and pragmatically for a development report to do this properly, to make sure that we have value for taxpayers’ money and that we deliver the best possible solution. That report is due later this year.
Simon Lightwood
I am going to make progress.
This Government are backing Wales, the midlands and all our regions with long-term investment, local autonomy and an integrated approach across buses, rail, roads and active travel. We are building not an isolated scheme but a coherent, people-focused system that strengthens growth, opportunity and pride in place. Together, the midlands and Wales have long shaped the nation’s transport history and, with this programme, they will continue to drive national connectivity for decades to come.
Wendy Morton
First of all, I thank colleagues from across the House for joining the debate this afternoon. The hon. Members for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) and for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) showed that, whether they are from the east midlands, the west midlands or Staffordshire, transport connectivity absolutely matters, and absolutely matters to our communities. That is where there is a lot of cross-Chamber, cross-party consensus.
We know why this matters, and why Aldridge train station absolutely matters. I have had no more answers from the Minister than I typically get from Ministers at the Dispatch Box. At one point, I was not sure if he was even going to mention Aldridge train station. I am glad he did, but the facts of the matter remain. I set out the case: Aldridge deserves better. Aldridge will keep asking what has happened to fully funding our train station, and I will continue to campaign and bang on about it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered transport connectivity in the Midlands and North Wales.
International Day of Education
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the International Day of Education.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. This Saturday, the 24th of January, will mark the eighth International Day of Education, which was established by the United Nations to highlight the importance of education for peace and development worldwide. Nobody can doubt the transformative power of education in empowering individuals, opening up life-changing opportunities, strengthening communities and creating a more peaceful world. The right to an education is enshrined in article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which begins with the line:
“Everyone has the right to education.”
Today, unfortunately, there are still many millions of children globally who are not in education. There has been great progress in improving access to education across the world, and the UK has played a powerful role in achieving that progress as one of the world’s most influential donors, advocates and innovators in global education. However, in recent years progress has slowed, against the backdrop of successive cuts in the education aid budget, and an increasingly dangerous world of conflict and climate change.
The UK has played a unique role in basic education. Foundational learning provides the building blocks for essential life skills, such as literacy, numeracy and personal development, but there is a serious concern that basic education will be one of the areas hardest hit by cuts in aid, because historically the UK and US Governments have been the biggest donors in that space. The Centre for Global Development has highlighted the catastrophic impact that not funding basic education would have internationally.
I urge the Minister to consider funding basic education as an area of high priority for the UK Government when global education funding is being considered. There is evidence to show how effective investing in basic education could be. New data, which was released this week by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office-funded What Works Hub for Global Education, shows that achieving universal foundational learning could increase global GDP by $196 trillion over the next 20 years.
Just yesterday, I joined parliamentarians and campaigners to celebrate 25 years of the Send My Friend to School campaign, as well as the efforts of millions of young people to push for the right to education globally. I thank everyone involved in making that event a huge success and I particularly thank the young people for their impressive advocacy. At the event, I had the chance to speak to the former Deputy Speaker of the Afghan Parliament, Fawzia Koofi, who has dedicated her political career to defending the right to education of women and girls in Afghanistan. She told us that when her husband was imprisoned by the Taliban, she wrote letters to the group asking for his release. When she spoke to his prison guard, he said that she should count herself lucky to be able to read and write. So many of the girls that she grew up with did not continue their education beyond grade 6, and did not learn how to read and write. For her, it was receiving a full education that gave her the opportunity to become who she is today.
Investing in education is one of the smartest long-term investments that we can make for global stability. Improvements in learning opportunities contribute directly to the achievement of sustainable development, and to the empowerment of women and girls. One additional year of education can reduce the risk of conflict by up to 20%, and there are particularly strong effects when girls and women have equal access to learning. In addition, research has shown that improvements in education have powered half of global economic growth in the past 50 years.
The United Nations set a specific strategic development goal for education, SDG 4, which aims to
“Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”
by 2030, but with over 270 million children across the globe not in education, it is highly unlikely that that goal will be met. I note that the International Parliamentary Network for Education recently put out a statement expressing its solidarity and the need for global co-operation to tackle the challenges and achieve sustainable development goal 4. It is imperative that we also take urgent action to help to meet that goal. But as we speak, global education is facing a serious threat as a result of sharp cuts to the official development assistance budget. Aid to education is projected to fall by around 24%, or $3.2 billion, globally by the end of 2026. Unless that course is reversed there will remain significant barriers to accessing education in the poorest parts of the world.
As I mentioned, according to UNESCO over 270 million children are out of school. Cuts to the educational aid budget could push a further 6 million children out of school by the end of this year. In some contexts, including in Chad and Sudan, funding for education in emergencies has already been cut by up to 90%. Such figures reflect real choices that are impacting strides that have been made in expanding access to education across the globe.
The Global Partnership for Education has been instrumental in addressing those challenges against the backdrop of aid cuts. It supports partner countries by designing and financing national education plans, strengthening systems and aligning donor and partner efforts behind one coherent reform programme. In Somalia, where girls’ enrolment in secondary school is a mere 9.7% and large numbers of girls drop out due to discriminatory gender norms such as early pregnancy, early marriage and involvement in household work, GPE funds programmes to enhance the learning of Somali children in the federal member states of Galmudug and Hirshabelle, and in Mogadishu, in Banaadir. The programmes construct and rehabilitate classrooms, as well as water, sanitation and hygiene facilities.
As a result of GPE’s work, 400 new classrooms across 147 schools were constructed, 394 classrooms were rehabilitated and 669 were provided with new furniture, including 15 sets of desks. That supported access to education for over 33,000 out-of-school children, with girls’ enrolment increasing by 59%. Between 2026 and 2030, GPE will double the co-financing that it attracts to $10 billion, reach over 300 million more children and boost UK investment beyond what can be achieved by bilateral programmes alone.
Yet, as aid is set to fall, payments to multilateral partners such as GPE have been delayed. The Government will soon decide whether to maintain their future financial support to GPE for this period in the coming weeks. By investing in GPE, the UK could help prepare this generation to drive prosperity in their own countries and strengthen the foundations of a safer, more stable and more liveable world.
Emergencies, and educational emergencies in particular, are another area I want to focus on. In a world that has become increasingly dangerous, education protects children from violence and exploitation, lowers long-term humanitarian and recovery costs, and helps to mitigate conflict and displacement pressures. Financing education in emergencies supports the UK’s priorities on peace and security, migration, climate resilience, and violence against women and girls. Yet, with the risk of further cuts to the education aid budget, the climate crisis and conflicts threaten to destroy any chances of children getting access to an education.
Globally, 234 million crisis-affected children currently require educational support—an increase of 10 million in the last two years. Children in Africa and the middle east face the largest impact, with millions of them looking at disruption or cancellation of their education. The climate crisis is an underlying cause of that. As climate emergencies become more prevalent, children and families are being displaced from their homes and forced to take shelter elsewhere. When international aid comes in, education is often deprioritised—despite being a lifeline for children in crisis.
That means that classrooms are left without teachers, learning materials and safe spaces, and a generation of children risk losing not just months but years of education at the very moment when stability and hope matter most. According to UNICEF, nearly 40 million children a year have their education interrupted by disasters and disease outbreaks following extreme weather events. Not only are children losing access to drinking water, healthcare and food, but their education is being forgotten and they are left vulnerable to violence and despair.
Furthermore, in places like Sudan, which is experiencing the world’s largest humanitarian and displacement crisis since records began, just shy of 12 million people are displaced internally or have fled to neighbouring countries. The civil war is leaving many children traumatised, uprooted from their communities and cut off from education and basic protection. This increases their risk of exploitation, early marriage and long-term poverty, making it harder for the country to rebuild peace and stability for the future.
Education Cannot Wait is a global fund dedicated to financing education in the world’s most severe humanitarian crises, working in places such as Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan and Nigeria. It invests in safe learning spaces, sustaining minimum education pathways and acting as a frontline protection measure for violence against women and girls. In South Sudan, Education Cannot Wait worked with the Minister of general education to expand equitable access to education and reduce the number of out-of-school children. Through its multi-year resilience programme, more than 190,000 learners—46% of them girls—have gained access to formal and alternative education systems such as accelerated learning programmes.
ECW funding provides tailored support to vulnerable girls, supports the distribution of dignity kits, strengthens school-based child protection systems and expands safe learning spaces where girls feel protected and welcomed. However, we are in a situation where there have been minimal funding commitments by the Government for the upcoming replenishment of both GPE and ECW.
According to UNICEF, planned funding cuts for education in emergencies will mean that crisis-hit countries in Africa and the middle east will lose over 10% of their national education budget. This will also impact teacher development and data systems and will have a lasting impact on education due to a loss of skilled educators and gaps in data, making a recovery less likely even if funding returns in future. That is why it is crucial that the Government provide adequate funding for education aid and support for organisations, such as Education Cannot Wait, that are on the frontlines delivering education in emergencies.
I have a few questions for the Minister. The first relates to the Government’s commitments to education in emergencies. Does he agree that it is vital that as part of our humanitarian assistance we support the provision of education in areas of conflict and climate emergencies? When countries emerge from conflict and climate emergencies they need help to get themselves re-established, so can the Minister tell me whether the Government intend to support countries to transition from the emergency education provision to national education systems, particularly if support mechanisms such as the Global Partnership for Education are reduced? Will the Government ensure that the ODA budget will be focused on foundational learning where every lesson has the most transformative impact on a child’s life chances? Will education feature in the Future of Development conference being hosted by the UK in May?
The UK has always understood the importance of education. We championed girls’ education before others. We fought for foundational learning when the world’s attention risked drifting elsewhere, and we played a defining role in the creation of the Global Partnership for Education and Education Cannot Wait, which are some of the most effective engines for transforming education systems around the world. With a smaller aid budget it is essential that the UK makes its money go further. As we mark the UN International Day of Education, let us celebrate the huge strides we have made in progressing access to education across the globe, but also be honest about the scale of the challenge that we face.
We find ourselves at a crossroads: the Government can choose to continue their efforts in fighting for education for those who need it most, or they can abandon decades of hard work on the international stage. Let us step forward once again and work together to invest in teachers, systems and safe and inclusive classrooms. Let us ensure that every child can learn and thrive, because when we invest in education we build not just schools but futures.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for his excellent speech and for the excellent event he hosted this week with Send My Friend to School. It was very moving to see so many young people and children coming to Parliament to tell us to speak up for their values and their belief in global education.
Prior to entering this place, I had the privilege of spending a few years as a teacher at a school in Rwanda, where I was doing my PhD research. It was a world away from what we know as a school. I had a chalkboard at the front and a few pieces of chalk, and the children had notebooks and pens—those were about the only resources we had to deliver learning. To this day, it always warms my heart when they reach out to me on social media to let me know how they are doing. Most of them are in their mid-20s, successful and thriving in the world.
I want to talk briefly about one of the young men who attended that school. He was a genocide orphan who, after the genocide, found himself living at the rubbish dump in Kigali in the shell of a burned-out car. He would go out each day with other children and pick through the dump for food to survive. After a few years of that, an American woman who was in the area got out of her car one day to give these street children—they are called mayibobo, which means children of the street—some bread rolls. This young man went up to her and said, “Please, I would like to go to school.” She felt moved, so she put him in the back of her taxi, took him to a local family she trusted, and paid them to put him through school.
A few years later, another child at the young man’s school was being bullied because he was poor—he was scruffy and did not have the school supplies. Remembering his experience as a street child, the young man formed a little charitable group in the school. They clubbed together to secretly put school supplies on the student’s bed to help him through school. From that act, they set up a charity at their school, which now has chapters across the entire country, and also in North America and Europe. It is a youth-led charity and it inspires young people to do good. The young man went on to get a scholarship to Harvard University. He did not mention his background because he wanted to have it on merit. Today, he continues to do incredible work. That story illustrates to me not only the incredible success, but how many children like him remain at the rubbish dump and are not given those opportunities.
Global education is facing cuts of £3.2 billion by the end of 2026. That is severe, and the impact will be felt by an entire generation of children around the world. That amount sadly includes cuts to UK aid, although I should say that the UK cannot and should not be expected to go it alone on global education. There are many other things that we need to do. For example, 34 countries in Africa spend more on debt interest every year than they spend on education and health. That is a disgrace. This Parliament could do something by legislating to change that reality, and I hope that we do. We need to do more to encourage other countries that, frankly, could give more and do not to step up.
It is in our national interest to build strong partnerships. I have worked in international development and met many Ministers in other countries, and I noticed how often they were educated in the UK, and how often they previously worked at a university. Unlike in this place, where we tend to appoint Ministers who are not necessarily specialists in their field, it is generally the case in the global south that Ministers come through the academic ranks and are a specialist in their area. They often have views that were shaped by their time studying at a UK university, or by their relationship to one, which is incredibly important. Other institutions that we should be greatly proud of include the Voluntary Service Overseas, which does important work in education around the world, and the British Council. They are really important parts of UK soft power.
As the world is changing and becoming more volatile, and as Britain’s place in it is shrinking, there are some big players in the world today who do not share our democratic values or our belief in human rights, and who are positioning themselves to sweep up influence across the global south. In that context, we really need to think, as they often do, of a 100-year plan, and what it would look like to shape the world in our image, have people learning our language and have more people feeling a great affinity with this country. That is another important role we can play by investing in education.
I am aware that other Members wish to speak, so I will conclude by appealing for education to be a bigger part of UK thinking about development. The higher education partnerships are so crucial, but so are the school-to-school partnerships and the idea of making development education a part of our national curriculum. It was heartwarming, at my hon. Friend’s event this week, to see children who were globally aware citizens who wanted to connect with children in other parts of the world and to work together to shape a better world. They had some strong messages for us, and we need to listen to them.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I put on the record my thanks to the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous), who secured this timely debate to coincide with the International Day of Education.
Over my 25 years as a Member of this House, I have been extremely fortunate to travel to all parts of our planet, whether as part of the Foreign Affairs Committee, on which I served for 15 years; the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which does excellent work, as we all know; the Inter-Parliamentary Union; the NATO Parliamentary Assembly; the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly; or, most especially, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which I served as a governor for nine years, doing work in countries around the world. I have also taken part, over the years, in various missions with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to countries including Uganda and the British Indian Ocean Territory. I will say a bit more about the Chagos islands later.
Through my travels I have seen at first hand the impact of British education, cultural exchange and institutional engagement around the world. I felt it right to participate in this debate because I was due to respond to it on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition as a shadow Minister. Although that is no longer the case, I am sure that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) will do justice to the role this afternoon, and I wish him well in his endeavours.
Education has the ability to transform lives and, ultimately, it shapes the world in which Britain must operate. For generations, this country has been regarded as the workshop for global leaders, and the world’s elites have wanted to send their children to be educated here in the United Kingdom. That includes post-colonial leaders such as Lee Kuan Yew, Robert Menzies and Mahatma Gandhi, and contemporary leaders such as the great Tony Abbott and Shinzo Abe. The list goes on—it is very extensive—and we should take great pride in the fact that so many distinguished figures from around the world choose to send their children and families to be educated here in the British Isles.
It is clear that our schools, universities and language, and our great British culture, have projected British influence further than any number of tanks or treaties ever could have done. That influence has been built deliberately through institutions and scholarships that are respected across the globe, including the Rhodes scholarship, the Chevening programme, the work of the Association of Commonwealth Universities, and the generations of Commonwealth scholars who have gone on to become leaders in politics, business, science and civil society. As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for the Commonwealth, I have seen how thriving these networks of influence truly are.
However, I am afraid that the Commonwealth itself, and bodies such as the Commonwealth of Learning, have been understood by successive Governments as almost like a hangover of colonial times—something from the past that should belong in history. That attitude is wrong and needs to change. We should be proud of what Britain has achieved over the centuries and we should continue those traditions today.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing the debate—I am sorry that I could not have been here earlier; I was in the Chamber.
I know the focus of the debate is on what Britain does when it comes education, but the other side of it is that many churches across all of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, including in my constituency, have built schools and universities. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the good work done by the churches in my constituency? The Elim church has built a hospital, a health centre, a primary school and a secondary school, and it does work on job training for farming as well. All these things are done by people from Newtownards going to Malawi, to Swaziland and to Zimbabwe. That is an example of what can happen if we all look at some of the good things that are happening.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Order. The debate is about the International Day of Education.
Andrew Rosindell
That was a fine intervention and I entirely endorse everything the hon. Gentleman said. One of the reasons Britain has had so much outreach around the world is because of our Christian foundations. It is so important to uphold and cherish our Christian heritage. Of course, Christian missionaries have travelled the world and established schools, hospitals, universities and churches, helping countries far and wide and people of all religions. I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman’s examples from his constituency; my constituency also has many churches that do excellent work and support causes around the world. I thank him for raising that point.
The Commonwealth is, I believe, a tangible force for good—I am sure we can all agree with that—and it should be central to any Government’s foreign policy. A voluntary association bound by shared language, legal traditions and educational standards embodies the very arguments that we are debating here in Parliament this afternoon. Above all, it provides Britain with a unique global reach that no other country enjoys. There are Commonwealth countries in every part of the world, including, let us not forget, our cherished overseas territories and Crown dependencies, such as the British Indian Ocean Territory, which should remain a British territory.
The Commonwealth has presented our great nation with an inheritance that is the envy of the world. But, obviously, soft power works only when it also serves the national interest. I am afraid that is where this debate has to be honest. Too often, international education policy has drifted away from British priorities and towards fashionable global causes, administrated by bloated bureaucracies with little regard for value for money or outcomes. My new party, Reform UK, believes in engagement with the world, but on Britain’s terms, not at our expense.
Last month, in my previous role as shadow Minister, I met with the British Council. It does invaluable work—I place that clearly on the record—but what I heard in that meeting should concern the House. Funding from the Foreign Office has still not returned to pre-pandemic levels. The British Council is being forced to consider the closure of up to 35 country offices, with 10 having already been lost during covid. Just £20 million would stabilise the British Council network, yet at the same time, this Government appear perfectly relaxed writing cheques running into the tens of billions for the handover of a British territory, thereby betraying British people, based on questionable interpretations of international obligations that deliver nothing tangible for the British taxpayer.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Order. I ask the hon. Member to stick to the motion.
Sam Rushworth
While the hon. Member is on that point, we are all aware of a letter that he wrote in 2020, in which he urged President Elect Joe Biden to do exactly what the Government are doing. Will the hon. Member say why his opinion has changed on the matter?
Andrew Rosindell
I am so pleased that the hon. Member has raised that point. With your permission, Ms Vaz, I will answer it.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
I have been advised that we have to stick to the motion, which is about the International Day of Education.
Andrew Rosindell
I will certainly do so. To say one brief thing to the hon. Member, the letter was written to reflect the consensus of an all-party parliamentary group that I happened to be the chair of. The letter did not necessary reflect my opinions on everything. Self-determination should always determine decisions.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Order. Could the hon. Member address the Chair, please?
Andrew Rosindell
I will go back to the point. We are told that there is no money for the British Council, yet somehow we find the cash for all sorts of other things: for housing the people who are coming to this country illegally; for the failing digital identification experiment; and for a long list of projects that do nothing to strengthen Britain’s position in the world or to promote education.
I am sure we will shortly hear warm words from the Minister about the importance of international education, and rightly so, but those words will ring hollow when the Government are presiding over an erosion of Britain’s ability to support education, influence and cultural engagement across the globe. What makes matters worse is that the cuts are focused on British Council offices in developed countries—the countries that need our support more than most. These are places where English teaching may not be the primary objective, but where influence, networks, science, culture and diplomacy absolutely are.
The British Council is certainly not just an English teaching charity. Its stated aims are to foster cultural, scientific, technological and educational co-operation with the United Kingdom. Undermining that mission weakens Britain. However, Reform UK is not calling for a blank cheque—far from it. If Britain is to help educate the world, that education must champion the United Kingdom and its values, free speech, our model of parliamentary Government and the rule of law. It must never put Britain second.
We should not be funding programmes to apologise for our history, undermine our institutions, or promote ideologies fundamentally hostile to our way of life. Nor should international education be used as a back door for uncontrolled migration or permanent settlement. Students should come to Britain to learn, and then return home as ambassadors for this country and assets to their peers. They should certainly not be numbers that disappear into a broken system that is already overstretched.
Ahead of the International Day of Education, I say that, yes, education changes lives, but it also helps to shape geopolitics. If we hollow out our soft power while pouring money into symbolic global gestures, we will wake up—as we have for some time—poorer, weaker and less respected. Reform UK believes that Britain should engage with all nations of the world and treat all countries with respect, working with all nationalities and peoples for the best interests of humanity, but always in Britain’s national interest. Our educational institutions and global networks remain world class—dare I say, the best—but the question is whether the Government are willing to end the bipartisan policy of managed decline and once again put British cultural influence back on the map.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under you chairship, Ms Vaz. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing this debate to mark the International Day of Education this Saturday. I pay tribute to our hard-working teachers and our schools in the UK, especially in my constituency.
This should be more than a moment of reflection; it must be a call to action. Education is a moral good, but it is also one of our most effective tools to prevent poverty, conflict and instability. When children are pushed out of classrooms by war, displacement or climate disaster, the consequences are long lasting. The scale of the crisis is severe: worldwide, more than 272 million children and young people are out of school and that figure is projected to rise to 278 million due to global aid cuts.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making a powerful point about the number of children who are outside of the classroom globally and the impact that has, but it also happens in our own country. I recently visited the Gillford Centre pupil referral unit in my constituency. It does phenomenal work and, unlike other schools, the hallmark of its success is pupils leaving and going back into mainstream education. Does the hon. Lady agree that pupil referral units like the Gillford Centre make a huge contribution to closing the opportunity gap that we know exists abroad and at home?
Monica Harding
I agree 100%, and let us not forget that children are left behind in our country too. In my Esher and Walton constituency, we found that 1,800 children were missing school because of special educational needs and disabilities. Pupil referral units do brilliant work in bringing children back into mainstream education, which is good for our economy and for growth.
As I said, children around the world are missing education; the global aid cuts will increase that number and that rise will be concentrated in humanitarian hotspots. Education systems are being put under strain by the combined impact of conflict, climate shocks and humanitarian collapse. Last year alone, 242 million students in 85 countries saw their schooling disrupted by climate events.
Education is not a luxury; it underpins development, public health, gender equality and long-term stability, yet the global commitment is weakening just as pressures on education systems intensify. International education funding is projected to fall by $3.2 billion dollars this year—a 24% cut—placing an additional 5.7 million children at risk of dropping out of school. Cuts to the United States Agency for International Development alone are expected to push 23 million children out of education in the years ahead.
Girls will be hardest hit, with gender-focused education aid projected to fall by 28% this year, despite clear evidence that educating girls delivers some of the highest returns of any development investment. At the same time, primary education funding faces a 34% cut, with severe long-term consequences for literacy, numeracy and economic growth. Against that backdrop, the Government’s decision to cut the aid budget to the lowest level this century will only deepen the global education crisis, undermining long-term stability, prosperity and the UK’s influence abroad.
With aid projected to fall to 0.3% of national income by 2027, education funding is already being squeezed, and overseas education spending is set to drop by 40% this year alone. At the same time, one fifth of the aid budget is now spent on in-country refugee costs, crowding out overseas investment—precisely the spending that helps prevent instability and forced displacement in the first place.
Britain has not always stood on the sidelines. For many years, the UK was a leading global voice on education—particularly girls’ education—backing that leadership with sustained multilateral investment. Between 2015 and 2020 alone, UK aid helped more than 15 million children attend school worldwide.
I will now illustrate the scale of the crisis by giving examples from some of the worst-affected areas globally. Nowhere is the global collapse in education more stark than in Afghanistan, where more than 2 million girls are formally banned from secondary and higher education, making it the only country in the world to exclude girls from school legally. Meanwhile, learning outcomes for boys in the country deteriorate amid systemic breakdown. The collapse in education in Afghanistan has been worsened by the collapse of international aid: the United States has effectively disengaged from Afghanistan, while British aid to the country has fallen by nearly half over the past five years.
In the Gaza strip, over 650,000 children—almost the entire school-age population—have received little or no formal education for years, with around 97% of schools in the region having been damaged or destroyed. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which has long been the backbone of education provision for Palestinian refugee children, educated over half a million children in the Gaza strip and the west bank. However, it is now operating under severe legal and operational constraints imposed by the Israeli Government, including bans in east Jerusalem, the demolition of facilities, and restrictions on staff, utilities and partner NGOs.
In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where more than 7 million children are already out of school due to conflict and displacement, a flagship education programme for girls that was previously supported by British aid is set to close this year. That will affect 170,000 children in just one region, the vast majority of whom are girls, and is a direct consequence of our aid cuts.
In fragile and conflict-affected states, education is not only about future opportunity; it also provides safety, routine and dignity right now. Schools often deliver clean water, meals, sanitation and access to child protection services. Yet globally, school feeding programmes face cuts of over 50%, while education in emergencies has been reduced by 24%, with countries such as Haiti, Somalia and the Central African Republic losing aid that is equivalent to more than 10% of their public education budget.
It should not be, and does not have to be, this way. The Liberal Democrats believe that education must be a protected priority within the aid budget and not a discretionary extra. However, that requires reversing the aid cuts and setting out a clear path back to meeting the legally enshrined target of spending 0.7% of national income on aid. I respectfully point out to the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) that although I agree with his words about the British Council and the potential cuts to its budget, and about the influence of British education, it is impossible to see how the British Council could be protected under the cuts that his party is proposing, whereby just 0.1% of GNI would be spent on ODA.
The International Day of Education is a reminder that behind every statistic in this area is a child whose future depends on political choices. If we are serious about reducing poverty, empowering women and building stability—which in turn will benefit the UK by providing economic trading opportunities in global markets, less compelling reasons for people to migrate to these shores, and more global stability and security for our citizens—education must move from the margins to the centre of our international priorities.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
We now come to the winding-up speeches. The Front Benchers have 10 minutes each.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz, and I thank the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing this debate.
What is education for? It is about so much more than remembering facts to pass exams. It is about lighting a spark in our children, and fostering their creative spirit and critical thinking to ensure that every child grows up with the life skills, the confidence and the resilience they need to be happy, healthy and successful adults, however that looks for each individual. In my view, that is every bit as important as academic achievement. In line with the theme of this year’s International Day of Education—the power of youth in co-creating education—we should all seek to create an educational environment that allows children the world over to learn and to ignite that spark.
The Liberal Democrats believe that education is the best investment that we can make in our children’s potential and our country’s future—indeed, every country’s future. It is the root of everything that follows in adult life: the potential for better health; the ability to work and earn a living; and the skills that enable people to participate in work, sport, craft, music and all the other things that enrich a human life. As the International Day of Education celebrates, education also has a significant role to play in enabling peace and development. The United Nations sustainable development goal 4 recognises education as a foundation for “escaping poverty” and for fostering peaceful, healthy societies.
When a girl goes to school, she is more likely not only to achieve higher educational outcomes—that much seems obvious—but to earn more and contribute to economic growth, and to participate in decision making in her community and country. She will be healthier, as will her children. She is less likely to be subject to child marriage, and to experience harmful practices and unwanted pregnancy.
Since the sustainable development goals were set in 2015, girls’ enrolment has increased by more than 50 million globally, with 5 million more girls annually completing each level of education up to upper secondary, but still more than 100 million girls of school age across the world are not in formal education today. One of the worst examples, as other Members have mentioned, is Afghanistan, where over 2.2 million girls are officially barred from attending school. Afghanistan is the only country in the world where girls and women are prohibited from accessing secondary and higher education. As families lose hope for their daughters’ futures, there has been a rise in forced and child marriages. Girls are kept hidden and are silenced. The Liberal Democrats want to see a foreign policy agenda with gender equality at its heart. The lives of women and girls must not be ignored in favour of trade or regional alliances, and we call on the Government to immediately restore full funding to educational programmes that support women and girls.
At this very difficult time, I am sure that I am not alone in being deeply troubled by the lack of visibility on the world stage of women who are helping to build peace and reconciliation in various conflict zones. As President Trump builds his so-called board of peace, it looks like there will be more male billionaires represented than women. Where are the women who will speak up for their local communities and civil society, and have a deep and vested interest in securing peace and stability for their children’s future?
Evidence shows that women’s participation in peace agreements increases the probability of them lasting at least two years by 20%, and lasting 15 years by 35%, yet in a UN study, decision making was left to a small group of male leaders in 15 of the 16 national dialogues examined. We see this every day on our TV screens, and I suggest that it starts with education. If we do not give girls the tools and knowledge to grow up to be part of that conversation, we embed that dangerous imbalance and perpetuate in boys the idea that theirs are the only voices that matter.
Looking globally, perhaps the lesser-told story is that an almost equal number of boys are out of school worldwide, and the biggest disparity is poverty related. In the poorest countries, 36% of students are out of school, compared with 3% in the richest countries, and almost three quarters of the global out-of-school population is in central and southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. The astonishing and moving example recounted by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) shows how education can transform not only lives, but communities and countries.
The UK has an important role to play in reducing this stark international educational inequality. As proud internationalists, the Liberal Democrats believe that our country thrives when we are open and outward looking, and that applies so much to education. The Liberal Democrats value the UK’s central role in founding UNESCO, and we remain steadfast in supporting its mission to contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among nations through education, science and culture. Most important, we want to restore the UK’s reputation as an international development superpower, by restoring spending to 0.7% of national income and re-establishing an international development Department. We would also recognise the role of education as a force for good, by committing to spend 15% of ODA on education in the world’s most vulnerable areas.
We should focus not just on what the UK can provide to the world on education, but on what we can learn from the world to improve our own system. The part of our education system that is in the worst shape is the way we educate children who have additional needs and disabilities. Broken by the previous Conservative Government, the SEND system is failing those children every single day. Years of cuts to school and council budgets have left parents struggling to secure the support their children need, and the system has become intrinsically adversarial, pitting councils and parents against each other in a situation that is not fair to either of them. It urgently needs reform. Although it is welcome that the Government recognise that, it is incredibly important that they get it right.
I urge the Government to look overseas for inspiration. On a recent trip to Ontario as part of the Education Committee’s inquiry into SEND, we saw a significant focus on communication right from kindergarten. Parents there do not have to fight for support because dialogue works, families are listened to, and behaviour is seen as a form of communication. In Ontario, they understand that we must listen to what our SEND children are trying to tell us and focus on inclusion rather than exclusion. Their approach is worlds away from our combative system. I therefore hope that when the Government come forward with their schools White Paper and set out SEND reform, they will draw on the success stories of SEND systems overseas, such as Ontario’s, to create a system that truly places children, young people, families and carers at its core.
Our education system should also draw on world-class, internationally recognised programmes that are used around the world, such as the international baccalaureate diploma programme. The IB sets a global benchmark for education and is trusted by universities, employers and educators worldwide. The Government’s recent decision to slash the large programme uplift funding, which allows state schools to provide the IB, simply makes no sense. The money saved is a drop in the ocean in the overall Department for Education budget, but by stripping that funding away, the Government are stealing opportunity and further entrenching the divide between our state and private schools. No Government who want to truly close the attainment gap would pursue that policy. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to reverse the cuts to the large programme uplift and ensure that any school wishing to deliver the IB diploma has the funding to do so.
Zooming out to look at our education system more broadly, it is fair to say that, like the rest of the world, we also suffer from persistent levels of educational inequality. Far too many children are leaving school without the skills they need to succeed. The disadvantage gap we see when children walk through the school door on day one grows throughout the education years and is wider at age 16 than it is at age five, according to research from the Education Policy Institute. It is down to us to fix this stubborn inequality. The Institute for Fiscal Studies notes that the gap in GCSE attainment between rich and poor households in this country has remained largely constant for the past 20 years.
To address the failings in our education system that are leading to inequality, the Liberal Democrats call on the Government to take steps including a tutoring guarantee for every disadvantaged pupil who needs extra support, high-quality early years education to help to close the attainment gap by giving disadvantaged children aged three and four an extra five free hours a week, and tripling the early years pupil premium to £1,000 a year.
We want a Government who fulfil their role in helping to reverse the worrying trends in global educational inequality, especially when it comes to women and girls, who look overseas at what the world can do for our own education system, and who properly address the educational inequalities that persist here in the UK. We must ensure that every child’s education provides the tools they need to thrive in every aspect of their life.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
I call the Opposition spokesperson, Lincoln Jopp—congratulations on your new post.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Thank you for that welcome, Ms Vaz. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous), who is also the chair of the APPG on global education, on securing this debate and on his long-standing interest in this matter. I also thank the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for his gracious words of welcome, particularly because he was due to be standing at this Dispatch Box. When I saw him walk into Westminster Hall, I have to admit that my blood ran slightly cold, worrying that perhaps our shared team had prepared the same speech for us both to give—I should have known better.
We on this side of the House recognise the huge benefits that education brings to supporting aspiration and helping to fulfil potential. Whether at home or abroad, we know that education lays the foundation for young people to build better futures. Here in England, the last Conservative Government raised standards in our schools and lifted the UK’s standing in international league tables for literacy to first in the western world, and fourth in the world. We also increased the number of full-time teachers by around 27,000, which is about 2,000 a year on average—a higher annual rate of growth than the 6,500 over five years promised by the current Government.
Internationally, we played our part in supporting initiatives to lift people out of poverty. With the United Nations International Day of Education approaching on 24 January, this is an opportune moment to reflect on the links between education and economic development, and the role that the UK can play. Members will be aware of the UN’s sustainable development goal 4, which focuses on quality education to
“Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all”.
The previous Government focused effort and resources on this area, including expanding and improving access to education, especially for women and girls, who face particular barriers to securing a meaningful education and childhood in parts of the world. This led to 19.8 million children, including 10 million girls, being supported with a decent education since 2015. That made a profound difference to those lives.
The international women and girls strategy launched in 2023 had a strong focus on education. It highlighted the wider societal benefits of improved education for women and girls in developing countries, including that
“A child whose mother can read is 50% more likely to live beyond the age of five”,
is more likely to be immunised, and is about
“twice as likely to attend school.”
Girls benefiting from higher levels of education are also less likely to be affected by violence from a partner, less likely to marry as a child and more likely to find employment and start businesses. One of the great untapped potentials in developing countries is the enterprise and entrepreneurial spirit of women. Better education can help to unleash that potential. That is something that Members in all parts of the House can agree on.
That strategy also focused on the three Es of educating girls, empowering women and girls and championing their health and rights, and ending gender based violence. But education is the essential first step. I ask the Minister, are the Government committed to implementing that strategy? With international development budgets understandably being reduced to support efforts to bolster our defences and national security, can the Minister update the House on the areas where the Government intend to focus resources for the rest of the decade?
My team and I had prepared a rather different speech, but I have been very struck by the fact that four Members have mentioned Afghanistan. If the Chamber will indulge me, I, like the sponsor of this debate, would like to understand from the Minister what the Government are doing in terms of education in Syria, Iran, Gaza and the west bank and Sudan, but I want to tell a rather different story about international education.
It is 2009 and we are in Basharan in the Helmand river valley of Afghanistan. There is a small village in Basharan with a defunct school. A young company commander by the name of Sean Birchall takes over that area and is determined that the school should open for boys and girls. He spends vast amounts of time going backwards and forwards, at great risk, to Lashkar Gah to try to get the education department there to provide teachers and school equipment, such as books and chairs. Sean was killed by a bomb, leaving a widow and an 18-month-old son, Charlie. Nevertheless, the men and women in his company of Welsh Guards continued his extraordinary work and the school got up and running.
Fast forward to April the next year and I am the commanding officer of the Lashkar Gah battlegroup. We have Basharan in our patch, and very near one of the routes into Basharan was an impassable road—the Taliban had put a tax office on it and seeded it with a number of improvised explosive devices. I was given the mission to clear the road. I discussed it with the company commander and said, “It looks to me like we now need to start at one end and go to the other, or start at the other end and go to the other.” He said, “Let me have a think.” Then he said, “Right. I want to start in the middle and clear out in two directions.” I said, “Right, okay.” Taking the Taliban tax office would send a signal to the area that there was greater control.
This involved a lot of moving people and equipment around, which alerted the locals that it was happening. I was at the checkpoint nearest to where we were going to start the operation the next day, and a young lance corporal called Cammy sent a message saying, “Commanding officer to the front gate,” so I went there. My approach to counter-insurgency, which I told the battalion, was: “We need to take risks to be safer.” It is one of the paradoxes of counter-insurgency; it is incredibly dangerous but, nevertheless, it can bear results.
Cammy introduced me to a fellow with a wooden leg—a local—who had come to the gate and asked what was going on. Cammy said—he did not ask me—“I’m going to tell him the plan for tomorrow,” and I said, “Crack on.” So he told him the plan: that we were going to go in the next day and take down the tax office, and that we were going to clear the bombs but knew it was very dangerous indeed.
The man, who was known as the Muj—mujaheddin—said, “Well, I’m going to come with you tomorrow at dawn and I’m going to show you where the bombs are.” I asked him, “Why are you going to do that? It’s incredibly risky.” And he said, “I will show you where the bombs are so that you can clear them, so that you can open the road and my daughter can go to Basharan school.”
We all had a fitful night’s sleep, and, good as gold, the next day, at dawn, he turned up and we gave him a can of yellow spray-paint, and he hopscotched his way around a high-density minefield and sprayed paint on where the bombs were. It is so rare for the good that we enable off the security line of operations—namely education—to play so directly into local consent, in order to advance the cause and British interests.
Under the UK aid flag, our support for education should be a sign of hope and freedom for those who receive it. We have had strong successes in recent years in delivering quality education for those who need it across the world, providing new opportunities for millions. Along with our key partners, the UK should continue to play a leading role, exercising our resources, leverage and expertise to improve educational outcomes and lift millions, globally, out of poverty and into a better future.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing this debate ahead of the UN’s International Day of Education. It is a topic close to my heart, as the son of a primary school teacher and a youth worker, and having engaged in a number of educational initiatives myself over many years, including teaching English one summer in Ukraine, which I will come back to. I thank hon. Members for their sincere and passionate contributions on this crucial issue.
Of course, education is also important to us all in our own constituencies. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), spoke of a number of the issues around education in the UK. While I am, of course, hugely proud of schools and educational institutions in my own communities in Cardiff South and Penarth, and of the investment from the Welsh Labour Government into new schools and a new further education college there—and proud of many other aspects—we are largely talking today about international efforts on education.
Such efforts include the very powerful examples that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) just raised. I visited Afghanistan at the very same time that he was serving gallantly there—I thank him for his service at that time—because, under the last Labour Government, I served as an adviser in the former Department for International Development and worked on Afghanistan policy. Indeed, I worked on many of those issues, including the ways that we tried to support girls’ education in Afghanistan in particular back then, and I have been to many of the places that the hon. Gentleman described.
I also thought about that context today, not only for the people of Afghanistan, tragically, and particularly those young girls, but for the young people I engaged with just last week, in a live video conference linking up Stratford Manor primary school in east London with a school in Kyiv. That was part of the school twinning programme under the 100-year partnership, which is now reaching up to 300 schools. It was really powerful to speak to those young children live on camera with the children in London. They told us about the massive bombardment they had faced the night before in and around their schools and homes in Kyiv, thanks to Russia’s barbarism. They were lucky to be able to join us at that moment because most of the time they have no electricity or heating at their school. The stark challenges faced around the world by children who deserve education are very clear to me, whether that is in Gaza, Sudan or many of the other locations that have been mentioned.
Stephen Doughty
I will make some progress, then potentially take some interventions later.
I previously worked in the international development sector for a Christian international development charity, World Vision, and for Oxfam, and have engaged with many educational programmes around the world. I have seen the real difference made by not only UK assistance, but international organisations and the United Nations, and the excellent charities that we have here in this country.
Many Members reflected on the important work of the British Council and our scholarship programmes. I have done a lot of work with Chevening scholars and Marshall scholars, among others, as well as Commonwealth scholars, of course. I am really proud that this Government have taken us back into the Erasmus+ programme and its opportunities for international exchange and engagement. It is crucial for young people in Britain, but also for those long-standing partnerships that make us strong and understood, and speak to our values in the world.
As advocates for global education, the Members present know all too well that the system is in serious crisis. UNESCO estimates that every $1 invested in education and youth skills in developing countries generates $10 to $15 in economic growth. Education has also been central to reducing inequality and empowering women and girls. We know its impact, yet 272 million children are out of school globally and 70% of children in lower-middle-income countries are unable to read and understand a basic text by 10. That figure rises to 90% in sub-Saharan Africa. That has to change.
With better research and evidence on what works, a range of different interventions and partners and countries working together, we can make a difference, particularly through taking on board new technologies and new ways of accessing the curriculum and learning. We are part of that effort, building modern and respectful partnerships, as well as shifting from being a direct donor in many circumstances to acting as an investor and an adviser and convenor.
We will always retain our focus on reaching the most marginalised children who need and deserve quality education. For example, in Sierra Leone, we are working with the Government to build gender-based violence prevention and response, especially with regard to children with disabilities who face gender-based violence. We are helping partner Governments to finance and manage their own education systems more effectively, and we are using world-class evidence to improve teaching in the classroom to ensure that children are learning.
Our people and our expertise and the great strength we have in education in this country means that we are trusted advisers to partner Governments. We have funded pioneering research, particularly on the issue of foundational learning referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green and many others. We are a founding partner of the global Coalition for Foundational Learning, working closely with UNICEF, UNESCO, the World Bank, the Gates Foundation and other Governments. We are a founding member of the Global Partnership for Education. We were at the forefront of setting up Education Cannot Wait, which has done important work. We are continuing to deliver through a range of multilateral investments.
We have had to take tough decisions, which have been referenced by a number of Members. We took the tough decision to reduce our official development assistance spending to 0.3% of GNI by 2027 so that we could respond to pressing security challenges and geopolitical circumstances with which Members are only too familiar. With less funding, we need to do things differently. We have to focus on the greatest impact and we need to target funding on the people who need it the most.
Stephen Doughty
I will not, if that is okay.
We are focusing on five areas: first, improving learning outcomes for all children, particularly targeting girls and the most disadvantaged; secondly, helping partner Governments to strengthen their education systems; thirdly, increasing the scale and sources of financing, so that Governments can access financing to fund education reforms; fourthly, safeguarding education in emergencies and protracted crises, including those affected by conflict and climate change; and finally, driving the reform of multilateral education organisations. I will say a little more about that conflict work in a moment.
We are leading on our own strategy. On 20 January, the Government announced our new international education strategy, which builds on our strong leadership, skills and expertise. Education already contributes more than £32 billion a year to the UK economy. Our strategy sets out a plan to increase that to £40 billion by 2030, generating jobs and skills here in the UK as well. We have expertise, leadership and commitment. I think Members understand that we are in a different circumstance with regard to the funding, but we will continue to remain focused on these issues.
In my last few minutes, I want to turn to some of the points that hon. Members raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green and many others asked about work in emergencies and protracted crises. We recognise that that is a huge challenge, and of course we are continuing to focus on it. We have committed a further £10 million for strategic partnerships on education in emergencies. We are of course the largest bilateral donor to the Global Partnership for Education, £5.6 million of which is earmarked for education and psychosocial support in Gaza and the west bank.
The situation in Afghanistan is of course absolutely tragic, but even there we continue to support the delivery of education through UNICEF, the International Rescue Committee and other partners, including the Afghanistan Resilience Trust Fund. We are continuing to try to work in those incredibly difficult circumstances, which are a tragedy for girls, in particular.
My hon. Friend raised foundational learning and asked about the Future of Development conference in May this year. The agenda is still being finalised for that, but we will update him and the House in due course. We are of course looking at new ways to generate resource in straitened circumstances. For example, our support for the International Finance Facility for Education has already unlocked $1 billion in additional education finance from multilateral development banks. That is very good value for money for the UK taxpayer, because $1 of cash invested there generally leverages in $7 of additional concessional finance.
I absolutely assure Members that we will continue to stay focused on the education of girls and those who are most marginalised and least likely to go to school. I agree that the British Council is an important partner, and it will of course help to deliver the international education strategy. I visited the British Council team in Kyiv—tragically, their offices were hit by one of the Russian strikes. Our funding to the British Council is still under discussion.
Of course, that international commitment is matched by our commitment to young people in this country. I mentioned the investment that we are putting in and the Government’s focus on this issue. It is not just about schools, in terms of teaching, facilities and curricula; it is also about ensuring that young people are in the best place to learn. That is why we have put 750 primary breakfast clubs in place and extended free school meals to half a million more children. I am incredibly proud of that work, which draws on the lessons we have learned from Wales.
We are proud of what we are doing on education in this country and internationally. These are changed financial circumstances, but we will continue to focus resource where we think it makes the biggest difference for the most marginalised communities, and we will leverage in support from other donors. I thank all Members for the sincerity of the points that they made today.
Bambos Charalambous
I thank all Members who contributed to this wide-ranging debate. We have had lots of incredible insights into what education means, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), who talked about the young man who lived at a rubbish tip in Kigali and now has a Harvard scholarship. That is an incredible story. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) spoke movingly about his personal experience in Afghanistan. It shows how much people value education, no matter where they are from, and how much of a difference it makes to parents, as well as to children.
The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) said that we need to thank teachers, who are a very important part of providing education. There is a huge shortage of teachers internationally, which is another area that we need to focus on. She made some excellent points. All hon. Members spoke about how important girls’ education is everywhere, so we need to focus on that. The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) spoke about the importance of soft power. He mentioned the British Council and scholarship schemes such as Chevening and, historically, the Rhodes scholarship scheme.
This has been a really good debate, and I thank the Minister for his response. There are a few wishes that I am very keen to follow up on. Times are hard, but we need to ensure that education, which is so transformative and changes people’s lives, carries on making a difference. It is one of the most essential things that we can provide funding for.
I thank all my colleagues on the APPG on global education, and particularly Results UK, which provides the secretariat. I thank all the other organisations that provide support, such as Send My Friend to School and other campaign organisations for education. I will leave it there. I thank everyone for taking part.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the International Day of Education.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, in the admittedly unlikely but none the less possible event of a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes from the sound of the Division Bells.
Pension Schemes Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who has tabled the lead amendment in the first group, is not currently here. Before I call it, I ask whether any other Member present wishes to move her amendment. I give the Committee a moment to think about that, because if no one wishes to move it, I will have to regard it as not moved. Given that the next amendment in the group is, helpfully, consecutive to the first, with the permission of the Committee I will move to the next amendment, having called the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which we have to assume will be not moved. Does the Committee accept that as a way forward?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I thank noble Lords.
Clause 11: Relevant schemes: value for money
“(4A) Value for money regulations must take account of—(a) a VFM assessment over 3, 5 and 10 years;(b) the nature and spread of assets and their purpose in the portfolio including diversity, stability and risk management;(c) the characteristics of the members of the scheme;(d) whether comparisons, benchmarking, scaling and advisory consensus risk herding, market movements, lack of diversity or systemic risk;(e) fee structuring, including performance fee management and inter-cohort fairness, including managing how the J-curve effect and consolidation can shift costs or benefits between different cohorts of pensioners.”
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, those noble Lords who have examined the Marshalled List will know that Amendment 46A constitutes what was in Amendment 46 but with an extra paragraph (e) in the proposed new subsection; that is the difference. The amendment proposes a small number of matters that value for money “must”, rather than merely “may”, take into account. The Bill ultimately leads to schemes being graded as performing or non-performing, so the framework must be sophisticated enough to reflect long-term investment reality, not just short-term metrics.
Value for money is a judgment about appropriateness, risk, purpose and fairness. Paragraph (a) of the proposed new subsection is based on long-term assets requiring a long-term view. I suggest assessments over three, five and 10 years, but that is to illustrate the point, rather than being a fixation. Private assets often show negative early returns and we need a way of understanding valuations through the cycle, especially where valuations drive fees. As more investments are moved into private assets, especially if back books have to be adjusted to meet authorisation percentages, there will be cluster effects. I worry about that and its effect on value for money.
How can we check valuations in the private equity context as well? There is a lot of literature around how it is useful to have a market price comparator for what is an otherwise opaque and infrequent exercise. Listed investment companies are routinely used in institutional analysis as a valuation cross-check for private assets because they provide daily pricing for similar underlying exposures and frequent net asset value valuations. For example, the ICAEW’s 2020 report, Fair Value Measurement by Listed Private Equity Funds, notes that listed funds provide observable market prices for benchmarking unlisted investments. The Bank of England has noted in several financial stability reports that market price vehicles, including listed funds, provide useful information about liquidity conditions and valuation dynamics in private markets, particularly when model-based valuations adjust slowly. These valuation and transparency credentials make it all the more extraordinary—and, I dare say, suspicious—that the Bill shuts them out.
My second point—paragraph (b)—is that value must be assessed in the context of the nature, spread and purpose of the assets. Long-term infrastructure behaves differently from assets for liquidity or inflation protection. The question is whether the assets are good value for what they are meant to do. Some assets, or the way in which they are packaged, serve hybrid purposes—as listed investment companies have long done—combining private asset exposure with market liquidity. Directly held assets have fewer fees, but selection and achieving wide diversity are more challenging. LTAFs will package a mix of illiquid and liquid assets and it will be interesting to see how it works over time.
My third point—paragraph (c)—is that value must be seen in the context of the characteristics of members. Those on lower incomes cannot afford excessive risk or prolonged losses; they are more likely to remain in default funds, and trustees will be mindful of that. A more cautious strategy in lower returns may be entirely legitimate for value for money. Trustees must retain the ability to choose strategies that are appropriate for their members, not strategies that score well on a narrow template. This is particularly relevant because assessments created for the DC default funds may well be adopted more widely.
My fourth point—paragraph (d)—concerns the risk of herding. Too much measurement, comparison and advisory consensus can drive correlated strategy. The Bank of England has repeatedly warned about pro-cyclical behaviour and systemic vulnerabilities. A value-for-money framework must not unintentionally reinforce those behaviours; not going with the crowd is sometimes the value-preserving strategy. If we reduce value for money to consensual metrics, we will distort behaviour and risk repeating the mistakes of the charge cap era.
My final point—this is the new one, paragraph (e)—concerns fairness between cohorts. Private assets, especially private equity, typically follow a J-curve: early losses or flat value followed by rising value and, often, high late gains. Gaming or late realisation of value scores high in performance fees. That can be emphasised deliberately or just through the valuation timetable. Thus early cohorts end up bearing the set-up losses while later cohorts—these are long-term assets, so it may be 10 or 20 years later—are the ones that benefit from the late-stage gains. This will be exaggerated, too, if there is back-book adjustment. Performance fees and valuation-linked fees distort fairness over time. If value for money is to be fair, these effects need to be managed—as, indeed, they do for the payment of the pensions.
Additionally, as funds scale, investment will shift from external vehicles to internal management—the models used in Australia and Canada and, increasingly, by Nest and USS in our own pension funds. It will be important to observe how that affects fees and performance.
I strongly support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on member services, which I would have added to my essential list if I had thought of it first—but I did not steal it. I have added my name to the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, on fee transparency, with the caution, again, that we must not repeat the mistakes of the current cost disclosure regimes, which do not properly recognise where costs are borne. I note that it will take more ingenuity than fee percentage transparency to get the full picture out of private equity. I beg to move.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 46A from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, to which I have added my name and which she so eloquently explained. I will speak to my own Amendment 47, which she referred to and which looks at the value-for-money ratings from the point of view of members. For me, that is an extremely important element that is often overlooked when concentrating on the investment side alone—not that that is not important.
I draw the Committee’s attention to some of the specifications that I have made in my Amendment 47, which I think are crucial to understand when one is choosing a pension scheme for one’s workforce. The quality of service for members can be extremely important and can indeed drive adequacy in ways that are not recognised by the investment side. The investment side is of course important, but if quality of service and the education, guidance and support provided to members are working well, that can be a driver to encourage members to increase their contributions. Ultimately, that can be at least on a par in importance with investment performance over time. If members gradually build up their contribution levels to, say, twice what they were before by adding 1% a year every time they get a bonus, that combined with the investment performance can be an extremely powerful driver for value for money over the long run, which is of course where we are meant to be examining and assessing the schemes.
On communications with members, I have specifically included in that what I call “jargon-light” communications, because I have not yet seen a communication with members about pensions that does not include baffling or off-putting terms, including—I will come to this later—the very term “default funds”. We all know what this refers to, but if you are talking to a young worker or someone in later life who is not on a high salary and does not know a lot about pensions and you tell them that what they are supposed to do with their money is to put it into a default fund, that may not sound terribly attractive to them. The last thing that most people want to do with their money is default.
The Minister is looking somewhat askance at my remarks, but this is just one example. I apologise—perhaps she is just looking at something in her notes. Certainly, those are the kind of looks that one sometimes gets from the pensions industry, which does not tend to understand that the ordinary person has never heard of a default fund and it does not sound particularly attractive. If we can include, in communications, words in plain English that may sound more enticing than the usual pension jargon, I think it could be helpful. I would argue that that is potentially a measure of the value offered in a workplace scheme, which is what the ratings are going to be looking at. I hope that the Committee will understand the aims of my specifications in Amendment 47 and, perhaps as we go through, Members of the Committee may suggest other elements.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will be exceedingly brief. I may participate on an occasional basis on this Bill, despite the fact that it is very important. However, we have many people with exceptional expertise in the Room, for which I am extraordinarily grateful.
I have Amendment 167 in a later group on its own, which has relevance to one of the issues raised by my noble friend Lady Bowles in Amendment 46A, in which she introduces the concept that value-for-money regulations must take account of certain factors. Proposed new paragraph (c) particularly interests me, on
“the characteristics of the members of the scheme”.
In all the discussions that I have heard in the Mansion House compact and in the Bill, very little attention is paid to the characteristics of the members of the schemes, because they differ widely. I am particularly concerned that people on low salaries, whose primary savings for pensions and then investment is through auto-enrolment and default funds, have a very different risk profile from those of many people who otherwise engage in pension savings.
This is a group for whom the downside has far more serious consequences than for other groups. Many of us can afford to take a chance with parts of our pensions: if we lose some money, we are still going to be in relative comfort. That is essentially not true for this group. The upside benefit of taking risk and doing well from that risk is nice, but the consequences of taking risk and losing because of that risk are far more serious. I want to draw the Committee’s attention to that issue. As I said, I will pick it up again in Amendment 167, because to me it has been overlooked.
It is key that, when we devise pension arrangements, we recognise the very different risk profiles of members, so that what they are required to do—auto-enrolment and default schemes are in effect a requirement—matches their risk profile. I hope that we will begin to start to shift some of our thinking. There are amendments, in this group and in others, that could help very much with that issue.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
This group of amendments is quite interesting in starting to sketch out what is important in the value-for-money approach that is being adopted through the Bill. I did not know when the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, would speak to Amendment 49 and I will be interested to hear what he has to say on this, because the only other form of occupational pension is, in effect, the defined benefit, where you know what you are getting. I was a bit surprised that he felt that that would need to go further, because that is a direct relationship between somebody and their employer. Nevertheless, I am sure he will explain further.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, has tabled Amendments 55 and 56 to Clause 12, which are sensible, but one thing that concerns me at the start of that clause is the word “may”. We should be beyond that at this stage, which is why I also support my noble friends on the Front Bench in opposing Clause 13 standing part of the Bill. There are just too many ifs, buts and maybes, but when it comes to Clause 13 there is nothing at all. It is just a blank cheque for the future. I am conscious that things can vary over time, but we should be in a position where we are getting some clarity on what will be in these value-for-money assessments so that people can make choices. We should be getting that clarity now. If necessary, we can put down regulations for affirmative procedures but, candidly, I do not think it is good enough that we have this sort of approach to defining what is there for the future.
I say to the Minister that I appreciate that this is a real step forward and I welcome that. People put their money in, they are not exactly sure what return they are getting and they might look every now and again at where it is coming out. I appreciate that there is a whole journey to go on in pensions education, as well as for the trustees, in terms of what is really happening with their advisers who continue to do low-risk, low-reward. I encourage the Minister, however, to come back on Report with a much stronger sketching out of what will be in these assessments, as required by Clause 13. For example, instead of just having the word “may”, have some “must” in there and then open up the power later to adjust as necessary. It is also valuable to be able to repeal.
Amendment 74 concerns the “Duty to formalise the Value for Money framework”; I know that my Front Bench will speak to that shortly. It is a useful exercise to check whether it is working. There are other amendments which basically make comparisons with other pension providers. That gets trickier if it is done at such a detailed level because, again, people might want some basic information on what is happening with their money. To pick at random, they might want their money with Standard Life instead of Scottish Life; if there is some variation, they might want to make a change. It is those sorts of things that I encourage the Minister to have more detail on by the time we reach Report.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, as has been expressed, this group establishes the foundation of the value-for-money framework. We welcome the ambition to improve outcomes for savers. However, the effectiveness of value for money will depend on how it is defined, measured and implemented, and I welcome the comments from the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles, Lady Altmann and Lady Kramer, which elaborated on these points.
I shall concentrate on Amendments 49 and 54 and I hope I can persuade the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that they are of value. These amendments will extend the scope of the Bill’s value-for-money provisions. They ensure that they apply not only to defined contribution schemes but defined benefit occupational pension schemes as well.
The arrangements make it clear that regulations can make different provision for different types of scheme. Critically, however, all schemes must be covered by the value-for-money assessment, with a proper value-for-money rating. Members of DB schemes deserve the same transparency and assurance about value for money as members of DC schemes. DB schemes still represent a significant part of the pensions landscape. Excluding them risks creating an uneven playing field and less scrutiny where it is still needed.
A single, consistent framework across occupational pensions improves comparability, avoids regulatory gaps and ensures that all savers benefit from the same standards of accountability. The two amendments in my name would ensure that the Bill delivers on its promise of value for money across all pension schemes. The measure is simple: every saver in every scheme, whatever its type, deserves value for money. Other noble Lords have expressed this in detail.
The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, spoke about pensions jargon. We are here in a very rarefied atmosphere, where people have some knowledge—I have less than many in the Room—of what pensions are about and what phrases such as “default pensions” mean. We need to make it clear to people who have no interest in pensions other than receiving a cheque at the end of the month at a certain age what it all means. Some people need to be clear about the choices they make, and we need to do as much as we can. These amendments, both those that have been spoken to already and the two in my name, seek to protect people’s interests.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, we come again to a varied group. I shall focus my remarks on the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie. I welcome the contributions from other noble Lords and I look forward to the Minister’s response. We have a few amendments in this group: Amendments 50, 51, 52, 53, 57 and 74, and the Clause 13 do not stand part proposition.
Before I turn to the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie, I will say a few words about the value-for-money framework that sits at the heart of the Bill. The introduction of a value-for-money framework has the potential to be genuinely transformative for workplace pensions if it is designed and implemented well. We support the principle of value for money. However, much of what this legislation seeks to achieve will stand or fall on how the framework is designed, applied and enforced.
As drafted, the provisions are relatively skeletal, despite the pivotal role that value for money is expected to play. If value for money is to drive real improvement rather than box ticking, it must be transparent in its methodology, robust in its metrics and genuinely comparable across schemes. Cost alone cannot be the determining factor. A scheme that is cheap but delivers persistently weak net returns does not represent good value for money for savers. Comparability will be key. Without clear, standardised metrics, there is a risk that value for money simply reinforces price-chasing behaviour rather than improving outcomes. My amendments are therefore intended not to oppose the concept of value for money but to strengthen it, to ensure that it is implemented in a way that improves saver outcomes, respects fiduciary duty and avoids unintended consequences.
I turn to the amendments in more detail. Amendments 50 to 53 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted in the case of Amendment 53, are probing amendments that go to the heart of whether the value-for-money framework established by Clause 11 will operate as a genuinely effective tool for improving saver outcomes.
Clause 11 creates a very broad enabling power. It allows for the creation of a value-for-money framework, but is largely silent on what value for money should actually consist of. Given the centrality of value for money to the Bill as a whole, it is important to test the Government’s intentions on the minimum elements that will underpin the framework.
Amendment 50 would require value-for-money regulations to include publication of a fees-to-returns ratio. The purpose here is straightforward: cost on its own is not value. As I have said, a scheme that is cheap but delivers persistently weak net returns cannot sensibly be said to offer good value to members. If value for money is to be outcome-focused, it must show what savers are receiving relative to what they are paying, rather than allowing headline charges to dominate decision-making.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I am sympathetic to the probing amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger—Amendments 47 and 51 respectively—on value for money, which I alluded to at Second Reading. With any Bill or set of regulations, it is important to have clarity on the intentions and in minimising any unintended risk. That is particularly so when looking at the protection of citizens’ lifetime pension savings.
The FCA, the DWP and TPR have just published their consultation on their detailed proposals for the new value-for-money framework for DC schemes. These proposals come with real bite. When introduced, all relevant DC schemes will have to report on the value that they provide to members across a range of metrics. That assessment report will provide the basis for comparing the value that the scheme provides against other schemes. If a given scheme offers poor value, the firms and trustees must deliver improvements or otherwise transfer their members to a scheme that does provide good value. The framework requires an online central database to capture the disclosure of value-for-money data.
The Bill mandates the framework for contract-based schemes regulated by the FCA. The DWP and TPR will consult on draft regulations for the trust-based schemes. The first value-for-money assessments are expected in 2028. The framework provides for consistent measurement and disclosure on investment performance, costs and service quality; objective and consistent comparison against the market; transparency and disclosure; and action to be taken where a scheme is not delivering value. However, there are clearly concerns—we see them expressed in the briefings that noble Lords have received—that the framework could give rise to problems, which I, too, would like to probe.
The VFM framework provides for forward-looking metrics to be considered alongside backward-looking metrics, with the stated aim of allowing for
“a holistic approach to investment to deliver the best possible long-term outcomes”.
There is a risk that the value-for-money framework could result in herding, as others have alluded to, as schemes seek to avoid poor value assessments. There is also a risk of forward-looking metrics being used to game a scheme’s assessment. I ask the Minister: what guardrails are explicitly allowed for in this Bill to control these risks?
On quality of service, the recently published VFM framework takes a more limited approach to quality service and administration metrics. Furthermore, metrics on how members engage with their pensions have not been included in the framework, but they will be important in informing schemes’ responses to changes, such as guided retirement and the targeted support regime.
Looking ahead, how will these concerns be addressed? Poor-performing schemes that are rated “red”—meaning that they cannot be improved—must transfer out members where it is in their best interests. This is stronger than the originally proposed wording to consider a transfer. It is made possible by the Bill’s provision for a contractual override to allow transfers for contract-based arrangements without members’ consent. However, it is worth noting that some members will have safeguarded benefits. My final question to the Minister is: what will happen to those benefits? It is not clear what mitigations this Bill provides to protect members.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for introducing their amendments and for the debate that followed. The amendments rightly seek an assurance that the VFM framework is strong and effective and they try to clarify how it will take account of a range of important factors that can affect the value that a scheme provides. I regret that I cannot accept them, but I am going to go through the reasons why, as some interesting issues are being raised. Obviously, if I told the Committee that I was going to accept them, noble Lords would all fall over in shock, but this is a good opportunity to get these issues out there.
Let me say at the outset that the aim of the VFM framework is simple: we want to ensure that all savers are in schemes that deliver the best possible long-term outcomes for their retirement. The framework seeks to raise standards across the DC market by driving transparency, comparability and competition on genuine value rather than just on cost—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott.
Clause 11 is deliberately drafted to provide enabling powers that allow the regulations establishing the VFM framework to be developed in consultation with industry and to be adapted as markets evolve. However, the VFM framework must be able to adapt to future financial market developments and to align with the FCA requirements for contract-based schemes. The risk is that hard-wiring any detailed technical criteria or rigid deadlines into primary legislation takes away the flexibility that is genuinely needed. It could get in the way of effective regulation and risks locking in concepts that could become outdated. However, I accept that there is a question around how Parliament gets to scrutinise the detail.
Clauses 11 and 14 set out key features of the VFM regime and provide enabling powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations on how VFM assessments will operate, including the metrics, the benchmarks and the processes that they will have to follow. The regulations will be subject to formal consultation with industry and regulators before being laid in draft for parliamentary approval under the affirmative procedure. In our view, this strikes the right approach: the Bill has the overarching framework in primary legislation while the technical detail is developed transparently through secondary legislation.
However, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, made an important point: Parliament needs to be able to understand what the assessment process will look like. A joint consultation was launched in early January by the FCA and the Pensions Regulator; it will run until 8 March. This consultation is the next step in the process of consultation on the technical-level detail of the framework, which will help to inform development and consultation on draft regulations and draft FCA rules—those are, of course, legal instruments.
I am conscious that some of the amendments were tabled before that consultation was launched. Those noble Lords who are up to their ears in the pensions world will no doubt have read the consultation in detail, but I will make sure that we send any noble Lord who has not done so a summary of, as well as a link to, it. I would be happy to answer any questions, if that would be helpful, but I will unpack the basics of this now.
The consultation sets out updated proposals and detailed draft FCA rules for implementing the VFM framework in the workplace DC pensions market and it reflects stakeholder feedback from the previous FCA consultation. FCA rules will apply to contract-based schemes, whereas regulations made under the powers in the Bill will apply to trust-based schemes. By bringing them together, responses to the consultation will help to inform both the draft DWP regulations and the FCA rules, with the obvious aim of ensuring consistency across trust-based and contract-based schemes. We do not want to end up with any kind of regulatory arbitrage in this or any other area. It is important that we do not pre-empt the outcomes of that process to make sure that we get the details right. Draft regulations will be consulted on.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, it falls to me to do the summation as a stand-in. I thank the Minister for her comprehensive reply. I wish I could speak that fast. It answered quite a lot of the points that I raised. It is obviously quite irritating for us when we commence a Bill and then consultations that provide a lot of the key points and information trail behind the Bill. We spend some time thinking about it and then discover we have to do a consultation response. I do not know how the timings for these things would fit together. Nevertheless, it would be quite nice for some of those key points that are being consulted on to perhaps find their way into the Bill somehow. I just point that out.
What is an Act of Parliament supposed to do? It is supposed to give you the front-end lead-in to what people’s expectations are. They cannot easily be expected to go wandering around on regulator websites and rulebooks, because, my goodness, I find those difficult. Talking about finding things difficult, when I retired from being a Member of the European Parliament, I got a booklet sent through because, for some of my time there, I was in the UK pension fund that applies to MPs and MEPs. This was just after I had finished negotiating all the post-financial crisis financial services legislation. I looked at the scheme rules and I gave up. I lost the will to live and thought, “Well, I’ll just take what comes, thank you very much”. If it is going to do that to me, what is it going to do to the ordinary person? We have to take a lot more care about more gentle lead-ins and simple ways of explaining things. Of course, that was some time ago.
I think we have had quite a good trot around the factors. I would still like to see something distilled from the work that has gone on which is accessible and where people might look for things if they are curious—they might be people representing people—and not have to resort to complicated scheme books and complicated regulator rules. Maybe we will have an update by the time we get to Report on the timings and dates and what has come out of these consultations. I suppose it will be a bit early for that. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Altmann
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to simplify the language in Value for Money assessments, to make them more intuitively understood by members, especially as 'fully delivering' may give an expectation that all required metrics are being fully met.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 58. My remarks will apply to all the other amendments in this group, apart from Amendments 64 and 65, to which I will speak shortly, and Amendment 69 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, which I also support.
My views on this group of amendments follow on from the comments I made earlier about jargon and trying to make pensions more member-friendly—more intelligible to the ordinary person. I believe that this is an extremely important area, having met so many members who simply do not understand what they are being told. The remarks from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, encapsulate some of that: if we cannot understand what we are being told in the communications, neither can members.
It was interesting to see that the original consultation suggestions of red, amber and green, which people would have at least a good chance of understanding, have instead been put into the Bill as “fully delivering”, “intermediate” and “not delivering”. Delivering what? We are talking about value; this is not Ocado or Amazon. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, in her remarks on the first group used the terms “good value” and “poor value” as if they were in the Bill—but they are not. My proposals in these amendments—to change the term “fully delivering” to “good value”, and “not delivering” to “poor value”—simply respond to what most people would expect this clause to tell them. I hope that the Minister understands that. Obviously, this is a probing amendment, so she may prefer other ways to express what we are trying to achieve here, but I hope that the intention behind these amendments will, in some way, feed into both the Bill and how the value-for-money framework will be considered when we develop it. It is a very sketchy framework at the moment.
I take the point about the consultation, but I have a related question. The critical players in moving away from the idea of cost to value, when assessing the merits of any particular scheme being used for the workforce in auto-enrolment, will be the employee benefit consultants. They advise the employers that they currently simply use cost as their major recommendation metric. They are not, in any way, properly scrutinised or regulated. Having done all this work to develop a value-for-money framework, will any attention be given to ensure that the people advising the employers on whether a scheme should be used will properly use the value-for-money framework that we will devise?
Amendments 64 and 65, which are also probing amendments, specifically address the “intermediate” rating, which is designed to have many levels or gradations. However, it seems that all of them could lead to scheme closure. They will all certainly lead to significant costs for a scheme rated “intermediate” due to the extensive reports and explanations that need to be given. My amendments simply seek to avoid significant extra costs, or the risk of scheme disclosure, for schemes that receive an “intermediate” rating on a shorter-term basis. It seems that it is almost possible that a “not delivering” rating will have a similar outcome to an “intermediate” rating because of how the Bill is phrased.
My suggestion is—and it is, as I said, probing and open for discussion and change—that you have to have an intermediate rating every year for, say, four years before the extensive requirements of this section kick in, so that in cases of up to five years you would need to notify the employer if you have changed from a good value to intermediate and the scheme would need to explain why this rating has been given and what plans it has for improvements. That would not be an extensive report, but it would obviously be helpful and would focus the minds of the scheme without the draconian implications that seem implied by the consequences of the intermediate rating as specified in the Bill. That brings me briefly to my support for Amendment 69, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, which probes what the penalties are, how they have been assessed and whether they are appropriate. I beg to move Amendment 58.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, this is an interesting group of amendments. My noble friend has explained the importance of clarity in who decides whether something is fully delivering. I want to ask about the different assessments being made at this point. We are now, effectively, on Clause 15 onwards. We have the ratings coming through. My noble friends on the Front Bench will explain why they do not agree with certain elements. There is merit, however, in trying to work out whether something is taking a nosedive and whether it is it fixable, but we need to be more specific about a reasonable period, and then a prescribed number of VFM periods needs to be put in the Bill, which it is not at the moment.
Thinking through what has been suggested, I am trying to understand how this will work. Clause 13, which we have discussed briefly, has a certain amount of potential calculations. We then have the trustees doing their own assessment, and then we jump forward to Clause 18 and the Pensions Regulator may check. This is all feeling quite random. Normally when we do ratings, the CQC or Ofsted make that judgment, so I am trying to understand how this will work in practice. Are the guidelines going to be fixed—for example, the average or the benchmark across all pension schemes is this, or the FTSE 100 index has changed this much, or the costs are this percentage? It would be helpful to start to get a proper pitch. I appreciate that the consultation may have gone out, but there must be thinking in the Government’s mind, not just the regulator’s, on what “good” looks like. There are risks, as identified by my noble friends, that we may be overburdening to the point that the minutiae become an industry in their own right. I am surprised to see the penalties put in primary legislation, which is unusual nowadays, although I agree that we need a better sense of how that compliance element, as set out in Clause 18, will work alongside the other amendments. My noble friend is right to say that we need to keep this straightforward and simple for people to be able to understand.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
These are obviously probing amendments. They are all to do with the jargon: if we are arguing about the jargon, how much more confused will the normal punter be in trying to understand the jargon. This group focuses on how value for money is expressed, enforced and communicated.
We support the principle that members should be able to understand whether their scheme is performing well. However, value-for-money ratings also carry significant power. They will influence trustee behaviour, in particular, as well as employer decisions and market structure. That makes proportionality and precision essential.
I am particularly concerned about overreliance on short-term performance metrics. Saving for a pension is, or certainly should be, inherently long-term. Schemes should not be penalised for temporary underperformance driven by market cycles or responsible long-term investment strategies.
We also question whether compliance mechanisms become blunt instruments. Labelling schemes “poor value” without clear context may drive consolidation for the wrong reasons, reducing competition without improving outcomes. Clear language matters—I use the word “jargon” once again—but so does nuance. Members need information they can trust, not simplified labels about market complexity.
I have some questions for the Minister. How will this regime distinguish between persistent structural failure and short-term variation? How will it use this intermediate rating? How will it encourage genuine improvement rather than defensive behaviour by trustees? Trustees are meant to be very careful; they will be cognisant of the intermediate position. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s views on that.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, again, this is a substantial group. I will not detain the Committee for too long but, before I turn to my amendments, I briefly welcome those tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. As she set out so clearly, her amendments seek to simplify the language used in value-for-money assessments so that they are more readily and intuitively understood by scheme members. This goes to a point that has arisen repeatedly during our discussions in Committee: many of the concepts in this Bill, as well as the language used to describe them, are dense, technical and difficult to grasp. A considerable level of prior knowledge is often required simply to understand what is being proposed, let alone its practical effect. I am reminded of a remark attributed to Joseph Pulitzer. He said that information should be put before people,
“briefly so that they will read it, clearly so that they will understand it … picturesquely so that they will remember it, and, above all, accurately”.
Surely that is the standard to which we should aspire, in not only this Bill but more broadly in our legislative work. Clarity, intelligibility and accessibility should be central objectives. The language we choose and the way in which we define key terms in legislation are fundamental, yet they are too often treated as secondary concerns.
I therefore warmly welcome the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, precisely because they address this issue head-on. Jargon is easy to reach for, but it is also, in a sense, lazy. When we are constructing a value-for-money framework whose purpose is to communicate value for money, we must be vigilant about terminology that obscures rather than illuminates and about euphemisms and phrases that sound authoritative but fail to convey real meaning. Many noble Lords will be familiar with Eric Blair’s essay, Politics and the English Language, and the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness serve as a timely reminder of some of the lessons it contains.
The first amendments in this group to which I have added my name—Amendments 60 and 61—would remove sub-paragraph (ii) from Clause 15(1)(b) as well as subsection (2). These amendments speak to a simple point: where responsible trustees or managers have determined that a scheme is not delivering value for money, that judgment should be sufficient to justify a rating of “not delivering” without the need to satisfy additional statutory conditions that risk being overly prescriptive.
Trustees already sit at the centre of this framework. They are charged with assessing investment performance, costs, charges, service quality and long-term member outcomes. They are subject to fiduciary duties and regulatory oversight. It is therefore entirely reasonable to trust their professional judgment when they conclude that a scheme is failing to deliver value for money. As the Bill is currently drafted, that judgment must be supplemented by one of a series of defined conditions, whether persistent intermediate ratings, a lack of realistic prospect of improvement or regulatory non-compliance. While well-intentioned, those conditions risk turning what should be a principles-based regime into a mechanistic one, encouraging trustees to focus on meeting thresholds rather than acting decisively in members’ best interests.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I again thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Stedman-Scott, and all noble Lords who have spoken. Let me start with the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. I completely appreciate her desire to make the VFM framework easier for everybody to understand. I recognise there is a need for clarity here and a role for regulators to support member engagement with something as complex as this, but our concern with her proposals is that they would reduce precision and could unintentionally weaken regulatory accountability and undermine comparability across schemes, and those are three pillars on which the VFM framework depends. There is a genuine challenge here, which is to balance technical accuracy with clarity for members. Obviously, the latter will help to overcome the kind of behavioural inertia that we all see and so will ensure that VFM assessments result in meaningful action, not just awareness.
That is distinct from the regulatory precision required for the VFM system, which is why these terms are in the Bill. That current wording of “fully delivering” and “not delivering” is not accidental: it is designed to reflect objective compliance with all the mandated metrics: costs and charges, investment performance, governance and member outcomes. The terms provide clarity for trustees and regulators about whether a scheme meets the required standards. Replacing them with “good value” and “poor value”, even if it sounds attractive on the surface, would introduce subjectivity. Good value is not a regulatory test. It risks creating ambiguity about what triggers action when a scheme falls short.
Members deserve clarity and I absolutely agree that language should be understandable. However, the right place for explaining concepts to members is in disclosures and guidance, not primary legislation. We intend to work with the Pensions Regulator, the FCA and industry to ensure that member-facing communications such as rating notifications to employers and the regulator-supporting guidance, which will be aligned with the implementation of VFM, explain these outcomes in plain English that is suitable for its intended audience. I take the challenge from the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Bowles, about how to make sure that happens. That is something I am really happy to reflect on quite carefully. However, changing the statutory terms dilutes precision, creates inconsistency and risks uncertainty. Our approach preserves enforceable standards while committing to clear, accessible explanations for members.
Amendments 64 and 65 from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, would limit the powers the Government have to specify the consequences for pension schemes that have had an intermediate VFM rating for fewer than five years in a row. Let me pause before I answer that to come back to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, who always asks clear questions. One of her questions was “How is this going to work, anyway?” Let me give a very quick rundown, subject to time. The consultation sets out updated proposals—they were updated in response to the previous consultation—and draft FCA rules, showing how the VFM framework will work. The paper sets out the proposed metrics for performance, costs, charges and service quality. It outlines how the assessment process will work. It gives more details around the ratings structure and the consequences associated with each rating. Basically, trustees of in-scope DC workplace pension schemes and arrangements will have to publish standardised performance metrics and follow a consistent and comparative assessment of value to assign an overall VFM rating. The regulator will ensure compliance with those obligations and will have the ability to enforce transfer of savers—I will come back to that in a moment—from consistently poorly performing arrangements.
I said that the consultation had changed. There were five key changes from the previous consultation. The most relevant one here proposes, in response to feedback, the adoption of a four-point rating system: red, amber, light green and dark green. There was strong pressure to have more granularity, so that it was not quite as stark. I make it clear that it is only amber that could lead to possible enforced transfer. I hope that is helpful.
A good question is “How will members know what ‘fully delivering’ means?” Obviously, we are not proposing to use the Bill’s terminology when communicating ratings to members. Instead, the schemes will use the four-point RAGG rating. Red corresponds to not delivering, amber and light green to intermediate performance and dark green to fully delivering. It is proposed that this more accessible and granular terminology will be used in the assessment reports published by all schemes at the end of 2028, and the reports will be made publicly available. Guidance will also include plain English explanations and a summary of metrics so that members understand what the outcome means for them.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
In what the Minister has just described, I do not quite understand how dark green and light green fit with “fully delivering”. Only dark green would be fully delivering, so why is light green not in the intermediate category? To me, this is quite confusing. I understand what the Minister is saying, but I urge her to work with whoever is devising this to iron out this kind of confusion at this stage, rather than running with it, as seems to be the intention here.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
We are still consulting on this. We consulted on the initial proposal and the response came back that more granularity was needed. We have to accept that clarity pulls in one direction and precision and granularity pull in the other, so the job of the Government is to support the regulator in making sure that we end up with a framework that does its primary job, which is not just to work out where a scheme is now but what the right consequences are for that scheme and then to make sure that is communicated to those who need to know in ways that are appropriate. On the one hand, the noble Baroness wants clear, strict categories, and on the other she wants to have different consequences for schemes depending on their circumstances. We think it is important to be able to judge appropriately and come up with a scheme. I would be happy to write to point out all the areas and explain more about how this works, but the point is that this needs to be understood by those who will do the assessments and the communication of the results of that has to be in the right language for those who need to understand them. As the noble Baroness knows as well as I do, it is the nature of pensions that the challenge is that marketing simple language does not map neatly onto precise legal language. I hope that at least explains what we are trying to do on that.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My worry is we have a term “fully delivering” in this legislation. It does not seem to me that very many schemes are likely to be fully delivering, even in a light green capacity. Therefore, I think we are already sowing the seeds of confusion if we go along this route. That is all.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am going to explain a little bit about the consequences because the thing that matters most is the consequences. Amber schemes may be required to close to new employers. Red schemes must close to new employers. I am just getting that down for the record, which suggests that I probably did not say that a moment ago. Just to be really clear, amber schemes may close to new employers; red schemes must close to new employers. Much nodding, I hope, from behind me. Great sighs of relief all round. Excellent.
Let me come on to the consequences of this. On Amendments 64 and 65 from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, we think that making reporting less comprehensive, even for schemes with intermediate ratings, could reduce the early warning signals on which regulators will rely to protect savers. I fully understand her desire to make this reporting proportionate. The current framework is designed to strike a balance. Powers are designed to enable the Government to ensure that trustees keep sponsor employers informed and that any issues are addressed promptly via the improvement plan without putting unnecessary burden on schemes. The noble Baroness may want to note this bit. The Secretary of State has discretion under Clause 16 on the consequences of an intermediate rating and could require different consequences to flow from different levels of intermediate rating. It is not the intention that a requirement to close the scheme to new employers would necessarily flow from all intermediate ratings. I think that is what she is shooting at, so I hope that helps to reassure her. That enables some flexibility around the consequences for pension schemes that have, for example, received an intermediate rating for fewer than five years, which is the space that she was shooting into just now.
Changing the powers as suggested risks missing the signs that a scheme may be heading into trouble. Early sight of any negative impact on a scheme’s performance and value really matters. I am sure that the Committee agrees that it is better to catch problems sooner rather than later and to put in a plan to remedy things, ensuring that schemes provide value and avoiding harm to members and greater costs in the long run.
The amendment suggests that schemes should face full reporting only if performance issues continue for five years or more, but five years is a long time for problems to go unchecked. I think members deserve better protection than that. We certainly would not want to see situations where savers are left in a poorly rated scheme for many years. That is why we propose to give schemes in the intermediate rating a period of up to two VFM assessment cycles to make the improvements needed to provide value to their savers.
I know that Amendments 60, 61 and 69 from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, are probing amendments that want to challenge and clarify the terms “reasonable period” and “relevant period”. The relevant period is the VFM period, or rather the annual reporting timescale for data collection assessment against VFM metrics, which we expect to run from January to December of the preceding calendar year. We expect to set that out in regulations following consultation. The reasonable period is a period during which the regulator would normally expect the scheme to deliver value for money. Due to the level of detail this will involve, this will all be outlined in regulations. We will, of course, formally consult on draft regulations, and I am more than happy to make sure that we engage with interested noble Lords during the consultation to provide an opportunity to feed thoughts into that. The finer proposals behind the VFM ratings, such as the conditions under which each rating will apply and when they should be used, are outlined in the joint consultation which is currently open and will be provided in full in regulations.
Turning to Clause 18, Amendment 69 seeks to understand the rationale for the maximum penalty levels for non-compliance set out in subsection (5). As pension schemes grow in size, it is vital that the fines we impose on schemes carry real financial weight. This ensures that compliance and enforcement remain effective, safeguard members’ interests and, of course, maintain confidence in the system. These figures represent a significant deterrent against non-compliance while not being overly excessive in the current market landscape. We have worked closely with regulatory bodies and taken care to ensure the penalties align with other powers taken in Part 2 of this Bill. We believe the figures are proportionate to both the current and future scale of schemes.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I am keen to get a sense of what the Government think the current spread is between the different ratings. For example, what proportion might be red? Is there any sense of this at all?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am absolutely not going to answer that. If there is answer which is known to me, then I will be happy to share it with her, but it certainly not known to me.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and the Minister for her responses and patience with the comments made, especially by me. I have ongoing reservations but will obviously look carefully at the consultation. I would be grateful if we might have a further discussion before Report, because this is a crucial area, for employers and members. Perhaps we can bring this back in some form to iron out this huge intermediate range that could have a wide variety of implications that might be quite costly—I know how much these reports cost when you try and commission them—to schemes that may be having a bad performance patch for a year or two, but for understandable reasons. I thank the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment would replace the 12-month dormancy period with an 18-month period in order to test the rationale for the Government’s chosen timeframe.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, supported by my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott, I am glad to be leading off in another group of amendments, largely designed to probe the Government and clarify their thinking, plans and rationale on the small pots regulations in the Bill. Indeed, I know that many industry bodies are watching our proceedings with interest and will be taking note of what the Minister says. This is after we had a series of meetings with those at the sharp end in the industry, as she will probably guess.
I will speak briefly to the other amendments in this group before turning to my own. First, I speak to the amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, who is not in his place, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. Ensuring that a qualifying dashboard service has been available for a period before small pots can be consolidated seems an entirely sensible and proportionate measure. If we are to move pension savings automatically, often without an active decision by the member, it is surely right that individuals should first have a practical opportunity to see and trace their pots in one place and to engage with them themselves.
I also welcome Amendment 81 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, which, as I understand it, would ensure that a pot is not treated as dormant where contributions have ceased for a legitimate and expected reason, such as a temporary break from employment with an intention to return. This strikes me as a pragmatic refinement that would better reflect real-world working patterns and help to ensure that consolidation targets genuine dormancy rather than planned inactivity. I have no doubt the Minister will explain that in more elegant terms than me.
Amendment 88, in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes, addresses the definitions set out in Clause 34, which itself gives the Secretary of State a broad power to alter the definition of a “small” pension pot, including increasing the threshold, with no upper limit set in the Bill. The amendment would retain flexibility but place a clear ceiling on how far that power could be used. I look forward to my noble friend’s remarks. I know that my noble friend will expand on that point, but I would be grateful if the Minister could also explain why an upper limit is not currently included and how the Government envisage safeguarding against this power being used to capture significantly larger costs in the future. That is an important question that I hope will be raised.
I turn to my first amendment in this group, Amendment 79, which would replace the 12-month dormancy period in Clause 22 with an 18-month period. This is a probing amendment intended to test the rationale for the Government’s choice of a 12-month timeframe. The definition of “dormant” is critical, because once a pot meets that definition it may become eligible for automatic consolidation with no active decision by the member. Many savers engage with their pensions only intermittently, often on an annual basis, and employment patterns do not always follow neat or predictable cycles. Therefore, extending the period to 18 months would allow the Committee to explore whether a full year of inactivity is genuinely sufficient to infer disengagement, or whether it risks capturing individuals who are simply between roles or engaging on a longer cycle.
I want to be clear that this amendment does not seek to undermine the policy of small pots consolidation, which, as the Minister knows, we broadly support. Rather, it is intended to probe how the Government have balanced administrative efficiency with member protection, and what evidence has informed the choice of a 12-month period rather than a longer one. I would therefore welcome the Minister’s explanation of how this timeframe was determined, and whether alternative periods were considered.
Amendment 80 would leave out Clause 22(3)(b). This too is a probing amendment; it is intended to explore what the Government mean by the reference to “prescribed exceptions” in the definition of a dormant pension pot. As drafted, Clause 22(3)(b) assumes that a pot may be treated as dormant not only by reference to contribution inactivity but by whether a member has taken steps to confirm or alter how their pot is invested, subject to exceptions that are left entirely to regulations. Many savers remain in default investment arrangements by choice and engage with their pensions only intermittently, often in ways that are not easily captured by scheme records. Therefore, it is not clear what types of member action the Government intend should prevent a pot being treated as dormant, nor what kinds of behaviour might be carved out as exceptions.
This amendment is intended to prove whether investment-related actions are an appropriate proxy for engagement, how prescribed exceptions will operate in practice and whether the approach adequately reflects real-world member behaviour. I would welcome the Minister’s clarification on how these exceptions are envisaged and why this test has been included in the definition of dormancy.
Finally, my Amendment 82 concerns the level of parliamentary scrutiny applied to regulations made under Clause 22. As drafted, the Bill applies the affirmative procedure to only the first set of small pots regulations or regulations that meet certain specific triggers. Thereafter, changes to the consolidation regime may be made under the negative procedure. This amendment is probing and is not dissimilar to one raised previously in Committee. It is intended to test whether that approach provides sufficient ongoing parliamentary oversight. The regulations made under Clause 22 will govern when and how small dormant pension pots may be consolidated, often without an active decision by the member, and they therefore go to the heart of member protection and confidence in the system itself.
The amendment would require all such regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise and approve changes to this framework wherever they are made, not just at first use. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why the Government consider the negative procedure appropriate for subsequent regulations in this area, and whether there are safeguards to prevent significant policy changes being made without fuller parliamentary scrutiny. I thank in advance the Minister for her comments and answers and all other noble Lords for their contributions on this group, which I feel concerns an important matter. I beg to move.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, my Amendment 81 is very small; I hardly need to say anything about it. It came from one of those occasions when you are going through the Bill and you write a little query which you then convert into an amendment. It concerns Clause 22(3)(b), which says that a pension pot can be moved into a consolidator if
“the individual has, subject to any prescribed exceptions, taken no step to confirm or alter the way in which the pension pot is invested”.
There are instances in which a person may want to stay attached to a pension fund they have in a workplace, particularly if they do not necessarily have a long relationship with an employer or have done some intermittent work and then gone off to have a family, because they may have an informal agreement to go back. How do you cater for that? I realise that it might just fall under “any prescribed exceptions”, which you write in a note to deal with, but that is the basis of the amendment. I am sure it will be very simple for the Minister to say, “Yes, that is covered”.
While I am on my feet, I support Amendment 83. I also support Amendment 88 from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, because it is worth having some guardrails for things that are doing very well.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 88 proposes to limit the power in Clause 34 to increase the size of the pot classified as small so that it is limited to £10,000. I welcome the fact that the power to make regulations under Clause 34 has to be consulted on and that they will be subject to the affirmative procedure, but we know that Parliament has close to zero power to alter the content of regulations, so it is important that the guardrails around the power are sufficiently strong.
There is widespread acceptance in the industry that there should be consolidation of small pots of £1,000 or less. I understand that there are already around 13 million pots of that size, and that is predicted to rise to over 30 million in only a few years’ time, so this is clearly an important issue. There is a concern, however, that the Clause 34 power could be used beyond its core purpose, which is to ensure that multiple small pots do not accumulate within pension providers and that individuals do not lose track of their own pension pots. It is one thing to use the power for sensible tidying up, but it would be quite another if the power were used to drive further consolidation, for example, which would not necessarily be in the interests of either savers or pension providers.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, this is an interesting part. It recognises a lot of our labour market, where people are working with multiple employers over a variety of time periods. Even those young people who were on the Kickstart scheme will have got contributions to a pension scheme, which they may completely forget about once they go to their next, perhaps longer-term, job.
I remember a few years ago the lovely people over in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. They have a “good purposes” fund where they go after dormant assets all over the place and take them away, with a general promise that the money will come back if somebody tries to get it. I seem to recall telling them to jog on when it came to pension funds, although some negotiation might have been arranged.
I am just trying to understand how all of this is going to fit together. That is why I think Amendment 83 is particularly helpful; basically, it says that the pensions dashboard must be in place. This is about making an informed choice. One of the things I am trying to understand is whether Clause 22(3)(b), which my noble friends on the Front Bench have suggested should be removed, is passive and non-engaged. Will the trustees running the scheme be required to make some effort to try to contact that person so that it does not just slide away without people even realising?
In terms of the other aspect, I assume, under Amendments 80 and 81, it is right to try to get into some more detail about prescribing, which could perhaps be further enhanced by just getting to understand in Clause 25 what the Minister is thinking at this point, especially when it suggests that the trustees or managers of a scheme can determine whether it is the best interests for this to transfer or not. Are we talking about, say, people who are in prison, people who have gone abroad or people who are on a career break? It would be helpful to have a sense of what Ministers are thinking in terms of having this variety of powers, first, to be able to do it, but then to say, “Actually, we’ll leave it to the managers or trustees of the scheme to determine whether it is that person’s best interests”. I would be grateful for some understanding, again, of how this might work in practice, but the solution will definitely be Amendment 83 and I hope that the Minister will give that consideration for Report.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, this is an appropriate time to stand, because Amendment 83 is signed by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and by me. In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, today, and having discussed the matter with him, I speak on my behalf and his to Amendment 83. As has been stated, it is intended to deal with the risk that consolidating small pots might worsen the problem of lost or forgotten pensions.
We are all aware of the problem of people losing track of small pension pots: a problem that has increased in recent years as people tend to move between jobs more frequently, and may therefore end up with several small pensions, perhaps from many years ago. Chapter 2 of the Bill allows the Government to make regulations to consolidate small, dormant pension pots. I, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, support this as we believe that providing additional scale to small, dormant pots should enable greater efficiencies and a reduction in costs.
However, a possible unintended consequence could be to make it more difficult for a person to trace a forgotten pot if it is moved to a consolidator without their knowledge: for example, if any notice is sent to an old address. The introduction of a pension dashboard, as enabled by the Pension Schemes Act 2021, was intended to make it easier for people to identify pensions that they have lost track of or even forgotten. This has been somewhat delayed, but progress does, at last, seem to be happening. The connection deadline is October 2026, so hopefully people may start to be able to access the dashboard in the not-too-distant future.
In order to avoid making the problem of lost pensions worse, Amendment 83, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and myself, simply says that the regulations that would mandate the consolidation of a dormant, small pot could not be made until the dashboard had been available for at least three months. The three months is designed to give a bit of time to ensure that it is actually working and that any teething issues have been resolved. I think it prudent to ensure that we do not cause unintended consequences from what is otherwise a good policy, I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to the intention of the course outlined in Amendment 83.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 83, which has received wide support. I think it is really important, as is the idea of lengthening the 12-month period for so-called dormant pots, and Amendment 81 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, where, for example, a woman may take time off to care for children or other loved ones and intends to return, but her pension will have been moved before she gets back. Those are distinct possibilities under this scheme. We are talking about moving somebody’s savings—or investments; I am doing it myself—from one place to another, just because they have not done anything with their pension for a while. The pension fund is not meant to have anything done with it when you are younger; it is meant to just sit there and stay there.
Of course, the big problem that needs to be solved here is the costs to providers of administering all these very small pots. But the aim of the dashboard itself is meant to be to help people move their pots from one place to another. It seems to me that this particular section of the legislation is trying to deal with something that is meant to be dealt with by a different policy area. The consolidators, of course, will be attractive to providers to establish, and the money saving from not administering these small pots will also be attractive to the providers. But have the Government given any consideration to the idea of making, for example, NEST the consolidator? That is a Government-sponsored scheme. It has obviously had to have reasonable charges. Any transfers do not incur an upfront fee. That would run less of a risk of having consolidators that end up perhaps not performing well.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I understand what the noble Baroness is saying about NEST. It is a brilliant organisation. But my recollection is that it does charge 2% on the transfer of assets into it. That is not something we should be particularly encouraging.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
No. I was just saying, if you transfer assets in, that 2% charge does not apply and will not apply. Otherwise, obviously, it would be uneconomic. But I understand that the idea of NEST is that the transfer in of a pension from another provider does not incur the upfront charge of, I think, 1.8%. So that would not be an issue. It is just a 0.3% flat fee. I hope the Minister will be able to respond on that element. There is a residual risk to government in moving somebody’s long-term assets from one provider to another if the other provider eventually proves not to deliver good value.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this. I will start by addressing the proposed amendments to Clause 22. I will say at the start that we regard this clause as being a vital measure to tackle the structural inefficiency caused by the ever-greater proliferation of small, dormant pension pots in the auto-enrolment market. It empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations to consolidate these pots into authorised consolidator schemes, improving outcomes for pension savers and reducing unnecessary costs to providers.
Amendments 79 and 80, from the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, seek to extend the dormancy period for a pot to be considered eligible for automatic consolidation from 12 months to 18 months. We concluded that the 12-month period strikes the right balance between legislative clarity and administrative practicality. The timeframe was consulted on extensively with industry in 2023, under the previous Government. I suspect the noble Viscount was the Minister, so he may recall this well. Twelve months represents a supported middle ground: long enough to ensure that pots are genuinely dormant but not so long as to delay consolidation unnecessarily. Extending the period to 18 months would create inefficiencies and higher costs for both savers and providers, and slow progress towards consolidation.
Amendment 80 proposes removing subsection (3)(b) from Clause 22 as a means of probing the circumstances in which a pot should not be treated as dormant. This was picked up, slightly glancingly, by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, as well. I make it clear that the scope of the policy is deliberately aimed at unengaged savers in default funds, where fragmentation poses the greatest risk to value for money and retirement outcomes. It is not designed to consolidate pots from those who are engaged and have made active decisions about their pension.
The exceptions provision is designed for cases where investment choices have been made that are driven by factors other than active financial management, such as religious belief. For example, following the consultation in 2023, sharia-compliant funds emerged as a suitable case for this. The aim was to ensure that savers in those funds remain eligible for consolidation and the benefits it brings, because, even though they have made a choice to be in a sharia-compliant fund, Clause 22 would allow schemes to differentiate that choice from other forms of pension engagement which might indicate that the member would not want their pot to be moved. I make it clear that anyone brought into scope under these exceptions will retain the option to opt out, so member autonomy is preserved, and consolidated schemes would need to offer a sharia-compliant option for consolidation to ensure that members’ wishes continued to be recognised and respected.
Although the power allows for wider exceptions in future, proportionality is key. For example, it would not be appropriate to consolidate members in ethical funds into a default fund; nor is it feasible for consolidators to cater to every ethical fund in the market. However, this flexibility would ensure that the framework could evolve if another religious or other fund reached sufficient scale. It balances the inclusion of disengaged savers with the need to limit complexity, cost and operational burden for authorised consolidator schemes; that is crucial to ensure that the automatic consolidation model remains viable.
Again, to be clear, this is not about bringing into scope people who do not want to be consolidated; it is about ensuring that those who are likely disengaged on pension saving are not automatically excluded from consolidation and its benefits simply because of their religious beliefs. For clarity, I note that, similarly, this clause does not allow or compel a pension scheme to move someone who has not selected a sharia-compliant fund into a sharia-compliant fund.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I will conclude fairly briefly. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and the Minister for her reply. I thank in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. I see, as the Minister pointed out, that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, is in his place, which has, if I may put it this way, hitherto been dormant.
As we have discussed, the amendments in this group are designed to test how the framework will operate in practice and whether the balance struck is the right one. In particular, they probe how dormancy is defined; how member behaviour is interpreted; and how far Parliament will continue to have oversight as the regime evolves.
I have a few points to make in winding up. First, it would be helpful to hear from the Minister more details about how members can be reunited with their dormant pots—or, indeed, find their missing pots. I particularly look forward to hearing an update about the dashboard. May I make a request? It would be helpful to have more granular detail on how it would work and the different aspects of an individual’s experience in using the dashboard service. I remember that, when I was in the department, I was thoroughly briefed on it; it is a very big, important and interesting project. I am sure that the Committee would appreciate that particular type of update.
My second point was made by my noble friend Lady Noakes when she said that Clause 22 gives significant powers. She was right in saying that there is no real underlying purpose and that there are concerns around the constraints. More granular detail on the definition of small pots is required; as my noble friend said, bearing in mind their value and growth in future, more clarity needs to be given.
Finally, I want to make two points about the 12-month dormancy period that the Minister raised. We will consider what she said about 12 months being the right balance rather than extending, as we proposed. I will also read Hansard concerning her points about the affirmative procedure versus the negative one; I carefully noted what she said.
To conclude, the powers in this chapter are substantial. The point we are making—and, indeed, the points that other noble Lords have made—is that clarity around definitions, proportionality in timeframes, transparency, and how exceptions and future changes will be handled will be essential if members are to feel secure, rather than sidelined by the process. With that summary, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(6) Transfer notices must be clear, concise, and accessible to all members, including those with low financial literacy or limited digital access.(7) Transfer notices must also be provided in prescribed alternative formats for digitally-excluded, visually-impaired, or otherwise vulnerable members.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures transfer notices are easy to understand and available in alternative formats so that all members, including vulnerable or digitally-excluded individuals, can engage meaningfully with transfer decisions.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I shall address each amendment in this group briefly in turn to provide some of the context and rationale for why we have introduced them. First, Amendments 84 and 85 relate to Clause 24. These amendments are concerned with how this policy will operate in practice and whether it does so in a way that is fair, comprehensible and properly accountable. Clause 24 places significant weight on the transfer notice. It is the principal mechanism by which an individual is informed that their pension pot may be transferred automatically if they do not respond. In many cases, silence will result in action, which makes the quality and accessibility of that notice critical.
Amendment 84 therefore seeks to ensure that transfer notices are clear, concise and accessible to all members, including those with low financial literacy or limited digital access. It also requires that notices be available in prescribed alternative formats for members who are digitally excluded, visually impaired or otherwise vulnerable. I took note of the Minister’s remarks about definitions that may need to be properly defined—better defined than I can define them—in legally recognisable terms, and I recognise that.
As we discussed earlier today, we are all aware that pensions communications can be complex and intimidating, even for those who are relatively engaged. We need only to remind ourselves of the challenges experienced in recent years over pension credit communications. I think my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lady Stedman-Scott have had some experience of that. I will leave it at that.
For individuals with small dormant pots, often lower earners, those with fragmented work histories or those disengaged from pensions altogether, the risk is that they simply do not understand what is being proposed or do not realise that inaction has consequences. Often, it is fair to say that pension communications, when received, are by default put in the too-difficult box or the another-day box or in a convenient receptacle placed on the floor—I will leave it at that. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, made a similar point in her remarks on an earlier group, but it is a serious point. If the policy depends on member engagement, it is only reasonable that the communication is genuinely capable of being understood. Amendment 84 would simply put that principle in the Bill.
Amendment 85 addresses a different but related concern about oversight and accountability. As drafted, the clause requires transfer notices to be issued, but does not require anyone to monitor how many notices are sent, how members respond or what outcomes are produced. Amendment 85 would place a duty on the Secretary of State through regulations to record and report annually on the number of transfer notices issued and the outcomes arising from them. This matters for two reasons. First, it allows Parliament to assess whether the policy is working as intended. Are members actively choosing options or are transfers overwhelmingly occurring by default? Are certain cohorts disproportionately disengaged? Without data, we simply cannot know. Secondly, it ensures that responsibility for this policy does not rest solely with schemes and regulators but remains subject to ministerial oversight and parliamentary scrutiny, which is particularly important where automatic processes affect individual savers. I hope the Minister will see these amendments as seeking to address important points that will make this part of the Bill work more effectively, and I look forward eventually to hearing her response. I listened very carefully to her remarks on communications and customer service in an earlier group.
Let me now address our Clause 31 stand part notice; noble Lords will be aware that, as set out in its explanatory statement, this is intended as probing. This clause contains a wide enabling provision that allows Ministers, through regulations on small pots, to confer functions; create appeal rights; require extensive data processing; amend primary legislation; and, most notably, authorise the Pensions Regulator to charge prescribed fees in connection with authorisation under the regime. My concern is not that these powers exist at all but that the clause gives us little indication of how they will be constrained in practice. In particular, can the Minister explain how the fee-charging power for the Pensions Regulator will operate? Will fees be strictly limited to cost recovery? How will their level be set? What parliamentary scrutiny will apply?
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, have done the Committee a great service. I wish to flag up that these amendments are really important for us to consider before we come back on Report.
The noble Viscount’s comments on Clause 31 potentially being dangerous are right on the mark. Many of the wide powers suggested here should say “must” rather than “may”, but they say only “may”. We are talking about moving somebody’s money, potentially without their knowledge; yes, we will have to write to them, but we know very well that many schemes have dormant pots because either they have lost track of the members or the members have lost track of the scheme. There is a danger here in public policy terms.
In connection with this policy area, the Minister mentioned at the beginning of the debate that there are risks to members and providers. I understand the risks to providers of having small pots, as well as the costs of administering them being higher than the fees they receive from managing them, but what is the risk to the member of having their money stay where it is until they come along and ask for it to be moved? There are risks in leaving as well as in staying if they are moved into a scheme that is less suitable for them, performs less well or has a different charging structure.
What if the member is away for a couple of years on a secondment, for example? What kind of protections will there be? Pensions are typically designed to be left alone. Having default funds, making regular contributions and not being able to take any of your money back until you are 55, for example, are part of the whole structure—indeed, the intention—of private pensions. Is there any intention to ensure, for example, that the member and the dashboard have been operational? I know the Minister said—we talked about this in the previous group—that there might be conflicts between the intention of the small pots legislation and the timing of the requirements relative to the timing of the dashboard, but if a member is moved and it is discovered that they are suffering a loss as a result of the move because their scheme was better or because they have come back to that scheme after a temporary absence, is there any consideration of who might be responsible for any compensation due for money that was moved when the member might well have known nothing about it?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, for introducing his amendments. I should have said at the beginning of the previous group that I thank him for his support for this policy. I recognise that he has tabled his amendments in the spirit of exploring how best to make this work.
Let me start with the proposed amendments to Clause 24, which is a key part of the framework to enable the consolidation of small dormant pension pots. It sets out requirements for transfer notices: communications that inform members when their pot is due to be moved into an authorised consolidator scheme. These notices are an important safeguard, ensuring transparency and giving members the opportunity to opt out if they wish to. Amendment 84 proposes that the transfer notices must be clear, concise, accessible and so on and must be provided in prescribed alternative formats for digitally excluded or visually impaired members.
I fully support this principle, but we think the amendment is not needed because the objectives are already embedded in the Government’s approach. The Bill provides powers to set detailed requirements for transfer notices in secondary legislation, and we have committed to consult to ensure that notices are simple, jargon-free and easy to understand. Moreover, existing regulatory standards and guidance already require schemes to provide communications in accessible formats for vulnerable members, including those who are digitally excluded or visually impaired. We do not think that overlaying additional prescriptive requirements in primary legislation is helpful, but the underlying point is very strong. We need a framework that can evolve as technology and members’ needs change. Locking rigid requirements into the Bill could hinder that process, so we think the right place for these detailed standards is in guidance and regulation, where they can be updated as best practice develops.
Amendment 85 would require the Secretary of State to record and report annually on the number of transfer notices issued and the outcomes arising from them. Again, although I understand the intent, we do not think this amendment is proportionate, given the administrative burden that it would impose. The DWP already has robust mechanisms for monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of pensions policy, including through regular engagement with the Pensions Regulator and industry reporting. We will continue to publish updates on the progress of small pots consolidation as part of our wider reporting on pensions reform. The focus should remain on ensuring that the policy delivers better outcomes for members, reducing fragmentation, improving value for money and supporting a market of fewer, larger schemes. We believe that this can be achieved through existing oversight arrangements and targeted evaluation, rather than setting rigid reporting requirements in primary legislation.
I recognise that the Clause 31 stand part notice has been tabled to probe the extent and scope of the small pots regulations enabled by this clause, with particular focus on the powers conferred on the Pensions Regulator to levy fees. For clarity, Clause 31 does not create new powers beyond those already set out within the small pots measure. Its purpose is to provide clarity and detail on how those powers can be exercised to deliver the small pots consolidation framework effectively. This mirrors the approach taken with the authorisation of master trusts, for example, under the Pension Schemes Act 2017, where fees were introduced to ensure that the costs of regulatory oversight are borne by those seeking authorisation, not by the taxpayer. This is a well-established and proportionate mechanism that supports robust regulation while maintaining fairness.
As already discussed elsewhere, we believe that the clauses within this chapter strike a careful balance. They ensure that key regulations get full parliamentary scrutiny through the affirmative procedure, while allowing the Government to act quickly on minor or technical changes via the negative procedure when necessary.
Clause 31 sets out the circumstances where the use of a Henry VIII power may be required. To be clear, this is about ensuring that the legislation delivers a workable and proportionate framework. The Henry VIII power provides necessary flexibility to apply existing technical and procedural legislation to small pots regulation in order to ensure the effective implementation of the small pots regime. I shall give an example. It may be necessary to make consequential amendments to the Pensions Act 2004 so that the Pensions Regulator’s existing administrative powers can extend appropriately to the small pots framework. An example in the Bill is the amendment to Section 146 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 to ensure that the remit of the Pensions Ombudsman is broad enough to investigate complaints or disputes in relation to the destination proposer, but this cannot be legislated for before final decisions around the delivery model are made. That is a good example of why this would work. Of course, any regulations made under this power will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
We think that that flexibility is essential for the effective implementation of the small pots regulations. Any regulations made under this power will be affirmative, but it is also worth noting that, given what I have said, removing Clause 31 would reduce the clarity for members and pension schemes on how the power to make small pots regulations may be used.
Finally, I will address the proposed amendments to Clause 32. Clause 32 is essential to maintaining trust and integrity in the small pots consolidation framework. It ensures that the Pensions Regulator can take direct action to uphold compliance with the regulations, protecting members and supporting the volume of transfers required accurately. Amendment 86 seeks to remove subsection (2) as a means of probing the expansion of regulatory powers conferred on the Pensions Regulator. Subsection (2) provides transparency for stakeholders by setting out the types of enforcement tools that may be included in regulations, such as compliance notices, third-party compliance notices and penalty notices. These are not new concepts; they align with the Pensions Regulator’s existing practices and procedures in other areas of pensions regulation. Removing this provision would not prevent enforcement powers being introduced in regulations, but it would remove clarity for schemes and members. Without it, we risk creating ambiguity and undermining confidence in the framework. This clause is not about overreach, but about ensuring that the regulator can act proportionately and effectively where schemes fail to meet their legal duties.
Finally, Amendment 87 seeks to remove Clause 32(4) to probe the rationale behind the maximum penalty limits. Subsection (4) provides clear, proportionate caps on financial penalties: £10,000 for individuals and £100,000 in any other case. These limits have been increased compared to existing frameworks to reflect the importance of compliance in this area. As pension schemes grow in size, it is vital that the fines we impose on schemes carry real financial weight. This ensures that compliance and enforcement remain effective, safeguard members’ interests and maintain confidence in the system. These amounts align with the wider compliance regime across the Bill. Without this subsection, regulations could still introduce penalties, but without any statutory cap. That would create uncertainty for schemes and could lead to disproportionate outcomes. By contrast, the current approach provides transparency and safeguards, ensuring penalties are significant enough to deter non-compliance but not excessive. It also enables appeals to the First-tier or Upper Tribunal, guaranteeing procedural fairness and accountability.
In conclusion, Clause 32 is not about granting unchecked powers; it is about providing clarity, proportionality and effective enforcement to protect members and deliver the outcomes this policy is designed to achieve. Removing this provision would create uncertainty and risk undermining confidence in the system.
The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, asked me a question that I think related more to the previous group, but let me see what I can do. Why do we need small pot consolidation if we have the pensions dashboard? I think her question was slightly underpinned by the question, why do we need this at all, why can we not just use dashboards? We think they serve different but complementary roles in strengthening the system.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I will be pretty brief in closing. Across this group, the common theme is not opposition to the direction of travel—I give further reassurance to the Minister on this point and I appreciate her remarks—but a desire for clarity, proportionality and accountability as these powers are taken and exercised. I am very grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and indeed for her extra questions on this group. The small pots regime will rely heavily on automatic processes, regulatory discretion and secondary legislation, which makes it especially important that Parliament understands how these measures will work in practice and where the guardrails sit.
The amendments that we have brought forward are deliberately probing, as I said at the outset. They seek reassurance that members will be able to engage meaningfully with decisions that affect their savings, that Ministers will retain visibility and responsibility for how the system operates once it has gone live, and that the regulators’ powers, whether in relation to fees, enforcement or penalties, will be used in a way that is targeted, proportionate and subject to appropriate oversight. I respect the fact that the noble Baroness has given much time to addressing the amendments, and indeed those particular points, for which I am very grateful. It has been a short debate, and I hope a helpful one, and we will consider the responses given. But, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to scrutinise the scale of the Secretary of State’s powers to exempt schemes from Conditions 1 and 2 set out in subsection (4), and to probe whether these exemption powers are intended to apply to Collective Defined Contribution (CDC) schemes.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, this is a busy group and I shall not detain the Committee by speaking to all the amendments therein, but I do want to welcome the amendments that have been tabled by other noble Lords, which will allow us to have a detailed and, I hope, fruitful debate and discussion on these important matters.
Amendment 89 is a probing amendment. It would leave out new subsection (1B), which allows the Secretary of State, by regulations, to exempt descriptions of relevant master trusts from the approval requirements in conditions 1 and 2, covering both the scale default arrangement and the asset allocation approvals. The purpose here is to understand the intended scope of this power and the safeguards that will govern its use. As drafted, new subsection (1B) is very broad: it permits exemptions for
“any description of relevant Master Trusts”
and gives examples, including schemes designed to meet the needs of those with protected characteristics and hybrid schemes.
I have three straightforward questions for the Minister at the outset. First, why is it necessary to take such wide exemption powers in the Bill, rather than tightly defining the circumstances in which exemptions may be granted? Secondly, how will the Government ensure that exemptions do not create a route by which schemes can avoid the central policy intent of this chapter: namely, improving outcomes through scale and an appropriate approach to asset allocation?
Thirdly, can the Minister clarify whether these exemption powers are intended, in whole or in part, to apply to collective defined contribution schemes, or other non-standard money purchase arrangements? If so, what is the rationale; and if not, will she put that clearly on the record? I am mindful of the recent debate that we had in this Room on the CDCs. I hope the Minister can respond to those points.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, will set out her reasoning for Amendment 92, so I do not wish to pre-empt or emulate what I know will be a very well-reasoned and informative set of remarks. But, as I have added my name to the amendment, I will briefly say that I welcome this proposal. It would put in the Bill a clear signal that a trust which provides “exceptional” value for money—as assessed by the regulator under its VFM framework—could be a legitimate basis for exemption from the new approval requirements. It seems sensible that trusts that already provide exceptional value for money should be trusted to carry on their good work under the established framework in which they are already operating.
Amendment 100, in my name and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, to whom I am grateful, seeks to provide helpful clarity, not to weaken regulation, by making clear that schemes offering genuinely specialist or innovative services can demonstrate that they meet the exemption. This is important because innovation in pensions does not always mean novel technology alone; it can include specialist provision for particular workforces, new approaches to member engagement or delivery models that better serve groups who might otherwise be poorly catered for. Without clarity, there is a risk that worthwhile innovation is discouraged simply because schemes are uncertain about how the exemption will be interpreted.
The amendment also gives the Secretary of State the power, through regulations, to define “specialist or innovative services”. That provides appropriate flexibility, allowing the definition to evolve over time, while ensuring proper scrutiny and regulatory oversight. The amendment supports innovation without undermining member protection, and it gives both trustees and regulators greater certainty about how the exemption is intended to operate. I therefore hope the Minister will look favourably on it and speak to the point that is raises.
Amendments 105 and 107 are intended to ensure that group personal pension schemes are treated fairly and proportionately under the new scale requirements in Clause 40. We are clear that scale alone is not always a reliable proxy for quality or value. There are group personal pension schemes that are smaller by design yet provide highly specialist or innovative services, for example, to particular sectors, workforces or member needs, and that deliver good outcomes despite not meeting a blunt asset threshold. Amendment 105 creates an additional route for relevant GPPs to meet the quality requirement, by allowing those that satisfy an innovation exemption not to be automatically required to meet the scale requirement.
Amendment 107 provides the necessary framework for that exemption. It allows a GPP to demonstrate that it offers specialist or innovative services, and gives the Secretary of State the power, through regulations, to define what those terms mean. That ensures flexibility as the market evolves, while retaining appropriate regulatory and parliamentary oversight. I hope the Minister will see these amendments as a constructive way of balancing scale with innovation, competition and member outcomes, and I look forward to her response.
Amendment 135 would revert the eligibility test for new entrant pathway relief under Clause 40 to the simpler principle-based formulation contained in the Bill as introduced. The purpose of the new entrant pathway is clear: to ensure that credible, innovative schemes are not locked out of the market simply because they are new and have not yet had the opportunity to build scale. As the Bill is currently drafted, that test has become more prescriptive, with a risk that genuinely innovative entrants could struggle to qualify despite having strong growth potential. By refocusing the test on whether a scheme can demonstrate strong potential for growth and an ability to innovate, this amendment would restore the original balance between safeguarding member outcomes and allowing healthy competition and innovation in the market. This amendment would simply ensure that the pathway for new entrants remains realistic and proportionate and is aligned with the policy intent.
Finally, Amendments 165 and 166 are probing amendments about parliamentary scrutiny—back to that subject. Clause 41 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations setting out how the Pensions Regulator will assess whether master trusts meet the scale requirement and have sufficient investment capability. These assessments will have a direct bearing on which schemes can operate, which must consolidate and how the market develops over time. As drafted, the Bill provides that the first set of regulations is subject to the affirmative procedure, but all subsequent regulations may be made under the negative procedure. I think we have heard this before. Amendments 165 and 166 would remove that distinction, so that any regulations in this area would require affirmative approval.
The question that these amendments pose is simple: if the initial framework is considered significant enough to warrant full parliamentary scrutiny, why should later changes, potentially just as consequential, receive a lower level of oversight? These regulations are not mere technical updates; they go to the heart of how scale and capability are judged, and therefore to the structure of the pensions market itself. It therefore seems reasonable that Parliament should retain the guaranteed opportunity to debate and approve changes of that kind whenever they are made. I look forward to the Minister’s explanation of why the negative procedure is considered sufficient for subsequent regulations and whether there is scope to strengthen ongoing parliamentary scrutiny in this area. I look forward to contributions from other Members of the Committee and particularly to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendment 92 because it is a “what it says on the tin” amendment. It arose during a conversation. Somebody asked me what happens if a scheme is doing very well but is forced into consolidation because it does not meet the scale requirements. Would there be any legal consequences if it did not do quite so well under consolidation? On whom would those legal consequences fall if, as a result, somebody received a worse pension? Is there any comeback on the scheme because it was not big enough and so got consolidated? Is there any indemnity? Is there any making up? Let us take a theoretical situation in which the consolidator it goes into ends up doing very badly—I would hope that would never happen, but this is just to probe the safeguards around such circumstances. I could not answer the questions. It may be that there is something in the vast number of papers I have not read and the Minister can advise me. There is nothing terribly special or secretive behind it, it is just something that could happen, and can I obtain clarity about what comeback there may or may not be?
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 134, 137 and 138 in this group are in my name. I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for adding her name to Amendment 137; unfortunately, she needs to be in the Chamber imminently so was unable to stay in the Committee.
I support the other amendments in this group. I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, is not in his place; I hope he has not been silenced by his Front Bench. On our first day in Committee, I found myself in near agreement with the noble Lord—that is quite unusual for me—when he said that he was not totally convinced by the Government’s line that big is necessarily beautiful. He said that he was open to that debate, but my position is less nuanced: I am absolutely certain that big is not always beautiful. There are plenty of examples of big being beautiful. The US tech industry is probably a good example of that, at least from a shareholder perspective. On the other hand, there are many examples of where being big is not good. Big can be bureaucratic and low-performing. It can be hampered by groupthink, unresponsive to customer needs and hostile to innovation and competition; we can all name organisations in that category, I am sure.
I buy, as a general proposition, that an investment management scale has many attractions, including efficiency of overhead costs and the ability to diversify into a wider range of asset classes in order to achieve superior investment returns, but I have absolutely no idea whether £25 billion is the right threshold for forcing people into certain kinds of investment. I am absolutely certain that we should not dogmatically force all organisations towards that asset threshold in order to leave the door wide open for new entrants and players who can demonstrate good returns for savers and innovation.
My Amendment 137 would widen the qualification for the new entrant pathway relief so that it can include schemes that will produce above-average performance. If smaller, more agile providers can provide equal or better returns than the big boys, why should they be excluded? If a provider has a winning formula, why must it also demonstrate that it will achieve scale? What benefit is there for pension savers in restricting the market in this way? Noble Lords should also ask themselves why the big providers in the market, in their emails to us, have generally not challenged the scale proposals. The answer is very simple: this Bill acts as a barrier to entry, and large players love barriers to entry. We must not let them get away with it.
Amendment 134 probes why subsection (2)(a) of new Section 28F, which is to be inserted into the Pensions Act 2008 by Clause 40, restricts new entrant pathway relief for schemes that do not have any members. The main scale requirement is to have assets of £25 billion under management by 2030. The transitional pathway is for existing smaller players, provided they have assets of £10 billion under management by 2030 and have a credible plan for meeting £25 billion by 2035. The new entrant pathway relief is available only to completely new schemes—that is, those with new members—and only if they have strong potential to reach £25 billion. This leaves a gap in which new players that have been set up very recently, or will emerge between now and when this bit of the Bill comes into force, will not qualify for new entrant pathway relief and may also not qualify for transitional pathway relief. They may well have strong potential to pass the new entrant test—that is, if they were allowed to because they had no members—but they would not satisfy the regulator that they have a credible plan for transitional pathway eligibility.
Growing a business is not a linear matter. At various points, additional capital will generally be needed, but the Bill will make it difficult to raise funds because of the significant uncertainty about whether a pension provider would satisfy the transitional pathway test; and failing that test would mean that the business could not carry on and would thus be very risky for investors or lenders. Do the Government really intend to drive out of the market new providers that have only recently started or will start between now and the operation of the scale provisions? I am completely mystified by this.
My Amendment 134 deals with the substance of Amendment 136 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, which she has degrouped into a separate group and which will not come up until later. I think they deal with the same issue, but I will wait to see what she has to say on her amendment in due course.
Finally, my Amendment 138 seeks to delete subsection (4) of new Section 28F in order to probe why the Government need a regulation-making power to define “strong potential to grow” and “innovative product design”. The Government are probably the last place I would go to find out about growth or innovation. The regulators that will implement the new entrant pathway are, or ought to be, closer to their markets and therefore will understand in practice how to interpret the terms for the providers they regulate. Why can the Government not simply leave it to them? What value can the Government possibly add to understanding how these terms should be implemented in practice? I look forward to the Minister trying to convince me that the Government know about growth and innovation.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, my Amendment 136 is in a later group and was degrouped deliberately to explore the issues that she has just raised. If the Committee is comfortable for me to deal with Amendment 136 here today, I do not mind doing so, but that would potentially cause a problem for the Ministers or other Members of the Committee. May I do so? Alternatively, I could speak to it later; whatever the Committee decides is fine with me.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
Okay. I have not fully prepared for it, but I am happy to do that; it will save us time later on.
The concerns expressed in Amendment 136 and the amendments that the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, mentioned—some of which I added my name to—revolve around schemes that are already established. There is uncertainty about whether the schemes that are currently below the level will be permitted as new entrants or be able to access new business.
I am already being told that advisers are opting to advise employers only to join schemes that are already almost at or above the current £25 billion default fund threshold, which is creating market disruption and preventing schemes currently below the scale threshold from growing, as they cannot access the amount of new business they would otherwise have anticipated. Therefore, the risk is that these schemes will close prematurely but could offer good value to members who would otherwise be able to benefit from a scheme that is potentially on track to enter the transition pathway but will not quite be there.
I will offer the Committee an example. One of the recent new entrants, Penfold, which was established in 2022, will not have the time that other new entrants, established a few years before it, will have—such as Smart Pension, which may well be on track to reach the goal by 2030. Penfold faces a cliff edge because it launched only in 2022, has already surpassed the £1 billion asset-under-management mark and could well quadruple business over the coming few years, which would be an extremely positive achievement, but it will not qualify it not to have to close.
There are other new potential entrants that were planning to enter the market in the next three or four years, but they cannot now do so unless they are able to enter the pathway. That is why Amendment 136 suggests that schemes that have been established for, let us say, less than 10 years—again, that is a probing figure—would be able to enter either the transition or new entrant pathway if there is a demonstrable case that they will be able to grow. However, I am completely aligned with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that big is not necessarily best and that there are risks of an oligopoly developing in this connection, which I hope the Government would not have intended. I am convinced that that would not necessarily be in the interests of the market, innovation or pension savers more generally.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for introducing their amendments. As this is the first time we are going to debate scale, let me first set out why we think scale matters. I hope to persuade the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, with my arguments, but she is shaking her head at me already, so my optimism levels are quite low given that I am on sentence two—I do not think I am in with much of a chance.
Scale is central to the Bill. It adds momentum to existing consolidation activity in the workplace pensions sector and will enable better outcomes for members, as well as supporting delivery of other Bill measures. These scale measures will help to deliver lower investment fees, increased returns and access to diversified investments, as well as better governance and expertise in running schemes. All these things will help to deliver better outcomes for the millions of members who are saving into master trusts and group personal pension plans.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
Will the Minister say what the evidence base is for the assertions she just made?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I was going to come on to that, but I am happy to do so now. Our evidence shows that across a range of domestic and international studies, a greater number of benefits can arise from scale of around £25 billion to £50 billion of assets under management, including investment expertise, improved governance and access to a wider range of assets. This is supported by industry analysis, with schemes of this size finding it easier to invest in productive finance. International evidence shows funds in the region of £25 billion invested nearly double the level of private market investment compared to a £1 billion fund. Obviously, we consulted on these matters and we selected the lower band, but there is further evidence that demonstrates the greater the scale, the greater the benefits to members. We did go for the lower end of that.
I turn to the amendments to Clause 40 from the noble Viscount, Lord Younger. This probing of how exemptions might operate, especially in relation to CDC schemes, is helpful. Our intent is clear: to consolidate multi employer workplace provision into fewer, larger, better run schemes. To support this, exemptions will be very limited and grounded in enduring design characteristics; for example, schemes serving protected characteristic groups or certain hybrid schemes that serve a connected employer group. I can confirm that CDC schemes are outside the scope of the scale measures. Parliament has invested considerable effort to establish this innovative market, and we will support its confident development while keeping requirements under review.
I turn to the broader point about why the exemptions are intended for use for schemes for specific characteristics; for example, those that solely serve a protected characteristic or those that serve a closed group of employers and has a DB section—hybrid schemes. I agree with the noble Lord that, if we were to have too many exemptions, it would simply mean the policy had less impact, but we need to have some flexibility and consultation.
Amendment 92 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, proposes that master trusts delivering “exceptional” value under the VFM framework could be exempted from scale and asset allocation requirements. Exemptions listed in new Section 20(1B) relate to scheme design and are intended to be permanent. Introducing a performance based exemption tied to ratings would be inherently unstable for members and would risk blurring two parallel policies. Scale and VFM complement each other, and both support good member outcomes. However, we do not agree that VFM ratings should be used to disapply structural expectations on scale, and we do not wish to dilute either measure.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I am struggling to understand why the Government are setting their face against good performance. They seem to be obsessively pursuing scale and consolidation of the industry, unable to see that, for pensioners and savers, equally good or better returns can be achieved from sub-scale operators. That is a question of fact. The evidence that the Minister gave earlier merely points to there being a correlation between size and returns; it is not an absolute demonstration that, below a certain scale, you do not achieve good returns for savers. I hope that the Minister can explain why the Government are so obsessed with scale rather than performance for savers.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I feel that we will have to agree to disagree on this point. The Government are not obsessed with scale; the Government believe that the evidence points to scale producing benefits for savers. We find the evidence on that compelling. I understand the noble Baroness’s argument, but the benefits of scale are clear. They will enable access to investment capability and produce the opportunity to improve overall saver outcomes for the longer term.
I cannot remember whether it was this amendment or another one that suggested that a scheme that did well on value for money should be able to avoid the scale requirements; the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, is nodding to me that it was her amendment. The obvious problem with that is that schemes’ VFM ratings are subject to annual assessment and, therefore, to change. It is therefore not practical to exempt schemes from scale on the benefit of that rating alone.
We are absolutely committed to the belief that scale matters. It is not just that we think big is beautiful—“big is beautiful” has always been a phrase for which I have affection—but I accept that it is not just about scale. It is not so for us, either. We need the other parts of the Bill and the Government’s project as well. We need value for money; we need to make sure that schemes have good investment capability and good governance; and we need to make sure that all parts of the Bill work together. This vision has been set out; it emerged after the pension investment review. The Government have set it out very clearly, and we believe that it is good.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
The remarks that the Minister is making are of concern to me—and, I think, to other Members of the Committee—because they are just what the big providers would say. They have the power. I have seen this in the pensions landscape for years: the big players have this incredible advantage and lobbying power and the power to get their way on legislation somehow. That is not always bad for members; I am not saying there is something terribly wrong with the big providers. What I am saying, though—this is an important point—is that there is a real need for innovation, new thinking and new ideas in this space. Huge sums of money are under discussion here. If we are bowing to the existing incumbents and not making provision even for those small businesses that are currently established but will not necessarily reach that scale in time, I am not convinced that we are improving the market overall. I would be grateful for a thought on that, or for the Minister writing to me.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am going to push back on the premise of the noble Baroness’s comments. I understand that she feels very strongly about this, but the Government are not doing this to benefit large pension schemes. The Government are doing this to benefit savers. The Government established an independent pension investment review, looked carefully at the evidence and reached the view that the best thing for savers is, via these measures, to encourage and increase the consolidation that is already happening in the marketplace. It is our view that that, combined with the other measures in the Bill, will drive a better market for savers and better returns for savers in the long term. That is why we are doing it—not because we want to support any particular players in the market; that is not what we are about.
The noble Baroness mentioned her Amendment 136; I want to respond to that as well as to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. There is an issue around whether schemes already in the market have enough time to make scale. From when the Bill was introduced in 2025, schemes have up to 10 years, if we include the transition pathway, to reach scale. We project that schemes with less than £10 billion in assets under management today could still reach the threshold based simply on historical growth rates. For example, a £5 billion fund today, growing at 20% a year, broadly in line with recent growth in the DC market, could reach £25 billion within 10 years—and that does not take account of the impact of consolidation activity, which we expect to see within the single employer market as a result of reforms brought forward in the Bill, such as VFM, which we expect to lead to poorly performing schemes exiting the market.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
Is there a reason why the Government will not even consider allowing some transitional entry for schemes that are already established, such as the one I mentioned, which may or may not reach that number? This is not a magic number—£10 billion or £25 billion are not magic numbers—but these are businesses that are already established. It will put people off entering the market if suddenly, with no warning, a company that started in 2022 is under pressure. Let us say that there are bad markets or that it takes longer; as I was saying, at the moment, employers are not going to give these companies new business. If the Government could look at some minimum period of establishment that could get new entrants into the 2010 transition, that would be good.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The important thing here is clarity. The noble Baroness mentioned a single scheme. I am not going to comment on individual schemes, for reasons she will appreciate—she would not expect me to do so, I know—but we have to set some clear boundaries. The boundary has to be somewhere. As I said, we have actually gone for the bottom end of what was consulted on. We have created a transition pathway precisely to give schemes the opportunity to grow; they need to be able to persuade us that they have a credible path to do that.
In the case that the noble Baroness mentioned, if there were some particular market conditions that caused problems across a sector, she will be aware that in the Bill there is something called a protected period. There are powers in Sections 20 and 26 of the Pensions Act 2008 that give regulators the ability to delay temporarily the impact of the scale measures. That is to ensure that the consequence of a scheme failing to meet the scale requirement—having to cease accepting any further contributions—is planned and managed. There is a range of reasons why that might happen. It might be about an individual scheme that has been approved as having scale but has failed to meet the threshold or it might be a market crash that affects all schemes. There is flexibility there for the Government.
However, the principle is that we have to set some boundaries around that. The Government have reviewed the evidence carefully, and we have concluded that the point that we have chosen is appropriate. We have created a transition pathway in order to do that, and we have created new entrant pathways in order to accommodate those situations. We believe that that will protect members’ interests.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
The Minister has not yet mentioned whether there is any kind of indemnity or legal consequence. What the legislation does is not neutral in the sense that it provides cut offs and reasons not to invest. Is a company doing something wrong by continuing when it should say that it will not be able to make £25 million and it should roll up now? These are issues about which questions have come to me. It has not been looked at in the research. Could the Minister write to me to say whether there are any legal dangers for either side and whether there would be any compensation if the value of the pension becomes less than expected?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
We expect schemes with scale in a future landscape to deliver better outcomes for members. Consolidation is not created by the scale measures. It is already happening in the market, but we expect it to accelerate. Those running schemes are expected to carry out due diligence and act in the interests of their members in any consolidation activity. If there is anything else I can say on that, I will write to the noble Baroness. I am happy to look at it. The core question is whether it is a matter for those running schemes to make those judgments.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
Does the Minister understand that if you are currently a small scheme, unless you have certainty about being able to qualify to go into transitional relief, you will not be able to raise any money to facilitate your growth? It becomes a Catch-22. The Bill is creating uncertainty, which is destroying the businesses of those who might well be able to come through, but will not be able to convince equity or debt providers that they will be a viable business at the end because of the hurdles that the Government are creating in this Bill.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns, but I contend that we are doing the opposite. We are creating certainty by being clear about what the intention is, what the opportunities are and where we expect schemes to be able to get to and in creating transition pathways but making it clear that people will have to be able to have a credible plan to do that. We are making that clear now. I have given the reasons why I anticipate that there is a pathway to scale for schemes that are around at the moment, but that is a judgment that schemes will have to make. If they do not believe that they can make scale, they will need to look at alternative futures in a way that is happening in the market already through consolidation. I accept that it may accelerate it, but it is not creating it.
Amendment 134 seeks to remove the no-members requirement entirely, accepting that it would potentially allow any existing DC workplace scheme to claim new entrant status, circumventing the scale policy, which, while contested, is the point of our proposal. Our inclusion of the no-members provisions in Committee in the Commons clarified the original intent and prevented a loophole.
Amendment 137 would mean that existing schemes would be able to access the new entrant pathway if they had stronger investment performance than can be achieved by schemes with scale, which we have touched on. While I understand the intention to reward and maintain strong investment performance, the focus there would be on short-term rather than long-term outcomes. There are various practical problems with doing that in any case, but I am also conscious that there will be occasions where a scheme that depends on its investment performance does not deliver and no longer qualifies on the pathway. That is then not a stable position for employers that use the scheme or its members. At the heart of the requirement is the need to create buying power for schemes to drive lower fees and increase returns. A small scheme simply cannot generate the same buying power, and schemes with scale are expected to deliver better outcomes over the long term.
Amendment 138 would strip the power to define “strong potential to grow” and “innovative product design” in regulations. The Government believe that these are key attributes of a successful new entrant in the market. Like other noble Lords, I know about the importance of ensuring that the measures we implement will be clearly understood and workable in the complex pensions landscape. The form that innovation will take is, by definition, difficult to predict; we would not seek either to define its meaning without input from experts and industry or to fix that meaning in law without retaining some flexibility. Consultation with industry will be important in ensuring that schemes can demonstrate these attributes; to be clear, we will consult on this and other aspects of the new entrant pathway relief first, before regulations determine the meaning of these terms.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief in closing as I suspect that the Committee is keen to get on to the next group.
Across this group, with the focus on scale—looking at both the merits and the demerits—the consistent theme has been a desire to ensure that the framework we are putting in place is proportionate, intelligible and capable of accommodating diversity in the pensions market. There has also been the theme of “big is not necessarily beautiful” in the course of this debate. My noble friend Lady Noakes was supported in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann; they were assiduous in their questions on scale.
I should just remind the Committee that the Minister for Pensions has stated that return on investment is paramount, so this has been a very interesting debate. What if suboptimal scale produces better returns than merely big scale? That was one of the themes in this debate. Is there not a tension here? I would say that there clearly is.
From the remarks made by a number of Peers in this Committee, I think that more thought needs to be put into the threshold, including the criteria for reaching the threshold and whether the threshold level is right in itself. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, pointed out, a question on legal dangers has been posed.
A number of issues here absolutely need to be explored further. I have no doubt that this will be done prior to Report—indeed, we will look at what we might bring back on Report. Several of these amendments seek reassurance that sensible exemptions will be exercised narrowly and transparently without undermining the policy intent; others are concerned with ensuring that innovation, specialisation and strong value for money are not inadvertently crowded out by rigid thresholds.
Finally, there is an understandable concern that, where regulations will shape market structure and regulatory judgment over time, Parliament should retain meaningful oversight in how these powers are exercised.
I am grateful to noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions on this group. I thank the Minister for her attempts to answer the questions covering the CDCs on exemptions criteria and on innovation. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, linked to others in the name of Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted, is consequential on an amendment leaving out the inserted section 28C from Clause 40. That amendment removes the Government’s broad mandation power.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I did not expect to lead this group, but due to the diligence of the Public Bill Office in tracking down consequential amendments, my Amendment 90 has come to the top.
My Amendment 110, which is my main amendment in this group and on which I will focus my remarks, seeks to delete new Section 28C of FSMA. At the heart of new Section 28C is the asset allocation definition, which is flawed not because of its aspiration but because it rests on a complete misunderstanding of what investment trusts or listed investment companies actually invest in, and it excludes them.
Last Monday, I explained the anti-competitive and reputational effects of encouraging the flow of investment exclusively via the new LTAF vehicle and excluding the long-standing listed investment company structure. Today I have touched on the role that they play in valuation. Before turning to the wider reasons why this clause is fundamentally flawed, I will dispel another misconception I hear in circulation: “Investment trusts do not do infrastructure”. Well, I do not know what you call the Thames Tideway Tunnel, Sizewell C, utility-scale onshore and offshore wind, schools, hospitals, hydroelectric schemes, solar and nuclear energy, space, communications and satellites—but I call them infrastructure. All are substantially invested in, at the building stage, by investment trusts. Perhaps the Minister would accompany me to see some of these, although maybe not in space.
I also hear the claim that they do not do the big infrastructure projects that the Government are focused on. That is not really true, but there is nothing in the asset list of private equity, private debt, venture capital and interests in land that says, “Only the mega size”, or that stops them being qualified assets when held by another route. Anyway, we all need all scales of infrastructure investment and ongoing funding for expansion.
On Monday this week, our much-vaunted new prospectus rules came into effect; they make it easier, cheaper and faster to raise both IPO and follow-on capital. This applies to listed investment companies, too. What was this for? It was precisely so that companies can grow faster, bigger pools of capital can be raised more efficiently and larger infrastructure projects and bigger funds can be built. What is the point of celebrating our new financial market regulation if the Government then block the very vehicles it was designed to support? Why are some people in charge of investment—yes, some of them are to blame, too—still of the mindset that investment trusts do not do primary investment, at the very moment when rule changes are being made to build on the boom in primary infrastructure investment that has come through this route in recent years?
I come on to mandation more generally. I am not against the underlying intent of encouraging more pension investment in private assets. However, there is already a far greater awareness of the need to do that. The policy argument is won, but we have only just got to setting up LTAFs and the listing rule changes. The Government have not given the financial industry the chance to show what it can do. It is hardly a vote of confidence in our largest industry—financial services. What message does that send to the world? It says, “Go somewhere else; we have to bully to get things done in London”. What does it say about our famous and canny asset management in Edinburgh? If the Government want to add encouragement, use “comply or explain”—or, better still, “always explain”—to add transparency and understanding to the system. My goodness, neither the Government nor parts of the pensions industry seem to know what goes on in the wider asset management industry. Do not just ask the same people who have driven the old pension investment strategies.
Then we come to trustees. I have amendments elsewhere in the Bill aimed at clarifying that they can and should look to wider systemic and economic effects, but they should not be overridden. At their core, members’ interests are paramount for trustees. New Section 28C does not have members’ interests paramount. It threatens deauthorisation and the disruption and cost that that would cause if, in the judgment of trustees and in full knowledge of the characteristics of their members, they consider that a little less infrastructure or private equity is appropriate. What if the phasing of big projects means that there is a dip when investments exit? What if you are still in the J-curve dip? If some things perform badly, or the rush to invest exaggerates prices, do trustees have to keep pumping money in at poor value? No, that is the moment for explanation and perhaps a modification of strategy, not compulsion or deauthorisation.
Let us be clear: a deauthorisation power of this kind is not neutral. It creates a structural pressure towards consolidation. If a scheme risks losing authorisation simply because its trustees judge that a different phasing or balance of assets is appropriate for its members, they get closed down or forced to merge. That is backdoor consolidation, not member-focused governance.
These are some of the reasons why I want to remove new Section 28C entirely. It does nothing but harm. It is economically inept, competitively unfair, legally unprincipled and blind to the regulatory opportunities that have only just come on stream. I beg to move.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow—and I did—my noble friend discussing the reserved mandatory powers in the Bill. I will speak to my Amendments 111, 161 and 162. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for adding his name to all three and the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for adding his name to the first.
The purpose of these amendments is to remove the reserve power of mandation from the Bill. The case against these reserve mandatory powers has been set out by a large number of important institutions. Most criticism seems to focus on the issue of conflicts with fiduciary duty. Critics of mandation have argued, correctly in my view, that directing trustees to hold a fixed share of specified assets conflicts with the trustees’ duty to act solely in the interests of their members. Mandation of investment in specific asset classes for policy reasons rather than on a risk/return consideration risks subordinating members’ interests to political objectives.
This also exposes trustees to legal liability for breaching their duty, especially if the investments are seen as politically motivated or fail to deliver competitive returns. The lack of legal clarity around the scope of fiduciary duty, particularly regarding systemic risks or broader economic impacts may well exacerbate trustees’ concerns about litigation and regulatory risk.
I know that the Government are alive to the fiduciary duty issue and have promised to produce statutory guidance to help. At our meeting before Second Reading, I asked the Minister whether this guidance would have binding provisions. The answer was no. The guidance will have, apparently, the same force as the many other “have regards” in our financial services sector. I also asked the Minister whether we could see a draft of this guidance before the end of Committee, but I have not had a reply to date. I therefore ask the Minister again whether we will see draft guidance so that we may scrutinise it before the end of Committee, or at least on Report. It is easy to understand, in these circumstances, why some legal experts and industry groups have called for a statutory clarification of fiduciary duty and argue that only primary legislation can provide the cover that trustees need to invest confidently, as the Government wish, without breaching their duties.
There is also the question of definition. What is the appropriate test for “productive” when applied to mandated assets? What is the appropriate test for “UK investment”, or even “qualifying assets”? Can the Minister say what these tests are and when they are likely to be available to Parliament for examination? There are other significant concerns with mandation. For example, it may produce lower returns and higher costs if it drives crowded trades, pushing schemes into lower-quality or overpriced assets simply to hit targets. As the large DC providers have noted, if there are not enough good-quality opportunities in the mandated classes, schemes may be forced into illiquid or sub-optimal funds. This concern has been made clear as a condition of voluntary participation in the Mansion House Accord. Then there may be a risk in reducing diversification. Concentrating pension assets in restricted geography or restricted asset classes inevitably increases vulnerability to UK-specific economic shocks.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, before I start, I apologise to the Grand Committee for failing to be here to speak a previous amendment. It was unavoidable, unfortunately. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for stepping into the breach. I have had an exciting afternoon moving from R&R to pension schemes. I apologise that I am afraid I am going to be in the same position next week, so it will not be me speaking to my Amendment 119. Anyway, there we go.
I speak in support of Amendments 111, 161 and 162, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, to which I have added my name. To be honest, I support all the amendments in this group that seek to remove the asset allocation mandation powers, which is probably the most controversial part of the Bill. The trustees or managers of pension schemes have an obligation to act in the best interests of scheme members. That is their fiduciary duty. It is not their job to carry out government policy and they should not be forced to act in a way that they may believe is not in the best interests of scheme members. That is the clear implication of mandation. If the assets that the Government wish to mandate are so suitable or attractive for the relevant scheme, the trustees would presumably already be investing in them. If mandation is required to force trustees to invest in such assets, it implies that they have decided that they are not suitable assets for the scheme. That drives a coach and horses through the whole fiduciary principle. As we will come to in a later group, personally I would feel very uncomfortable about taking up a trustee role in such circumstances.
It begs a range of questions. Who will be liable if the mandated assets perform poorly? The Bill is silent on this. Why should scheme members take a hit because of government policy? Are the trustees liable for any below-par performance? Why do the Government feel they know better than professional managers and trustees? I do not see any evidence at all that the Government are a better manager of investments. Who will decide on the asset allocation, and based on what criteria? There is nothing in Bill that sets out the purpose or criteria for the asset allocation: just some examples, including private equity, which the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, mentioned, which will be looked at in a different group. All the Bill says specifically is that the allocation may not include securities listed on a recognised exchange. How will the impact be measured and reported? The Bill does require the Secretary of State to publish a report setting out the expected impacts on scheme members and UK economic growth, but there are no reporting requirements on the actual outcomes.
Surely it would be better to try to understand why pension schemes are not currently investing in these so-called productive assets. What are the barriers to them doing so? That is not a rhetorical question; I would very much like to hear why the Minister thinks this has not been happening. What is, or has been, stopping the pension schemes investing in those assets they believe are so desirable? Surely, the better answer must be to try to remove those barriers, to make the assets more investable, rather than mandating, perhaps by refining regulation or adjusting tax—Gordon Brown’s dividend tax raid has, I am sure, quite a lot to do with this—or taking whatever other actions may be required to remove or reduce the identified barriers. Mandation is, frankly, the lazy option. We should identify and deal with the root causes if we want a sustainable solution.
The Government say they do not intend to use the mandation powers and, in some ways, that is worse than using them. The powers are there as a stick in the background, to force trustees to invest as they want, but without giving the trustees any of the protections that might exist if they could at least show they were acting as required by law. In any case, as a matter of principle, Governments should never take powers that they have no intention of using. This mandation power drives a coach and horses through the fundamental fiduciary duties of trustees. The Government say they do not intend to use it; it should be removed.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. I echo the words of noble colleagues in the Committee about the dangers of the Government mandating any particular asset allocation, especially the concerns about mandating what is the highest risk and the highest cost end of the equity spectrum at a time when we are aware that pension schemes have probably been too risk-averse and are trying to row back from that.
What is interesting, in the context of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, is that I was instrumental in setting up the Myners review in 1999, which reported in 2001, under the then Labour Administration. As Chancellor, Gordon Brown’s particular concern was about why pension funds do not invest much in private equity or venture capital. That was the remit of the review. The conclusions it reached were that we needed to remove the investment barriers, to change legislation, to encourage more asset diversification, to have more transparency and to address the short-term thinking driven by actuarial standards—at the time, it was the minimum funding requirement, which was far weaker than the regime established under the Pensions Regulator in 2004.
So this is not a new issue, but there was no consideration at that time of forcing pension schemes to invest in just this one asset class. The barriers still exist. In an environment where pension schemes have been encouraged, for many years, to think that the right way forward is to invest by reducing or controlling risk and to look for low cost, it is clear that the private equity situation would not fit with those categories. Therefore, I urge the Government to think again about mandating this one area of the investment market, when there are so many other areas that a diversified portfolio could benefit from, leaving the field open for the trustees to decide which area is best for their scheme.
I am particularly concerned that, as has been said in relation to previous groups, private equity and venture capital have had a really good run. We may be driving pension schemes to buy this particular asset class at a time when we know that private equity funds are trying to set up continuation vehicles—or continuation of continuation vehicles—because they cannot sell the underlying investments at reasonable or profitable prices and are desperately looking for pools of assets to support those investments, made some time ago, which would not necessarily be of benefit to members in the long run.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. When I came to draft my own amendments, I discovered that this area of mandation was a rather crowded marketplace, so I decided not to enter it. I will not speak at length on the subject, but I endorse everything that has been said so far and wish to commit my almost undying belief that mandation must not remain in the Bill.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott and I have only one amendment in this group: Amendment 109, which would remove the Government’s broad mandation power. That has been very much the theme of this debate, of course. I want to be absolutely clear at the outset that we are also seriously and fundamentally opposed to investment mandation in the Bill, which I sure will come as no surprise to the Minister.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the broad, combined effect of these amendments would be to remove from the Bill the ability of the Government to require certain pension schemes to hold a prescribed percentage of their assets in qualifying assets. I confess that, after Second Reading, the reaction of some noble Lords has not been entirely a surprise to me. However, I have to say at the start that, although the provisions divide opinion, they deliver an important element of the pensions investment review that the Government concluded last year.
I will make two headline points. First, as I have said, we do not presently expect to have to use the powers, as we are confident that the industry will deliver voluntarily on its commitments made under the Mansion House Accord. Secondly, the Government would not be proposing these powers if there were not strong evidence that savers’ interests lie in greater investment diversification than we see today in the market. DC pension providers recognise that a small allocation to private markets can improve risk-adjusted returns as part of a diversified portfolio. Despite this, in many cases providers are holding back, not because it is necessarily in savers’ best interests but, among other reasons, because of a lack of scale or because of competitive pressure to keep fees low. That problem, alongside the potential economic benefits of this sort of investment, is why we have made investment diversification such a big focus of these reforms and why we have welcomed the Mansion House Accord. It is also why it is so important that the industry is pulling in the same direction and why it is necessary that the Government have taken reserve asset allocation powers as a backstop to be used only if necessary.
Noble Lords have raised various concerns about the powers, which we will no doubt explore in much more detail on Monday—I look forward to that. However, as an opening point, I emphasise that the Government have taken care to build in appropriate guardrails. First, the power is time limited. It will expire in 2035 if it has not been used, and any percentage headline asset allocation requirements that are in force beyond that date will be capped at their current levels.
Secondly, the Government are required to establish a savers’ interests test, in which pension providers will be granted an exemption from the targets, where they can show that meeting them would cause material financial detriment to savers. The Government will need to consult and publish a report on the impacts of any new requirements on savers and economic growth, both before exercising the power for the first time and within the five years following the power being exercised. The regulations implementing this framework will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
A number of points have been raised. I will keep my response fairly high level; I know that some of those points will come up again next week, so I will return to them then, given that we have limited time before the Grand Committee must end. I start with the question of whether this is necessary. The Government are strongly encouraged by the Mansion House Accord, which is an industry-led, voluntary commitment by 17 of the UK’s largest pension providers to invest 10% of their default funds in private markets, with at least half of that in the UK, by 2030. It means that savers will benefit from greater diversification and the potential for better long-term returns. In view of this progress, the Government do not currently expect to need to use these powers.
In response to the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, I note that there is a continued risk of a failure of collective action here. Individual providers are under competitive pressure to keep costs as low as possible, which can discourage them from investing in the full range of asset classes, even where it may be in savers’ interests to do so. The reserve powers signify to the industry that change is happening across the market, and in that way—together with our other reforms—they support the transition to which the industry has itself committed. That is the top line as to why we are taking the power and the circumstances in which we think we would use it. I will come back to the issue of private markets when we have a debate on private markets next week.
We will have a longer debate on trustees and fiduciary duty, particularly the issues around regulations, when we come back next week, if that is okay with the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. However, the Government do not accept that this proposal cuts across fiduciary duty. There is widespread recognition of the benefits that a diverse investment portfolio can bring for savers. Indeed, that is exactly why the signatories to the Mansion House Accord are committing to investing in private markets. However, if the reserve powers did come to be used, the Bill provides for a savers’ interest test to ensure that schemes can deviate from any asset allocation requirements where they can demonstrate that savers would suffer material financial detriment. The Minister for Pensions has committed to working with the sector to ensure that guidance gives trustees the confidence they need to invest in the best interests of savers and the UK economy. A stakeholder-wide round table will begin this work early next month, and I will keep noble Lords informed on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, asked what happens if a scheme makes losses. Trustees continue to be responsible for investing in their savers’ interests. We will come back to this in more detail, but the headline is that this means savers would continue in all circumstances to be protected by the core fiduciary duties of trustees. Trustees would also continue to be subject to a duty to invest in savers’ best interests in line with the law. We would expect that duty certainly to apply to the selection of individual investments in a portfolio, the balance of different asset classes in a portfolio and to any decision to apply for an exemption under the savers’ interest test.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, asked about sorting out other barriers first. Last year, we completed a comprehensive review of pensions investment, which identified that greater scale, as well as a greater focus on value rather than cost, has the potential to unlock significant additional investment that benefits both savers and the economy. The measures in the Bill tackle that. However, that does not mean that the work stops on barriers and investment opportunities. For example, the FCA announced last month that it will consult on rolling out to the pension funds it regulates a target exemption from the 0.75% charge cap, to accommodate the sorts of performance-based fee structures often used in private market investment. The signatories to the accord have explicitly called for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, asked about enablers and whether there are enough investment opportunities. The answer is yes. We will continue to engage closely with the industry on the steps it is taking and any obstacles it is encountering. At this point, we are encouraged by early signs of progress and are confident that the momentum will continue. On future investment opportunities, I draw the noble Lord’s attention to one example of the role that the Government are playing: the Sterling 20 Group of leading pension providers launched by the Chancellor at the October regional investment summit. That group, convened by the Office for Investment, includes all the Mansion House Accord signatories and has already met twice to discuss specific investment opportunities in venture capital and energy generation.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, asked about the consumer duty. The FCA’s consumer protection objective will continue to apply to FCA-regulated schemes. The FCA will apply it in parallel to any asset allocation requirements: in other words, where it does not believe there is a conflict. Or at least, where we do not believe there is a conflict. Or someone does not believe there is a conflict. Savers’ interests tests will be available for FCA-regulated firms, just as for TPR firms.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
Can the Minister respond to the point I made about statutory guidance?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I will answer that next week, if that is okay, when we discuss the issues of fiduciary duty.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I have a couple of points to raise. The Minister mentioned that the reserved power was designed to be a signal, and I would argue that it is a pretty strong signal to put in the Bill. Will she strongly consider whether there are other ways to encourage investments in the UK other than using this, and what might they be? This is one of the things that we will want to press.
Secondly, she did not answer my question about the dangers of a future Government taking up these powers, even though she mentioned the sunset clause of 2035, which is, frankly, some time off.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am sorry I did not namecheck the noble Viscount in responding to the second point. I intended to respond by pointing to the safeguards and the guardrails that have been built in. That was the nature of the response to that.
In response to the first question, I thought I said that the Government accept that this is not the only issue and that we are addressing the other ways. We have been looking at the other barriers and investment opportunities. We also mentioned that the FCA has looked at examples. It is not the only thing; we are looking at the other things as well. We think there is already significant progress, but we think this reserve power is a way of ensuring that progress goes forward and not backwards on this issue.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I will be brief. There is a lot that could be said, but we will have other opportunities later on in this Bill.
This should have been a happy Bill, doing good for ordinary workers and building the economy, looking after the future in two interconnected ways. For the main part, we had cross-party policy consensus and continuity. We had public and industry support, which is just what you need for issues such as pensions and long-term investment, aided by significant and consensual regulatory changes—culminating this week—that should enhance diversity, choice and transparency in investment decisions.
However, at the heart, we got this devil’s clause. The Government have not given development a chance and such a reserve power is a massive intervention. It is a clause that, where there was unity, brings division; where there was trust, brings doubt; where there was confidence, brings concern; and where there was hope, brings despair. No wonder noble Lords oppose it. It ticks every bad box. I urge the Government to think again. They have not given policy and process any due regard and therefore I am sure that many of us will return to this on Report. But, for now, I will withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
That concludes the business of the Committee today. However, I will say that we have had a distinguished young visitor with us for most of today’s Committee: a school student who is learning about pensions at school. I thank the Committee for presenting such a very good example of the serious way in which this House deals with public Bills. The Committee stands adjourned.
Number Plates Intended to Defeat Enforcement Cameras
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Snape
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to prevent the manufacture, sale and use of number plates intended to defeat enforcement cameras, including automatic number plate recognition systems; and whether they plan to strengthen regulation or enforcement in this area.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
The Government recognise the urgency and importance of tackling the use of illegal number plates designed to evade enforcement cameras. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is working hard with the police, other enforcement agencies and the industry to address the manufacture and misuse of such plates. This includes tightening application, inspection and audit processes for number plate suppliers. In the recently published Road Safety Strategy, the Government have set out proposals for reviewing standards, tougher enforcement, tougher penalties and the potential use of AI to help stamp out illegal plates.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister join me in congratulating Sarah Coombes, the Member of Parliament for West Bromwich, on pursuing this matter in the way that she has? Does he agree that the fact that anyone can apply to be a number plate issuer on a payment of £40 to his department, and that 36,000 people or companies have already done so, is an open incentive for fraud so far as motoring is concerned? As the penalty for non-compliance with number plate regulations is £100, does he further agree that it is a better bet to take a chance with a false number plate than it is to properly insure your own vehicle?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I second my noble friend’s congratulations to Sarah Coombes on raising this important subject. The DVLA is already on the case to strengthen the application process to become a registered number plate supplier and to make it more robust. Options being considered include, as my noble friend remarked, the fee level, the structure, eligibility criteria, and much greater enforcement.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, what discussions are the Government having with major online retailers about preventing the sale of illegal number plates, and what is the Government’s assessment of the scale of this problem?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The actions taken by the Government include considering online sales of number plates, which is clearly one source of illegal number plates. As to the scale and for an example: in 1,000 vehicle checks carried out by the Metropolitan Police with Transport for London in March 2023 using cameras which are able to detect ghost number plates, 41% of licensed taxis and private hire vehicles were found to have non-compliant plates.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Snape, raised a really good point, together with others. The ANPR system is very good. It is fixed in various places around the country, it is also in many police vehicles, and it helps to spot people who commit crime, particularly those who have no insurance. Some people pass that off, but 70% of those who are uninsured are criminals, so it is a really interesting group to keep an eye on. People in that group are five times more likely to have collisions, and when they have them, it is nine times more likely that they will be serious. This is a really important piece of kit. There are two things the Minister might want to look at. One is that the scientific support that was available to the police has been subsumed within the defence realm, and I am afraid it has reduced in its significance and the expertise has been lost. Secondly, and probably as importantly, the people who deliver these registration plates to us all are registered, so somebody needs to check that they are doing what they say they are doing. I am afraid that that is not happening.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Of course, the noble Lord has huge experience in policing and enforcement. I have to say that I was not aware of the point that he makes about scientific support, but the department is working hard on understanding the technical characteristics which prevent these plates being seen by ANPR. I answered the point about registered makers on a previous question.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, given what the Minister has quite rightly said about enforcement, why do the Government and the police appear to tolerate the use on our streets of illegal, high-powered electric motorcycles, particularly by delivery companies, which bear no registration marks and whose riders carry no insurance?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Viscount is straying some way from illegal number plates, but that subject has been discussed in this House before. The enforcement is of course a matter for chief police officers, but the Government are very seriously considering the sale of such motorcycles.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, I echo the comments from my noble friend Lord Snape regarding the Member of Parliament for the neighbouring seat to my old one, Sarah Coombes in West Bromwich, but I also highlight the point that this is linked to lots of other crime. It is linked to petrol theft, which is an enormous problem for retailers, to county lines drug dealing, and to robbery and car boot sales. There is a real problem with this. Therefore, should we look not just at increasing the penalties but at the confiscation of improperly plated vehicles?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right, and the Government are considering precisely those two things, among others.
Lord Geddes (Con)
My Lords, is the legality of number plates checked during MoT inspection?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
That is a very good point. The legality of number plates is checked during MoT inspection, but my understanding is that many of those who use false number plates have a proper set for the MoT or other examination and an illegal set which they then change afterwards.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, bearing in mind that the Question relates to enforcement cameras, would the Minister like to inform the House as to the reliability of those cameras, bearing in mind the recent story about Highways England failing to monitor them correctly?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I refer the noble Lord to Hansard for yesterday, when we discussed precisely that issue at Questions.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, as noble Lords have made clear and illustrated, we are living in an increasingly lawless environment on the highway: everything from bicycles at red lights to uninsured vehicles—a number of things have been mentioned. The Department for Transport seems to regard its role as quite separate from that of the enforcement authorities. When the department is devising new regulations or changing existing ones, what engagement does it have with the police but also with local highways authorities, who are there to enforce those regulations, as to how realistic it is and what resources they have to be able to deliver the enforcement?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I refer the Lord to page 40 of the recently published Road Safety Strategy, where there is a lot of text headed by:
“Continuing to work closely with the police and other enforcement agencies to ensure the outcomes of the Roads Policing Review are fully considered”,
and underneath it is text that indicates very clearly that the department is working very closely with the police, other enforcement agencies and highway agencies to get the law enforced on our roads.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Lord is showing such an interest in the pilots for illegally operated, privately-owned e-scooters. Can I urge him to show a degree of urgency? When will the pilots come to an end, and when will the Government bring forward legislation to implement regulations?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I absolutely guarantee that this Government will show more urgency than the last one, who started an experiment a very long time ago but concluded nothing from it, and we have had to virtually start again.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while I understand what the noble Lord opposite said about a “lawless” society, it is irresponsible to use such terms? In fact, we live in a much safer society than in many parts of the world and live in the great city of London, and I think we would all admonish some people in other parties who refer to London as an unsafe city.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I certainly support my noble friend’s statement in that regard. We are dealing here with a particular issue, that this boil needs to be lanced. It is not indicative of our whole society crumbling.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, in other parts of the world, bicycles for hire—Lime bikes—are required to have small number plates attached to them so that perpetrators of crimes and offences can be easily identified. Can we adopt such plans?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
This Government and previous Governments have looked at identifying cycles on the road and concluded that it is really quite a difficult issue and would be disproportionate to the results, but the noble Lord must know that the Government are taking action about bicycle hire schemes, because their proprietors bear responsibility for the safety of the cycles and some responsibility for the behaviour of the riders. That is being considered by the Government and will come before this House.
Artificial Intelligence: UK Preparedness
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that the UK is adequately prepared for the risks and opportunities presented by rapidly advancing artificial intelligence.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s AI Opportunities Action Plan sets out how we will harness AI opportunities by measures including expanding our domestic compute infrastructure, backing UK start-ups and investing in skills. We have established the AI Security Institute to deepen our understanding of frontier AI risks and are already taking actions on emerging issues, including those linked to AI chatbots. As recent developments have shown, we will back our regulators to act decisively when required.
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply and acknowledge the long-standing work of many noble Lords on this issue. Given the pace of AI development and the risks highlighted by analyses such as AI 2027, can my noble friend outline how the Government are preparing the UK and engaging with international partners for what lies ahead and whether, in the absence of a specialist AI committee this year, there is scope to strengthen cross-departmental collaboration within this House?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, the AI Security Institute conducts research, builds tools to understand and mitigate frontier AI risks, and works with like-minded partners through the International Network for Advanced AI Measurement, Evaluation and Science to advance the science of AI evaluations. We will continue to update this House with our latest initiatives to ensure that the UK understands and, where necessary, mitigates the impacts of advanced AI systems.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that AI systems are proliferating rapidly and may compete rather than co-operate, and that this degree of self-correction is perhaps one of the areas that we should encourage to stand in the way of the undoubted spreading power of the AI system generally?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, artificial intelligence is the primary driver of productivity across the economy, from life sciences to the creative industries. We are accelerating adoption by providing businesses of all sizes with access to essential skills, data and compute. I understand the noble Lord’s point about the power of AI. We are ensuring that the AI Security Institute does all the necessary tests to ensure safety before any products are rolled out.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, the United States and China, among others, are working at pace to leverage AI in military capability. Meanwhile, in this country, high-technology companies are in despair at the lack of progress towards the kind of innovative capabilities set out in the Government’s own strategic defence review. Is this another manifestation of the defence procurement valley of death, where good ideas go to die?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble and gallant Lord is absolutely right. That is why, last year, the Government set up the Sovereign AI Unit to strengthen the UK’s domestic AI capability and ensure that British firms can compete and lead globally. We supported it with £500 million. It backs high-potential UK start-ups and scale-ups, helping them to become national AI champions in strategically important sectors. Its sole purpose is to secure the UK’s ability to access, shape and, where necessary, control critical AI capabilities, protecting national interests, enhancing resilience and driving long-term economic growth.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, given the Government’s promise to consult and legislate on artificial general intelligence and superintelligence, which experts warn could lead to the extinction of humans, what indication can my noble friend the Minister give us of a timetable for such legislation in the forthcoming parliamentary Session?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The Government are adopting a proportionate, context-based approach to regulation. By empowering existing regulators to apply cross-cutting principles such as safety, fairness and transparency, we ensure that oversight is tailored to specific sectoral risks rather than a one-size-fits-all model. This framework improves innovation while maintaining credible and forcible safeguards. We remain in constant dialogue with industry and civil society to ensure a regulatory regime evolves in lockstep with technological advancement.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, the director-general of MI5 recently publicly warned that it would be reckless to ignore AI’s ability to implement harm, particularly from autonomous systems that are free of human oversight. Anthropic recently detected the first documented large-scale cyber espionage campaign using agentic AI. Given that we are entering an era when AI systems change tasks together and make decisions with minimal human input, what specific mechanisms are the Government establishing to maintain meaningful human control over increasingly autonomous AI systems, before we effectively lose the ability to do so?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Earl makes an interesting point. Progress has never been risk-free. Every major leap forward has come with doubts, critics and problems to solve. If it had not, we would never have heard,
“one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind”,
and Henry Ford would not have been making cars. With that same spirit, we are investing £500 million in our sovereign AI capabilities. It is why we are creating AI growth labs and growth zones. These are places where the private sector can invest, experiment, scale and turn ideas into real products. The facts are on our side. We are the third-largest destination for AI investment in the world, behind the US and China. We have world-class talent, ambitious companies and a drive to lead.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, maximising the opportunities from AI while managing the risks rests on three pillars: compute power, skills and regulation. However, in each case, the government pace of delivery is being overtaken by the speed of technology change. Attempts to increase compute and energy centres are being held up by the planning system. The Government’s framework for AI and the national curriculum are still in the planning stage, and regulators are constantly playing catch-up with AI. It is clear that traditional methods of governance cannot keep pace with the speed of AI. What plans do the Government have to change this?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Lord is right to draw attention to this matter, on which he has been a long-time thoughtful voice. All I can say is that we are investing in this sector. We have put aside £500 million to develop our sovereign AI capabilities. We are going to establish AI growth zones and AI growth labs, where companies can invest, scale and test products before rollout. We are doing a lot more and, at the same time, are leading internationally in ensuring that the safeguards are there so that the products that are rolled out are safe for everybody.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I want to agree with one of my noble friend the Minister’s previous answers about opportunity. Yes, there are risks, but the UK is best placed to seize the opportunities that will come forward and the developments that will happen with AI. AI is not going to be put back in a box. How do we as a country seize those opportunities and support our SMEs, which are developing many new products that will deliver on productivity, to get the best of growth for the UK? How do we continue to support those companies that are already leading the way on that?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My noble friend is spot-on. Small and medium-sized enterprises are vital to AI-driven growth. The Government are supporting SMEs through targeted innovation funding and access to test-based and digital adoption programmes, alongside partnerships with research institutions. By lowering barriers to experimentation, we enable smaller firms to enhance productivity and compete more effectively. This ensures that the economic benefits of AI are shared right across the United Kingdom, fostering a diverse and resilient digital economy throughout the United Kingdom.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, with that in mind, will the Government think very carefully about regulating social media, as is a big concern for the Government and the House at the moment? Will they acknowledge the danger of setting up a system which could lock out innovation from precisely those smaller companies in favour of the giants in the States which can find their way through the regulatory system and get the exemptions that are being talked about in this House?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The noble Lord highlights a couple of issues. I mentioned earlier that we are investing to develop our own sovereign AI capability. We are setting up investment zones across the country, working with UK-based companies to scale up. As the noble Lord will know, AI has different stacks—the infrastructure layer, the data layer and the model layer. We must work with each level and steer the course between extremes. We must ensure that AI becomes an engine of national renewal, rather than the author of our own demise.
Creative Industries: Freelance Champion
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in the appointment of the freelance champion for the creative industries as announced in the Creative Industries Sector Plan on 23 June 2025.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
Freelancers play a vital role in the creative industries, which is why we committed to appoint a freelance champion in the creative industries sector plan. Since then, we have been working closely with industry to develop the scope of the role. In two weeks’ time, my colleague, Ian Murray, who is the Minister in the other place responsible for the creative industries, will hold a round table with freelancers’ representatives in the sector to finalise discussions. We will make an appointment as swiftly as possible after that.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
I thank the Minister for her response. As she says, freelancers are an essential part of our creative industries and these Benches have been asking for a freelance commissioner for a long time. We thank the Government for the champion. The Covid pandemic exposed the truth: a financial and benefits system that does not take into consideration the fragmented employment practices of the creative sector. Can the Minister assure us that not only the remit but the powers of the champion will be significant enough to work across government to enable change and end the discrimination that freelancers experience; in particular, in access to mortgages, loans, credit and pensions?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The champion-type role appointed by the Government is designed exactly for the purpose of making sure that these conversations are had and action is taken across government. We are very keen for the person who is appointed to this role to be involved in developing their own work plan, in discussion with the department, the Minister and the sector. The appointee will produce a work plan in their first months in the role, which will set out their priorities and planned actions. I might suggest that they have a conversation with the noble Baroness in that first period, so that she can be assured that they are looking at the right things that will support what is a vital part of the creative industries, but also one that has particular issues, as she outlined.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the Labour Benches next, if we can please make our minds up.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
Please could my noble friend the Minister update us on the progress of implementing the creative industries sector plan? How is DCMS addressing problems of social mobility as part of the “arts for everyone, everywhere” vision?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Delivery of our ambitious vision is on track. Key achievements include the £150 million creative places growth fund allocated to six mayoral strategic authorities; we have secured agreement to boost music creator streaming income; we have announced the price cap to ban for-profit resale of live event tickets; and we have secured investment for three Bollywood films in the UK, which are expected to create over 3,000 jobs. We also have an increase in innovation funding of £369 million from UKRI and over £4 billion for scaling creative businesses through the British Business Bank. I am delighted to say that the Culture Secretary announced today that £1.5 billion will be invested to save more than 1,000 arts venues—museums, libraries and heritage buildings—across England from closure. These are just a few of the actions that we have taken so far.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the Conservative Benches next, then the Cross Benches.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, is one of the problems not that, in spite of the creative industries enjoying vast subsidies recently and throughout Covid—the Government were very generous—there are scant employment rights? The noble Baroness asked about freelancers, but the industry is rife with people who are nepotistic and people who say, “Come and work for us, but we cannot pay you”. Will the Government please track where those huge subsidies are going? I think I know; I think they are going to what are called non-executive and executive producers. Where is the money going in terms of employment rights?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
There is strong evidence, including in the report from the trade union Bectu that was published last year, on some of the real issues that the noble Baroness identified within the creative industries. They particularly affect freelancers, who struggle with a huge range of issues—everything from late payment through to not getting paid or not having pensions. The Government are determined to strengthen employment rights, not least to help people thrive in good-quality self-employment. These are some of these issues that the freelance champion will need to look at to make sure that we get the type of creative industries that are fair to all those involved.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, there is concern that the Creative Industries Council, of which the freelance champion will be a member, has very little workforce representation within its newly expanded membership. It includes not one working practitioner in any area. Will the Minister promise to look at this?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am happy to take that back to the department. I do not have a list of the make-up of the council, but I will take the point back and write to the noble Earl.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interests. Does the Minister accept that creative practitioners suffered disproportionately during the Covid lockdown and many from the impact of Brexit? Their predicaments are many and varied; in these circumstances, will she give an assurance that, when the appointment is made and is effective, it will relate to all the many and varied people in this sector to make sure that there is a proper channel to hear their needs?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord describes exactly what a freelance champion should do: to be a representative and voice for all those across the sector. I will make sure that I forward the working spec to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the Conservative Benches next, then the Labour Benches.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I genuinely congratulate the Government on the appointment of a person to look at these things. Notwithstanding what my noble friend said, the creative industries have been an absolute powerhouse in creating opportunities for young people. When the Kickstart scheme went live—I was involved—they embraced it, especially the people at Pinewood Studios. They gave them opportunities, such as James Bond, and some of us might remember the Ealing comedies. This was very good, but please can the Minister tell us whether the Government have done any impact assessment on the Employment Rights Act and the national insurance hikes? I think we will find that they have stopped opportunities for young people, so I hope it is something that the commissioner will look at.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
One of the key priorities for this Government is to make creative careers accessible for everyone, including by making sure that we get career opportunities for more people from diverse backgrounds. I will have to come back to the noble Baroness on those points. We want to make sure that we get join-up, on which this freelance champion will engage.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will agree with me, I am sure, that, within the overall creative industries, the arts sector—performing and visual arts, and museums—is a significant employer of freelance practitioners. I would just say that within that sector there is a great deal of good practice in the employment of those freelancers. What progress has been made on the excellent report that our noble friend Lady Hodge recently produced on the Arts Council, which funds many of those organisations?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Government and particularly DCMS strongly welcomed our noble friend Lady Hodge’s review of Arts Council England. It is an excellent read, which I commend to any noble Lords who have not read it. We are planning to publish our full response later this year, but we are already looking in detail at how our noble friend’s recommendations could be worked through.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, Minister Murray in the other place is driving success for creative industries in Liverpool but relies on government funding. As we have just heard, the Arts Council has advised, quite rightly, that a mixed-economy model, which combines public funding and private investment, produces the optimum outcome. Is DCMS working with the Treasury to make it easy for companies to invest and give them some kind of tax break incentive, the net result being positive for the sector and economic growth?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
There are a number of tax incentives within the system currently. We are very clear that there is significant investment in creative industries in this country. I outlined some of those in relation to the rollout of the sector plan. We are very confident that we are working across government on the issues that the noble Earl raised.
Diego Garcia: Comments by the President of the United States
Lord Robathan
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the recent comments by the President of the United States of America about Diego Garcia, and whether those comments have changed their policy view.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the Diego Garcia military base is essential to the security of the UK and our allies and to keeping British people safe. As we have repeatedly made clear, the agreement we have is vital for protecting our national security, guaranteeing the long-term future of a vital base for the UK and US which had been under threat. That is why the US and President Trump welcomed this deal in the spring and all our Five Eyes allies support it: they understand the security capabilities that the base provides.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I find that a rather strange response. David Lammy said that we would listen to the United States when we made a decision, and I think I am right in saying that Donald Trump has now come out and said that this is an act of gross stupidity. This is being pursued because of Matrix lawyers who are pursuing international law above the needs of this country. Will the Minister take this back to the department and argue against going along with the decision to give Diego Garcia to Mauritius?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
No. The noble Lord is completely wrong in his assertion about the motivation for doing this deal. This is about keeping this country and its citizens safe. That will always be the first priority of this Government. It is unedifying to see His Majesty’s Opposition take any opportunity to jump on a bandwagon led by Nigel Farage, who claimed this week that the President had a point in threatening Greenland’s sovereignty. We fundamentally disagree with that position.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it the case that President Trump supported this measure and then changed his mind? Can I suggest not to take too much notice of a man who does not know the difference between Iceland and Greenland?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
In all seriousness, we are speaking intensively, as noble Lords would expect, with our friends and allies in the United States. It is our understanding—and the United States’ understanding, as far as we are aware—that this is still a deal that secures our security and that of the United States, and that this is a joint project. We will continue to have those conversations, as noble Lords would want us to do, and we will resist the temptation to get into megaphone diplomacy over this. There were those here who were urging us on Monday to get into pre-emptive tariffs, inflammatory comments and all that. We did not do that, and I think that the agreements that are starting to emerge show that that approach has been right.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, at the last count, there have been 12 U-turns from this Government recently. Let me suggest to the noble Baroness that 13 could be her lucky number on this occasion. The former Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, as my noble friend said, really is a gift that keeps on giving. Last year, while negotiating this agreement, he said:
“If President Trump doesn’t like the deal, the deal will not go forward. … they’ve got to be happy with the deal or there is no deal”.
Is that still the policy of the Government?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As I have explained on I do not know how many occasions, this is a joint initiative. It is about securing a base for the United Kingdom and the United States, which we believe to be in the interests of us here in the UK, our allies in the US and global stability. That is why we have gone about this and, presumably, that is why the previous Government set about negotiating a deal with Mauritius, too.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
If the reporting is correct, the leader of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition asked the House Speaker Johnson to ask President Trump to change his position on the treaty—I heard a “Good for her!” to my right. Does the Minister agree that it is the British Parliament that should hold the British Government to account, not a foreign state? Furthermore, does the Minister agree that, in this House, we must focus on Chagossian rights, which have been denied them for a generation, and value for money for the British taxpayer—and not pander to President Trump and ask him to intervene in British politics?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I know the noble Lord does not always want me to be nice to him on the Floor of the House, but I must say that the Liberal Democrats, much as they have had their issues with this agreement, have always been focused on the rights of the Chagossian communities and have put that case clearly and consistently. I respect the way that they have gone about this. What we have not seen is any attempt to undermine the position regarding the sovereignty of Greenland or to leverage other issues that fundamentally undermine NATO and the security of the Arctic region. Sadly, that is what we are seeing from others. I agree with the noble Lord about the sovereignty of this Parliament and commend him for the consistency with which he has approached this issue.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, we have been clear that the Americans are likely to spend a considerable amount of money in developing resources and so on in Greenland. If they were to do that, what assessment do the Government make of the effect on the amount of money that might be available for Diego Garcia?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are talking through our allies in NATO with the United States, because we agree with them about how vital Arctic security is, and that does involve Greenland. But the right way to do this is collaboratively, through NATO, and that is the position that we are getting to. The same applies, in many ways, around the way that we will be approaching the base on Diego Garcia, because this is very much a shared endeavour.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, the Government claim that, although neither the International Court of Justice nor the tribunal of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea can reach a judgment binding on us on the sovereignty of Chagos, other countries may respond to opinions of those courts by withholding supplies, goods and facilities, which the Government claim would render the base inoperable. Can the Minister now tell us what she refused to say during the passage of the Bill: which countries could withhold which supplies, goods and facilities, which would render the base inoperable? Has she told President Trump that those same countries could still do that even once we have transferred sovereignty to Mauritius?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Any country could help withhold any service relating to the operability of the base at any time because the legal jeopardy in which it stood was sustained, and it would be their right to do that. The reason we are trying to get the base on to a more secure legal footing is to avoid that proposition. We are talking to the US about this, and it is one of the reasons that it was supportive of the deal that we have done. Those conversations continue. I can only assume that this is the same legal jeopardy that confronted the previous Government and led them into multiple rounds of negotiation on the same issue.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I worked out that this Minister and other Ministers have told Parliament on over 50 occasions that the treaty can go ahead only with American support. It is not just the President of the United States who condemned the deal: Marco Rubio did the same, as did Scott Bessent, who said that, if the deal goes ahead, our FTA could be put at risk, thus jeopardising thousands of jobs in this country. Surely, the Minister should be statesmanlike and now insist that we put everything on hold pending grown-up talks with the American Administration.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not know what I have done that is not statesmanlike, but our intention is to have those conversations with the United States and come to an agreed position, and that has consistently been our view. I encourage the noble Lord to consider the words of the Prime Minister yesterday, when he made our position clear, in talking about Greenland, that the reason why President Trump made his comments about Diego Garcia was to try to leverage them to encourage us to take a different position on Greenland. That has not worked, and our position is consistent.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, on the “Today” programme this morning, the Foreign Secretary was asked by Amol Rajan whether it was true that this was going to cost £34 billion, spread over a number of years. She failed to answer. She said that was not true but then failed to give us the right figure. Is it £34 billion or is it another figure?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is £3.4 billion. The reason why there has been a dispute over this is that some people do not understand inflation. These numbers have been calculated in the normal way, as they are for all these kinds of projects.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has implied that the previous Foreign Secretary’s remarks about not having American consent would somehow now apply. Surely it is the case that the Government took the views of the Americans and then reached an agreement, and that agreement is the one that stands. So could my noble friend tell the House, first, whether we are still committed to the principle of security, to the importance of the base and still committed to the clearly held view that this is the best option for the British people and for world security as a whole?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is correct. The relationship that we have with the United States on security, defence and intelligence sharing is the deepest such relationship that has ever existed on this planet, and it is precious to us. We believe it to be precious to the United States, and we will continue to talk with them and to try to get to a common understanding that that can be understood by everyone.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hogan-Howe
“Scrutiny of investigation timeliness(1) The Police (Complaints and Misconduct) Regulations 2020 (S.I.2020/2) are amended as follows.(2) After Regulation 13 (timeliness of investigations), insert—“13A Scrutiny of investigation timeliness(1) A legally qualified person must be appointed to scrutinise any investigations of misconduct or gross misconduct which have not been completed within 12 months.(2) The legally qualified person must determine whether there is good and sufficient reason for the time already taken, and how much time is anticipated to be needed for completion of the investigation.(3) In determining whether there is good and sufficient reason, the legally qualified person may have regard to any relevant matter, and must have particular regard to—(a) whether the investigation has been efficient and effective;(b) whether there has been unnecessary or unreasonable delay, having regard to the complexity and seriousness of the case;(c) the impact upon the officer and others;(d) any anticipated further delay;(e) the public interest and effect on confidence in the police disciplinary system;(f) representations made on behalf of any person entitled to receive a copy of the information provided.(4) If the legally qualified person determines that there is good and sufficient reason to continue the investigation, then the legally qualified person must set a date for the conclusion of all proceedings. (5) Nothing in this provision shall have any effect in relation to any criminal investigation.”(3) The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 (S.I.2020/4) are amended as follows.(4) After Regulation 19 (timeliness of investigation), insert—“19A Scrutiny of investigation timeliness(1) A legally qualified person must be appointed to scrutinise any investigations of misconduct or gross misconduct which have not been completed within 12 months.(2) The legally qualified person must determine whether there is good and sufficient reason for the time already taken, and how much time is anticipated to be needed for completion of the investigation.(3) In determining whether there is good and sufficient reason, the legally qualified person may have regard to any relevant matter, and must have particular regard to—(a) whether the investigation has been efficient and effective;(b) whether there has been unnecessary or unreasonable delay, having regard to the complexity and seriousness of the case;(c) the impact upon the officer and others;(d) any anticipated further delay;(e) the public interest and effect on confidence in the police disciplinary system;(f) representations made on behalf of any person entitled to receive a copy of the information provided.(4) If the legally qualified person determines that there is good and sufficient reason to continue the investigation, then the legally qualified person must set a date for the conclusion of all proceedings.(5) Nothing in this provision shall have any effect in relation to any criminal investigation.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment proposes a 12-month limit, unless extraordinary circumstances reviewed by a legally qualified person dictate otherwise, which would encourage forces and external bodies to complete misconduct and gross misconduct processes quicker, allowing officers to resume duties and limiting the negative impact on their health and wellbeing.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, has made a good suggestion with this amendment. He makes the broad point that the police misconduct process takes far too long, and I agree. To be fair, it is not the only misconduct process that takes a long time, but this one is particularly challenged.
I will particularly mention two things. First, time deadlines would be helpful. There are two ways to approach that. One is that there might be an absolute deadline of 12 months, as the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, suggests, and then some independent, legally qualified person looks at the case. That could work. The alternative is to set some deadlines so that, for example, 90% of cases are resolved in one year, which at least would give the system a kick. At the moment, I am afraid the system is not getting any better—rather, it is getting worse—so either something statutory or some kind of guidelines would be a good idea.
On Tuesday I raised the issue of firearms officers, a group particularly affected by this, and that is what I want to speak to here. I have argued that there should be a higher bar before they are prosecuted for murder, but the Government do not accept that at the moment. They have offered anonymity, and we are to debate that shortly.
Part of the problem, particularly for firearms officers, is the incredible length of time in some cases. There have been two cases over the last 20 years that took 10 years: the case of PC Long, who was prosecuted after a series of legal machinations only to be found not guilty 10 years later, and that of W80, where after a public inquiry—basically an inquest led by a High Court judge because intercept evidence was involved in the case—the High Court judge decided that there was no unlawful killing, the IOPC or its predecessor decided that there should be some gross misconduct, the Metropolitan Police disagreed, the Supreme Court ordered that there would be a misconduct hearing and the legally qualified chair of the independent tribunal said there was no case to answer. After consideration by the Supreme Court, an officer had been under investigation for 10 years. That cannot be right.
Some of the problems are to do with the sequential nature of the decision-making in these cases. Officers are often under jeopardy, first from the IOPC and then from the CPS. Then obviously it could go to court and there may be a finding of not guilty, but then—for firearms officers in cases where someone has died—the case can go back to a coroner’s inquest, which can find an unlawful killing verdict, at which point it goes back through the cycle again. That is one of the reasons why some of these problems are arising.
First, deadlines would be a good idea as either an advisory or a mandatory limit. Secondly, I do not understand why some of the people involved in the decision-making that I have described have to do it sequentially, not in parallel. For example, why can the CPS and the IOPC not decide together whether something is a crime or misconduct?
At the moment, not only are there many links in the chain that sometimes come to contradictory conclusions but, more importantly, it is taking too long. I argue that in all this there are two groups of people who suffer: one is firearms officers, the group whose case I am arguing, but the other is the families waiting to hear what is happening. If people have lost someone, they deserve to hear whether or not this is a crime or misconduct, but at the moment that is not happening.
This amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, is a sensible suggestion and I support it. If the Government do not, perhaps they would like to make some indication of how they intend to improve the misconduct system, particularly as it affects firearms officers in the circumstances I have described.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, this has been a short debate. I agree with many of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. I find it almost extraordinary that misconduct investigations linger on for so long; it really is a disgrace for everybody involved. Police professional standards departments have for too long been seen as something of a Cinderella function within forces, chronically underprioritised, underfunded and understaffed, and now they are buckling under the surge in the volume of complaints. This is combined with a narrowing of the remit of the IOPC, which increasingly takes on only the most serious and high-profile cases, resulting in a growing backlog and indefinite drift.
Amendment 422A confronts this head on. Such independent legal oversight could act as a checkpoint, strengthening individual case oversights and extracting timely lessons from failures. Criminal investigations would stay exempt, protecting the pursuit of serious crime.
There are risks in setting time targets for investigations—there is no question about that—not least the incentive for officers to delay co-operation if the clock is ticking. We have concerns that a rigid cap could risk corner-cutting on complex investigations. At the very least, stronger guidance on the expected length of inquiries is now required, as well as real scrutiny when these expectations are missed.
There also needs to be a much sharper focus on leadership and case management. Complainants should not face long waits, especially knowing time will diminish the strength of their evidence; neither should innocent officers endure years in limbo, with their careers stalled and well-being eroded. Taxpayers should not bear the rising cost of suspensions while losing front-line capacity at the same time.
Amendment 422A would restore some balance by prioritising fairness to officers, closure for victims and credibility for policing. We are happy to support it, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington for tabling his Amendment 422A and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for ably stepping into the breach to allow it to be debated. It is a very important matter and I am glad we have had a chance to debate it.
I am very sympathetic to the amendment’s goals. It aims to set a 12-month time limit for misconduct and gross misconduct investigations within police forces. As others have said, timely legal restitution is the only way that justice is effectively served. That applies both to those in the police who are under investigation and, obviously, to victims who are let down by delays that are needlessly, but often, the result of administrative workload. Applying a strict deadline for remedies, excepted under only extraordinary circumstances, is an easy way by which institutions can be encouraged to proceed with investigations in a timely fashion.
That said, I am a little wary of fully endorsing a blanket time limit on police forces for investigations. Although in some cases, perhaps even most, misconduct investigations can and should be sped up, it would be heedless to assume that all forces are simply being inefficient in the time that investigations take. There is a vast disparity between forces’ capacity to deal with their primary function of investigating crime, let alone with administrative internal matters, such as misconduct matters. Certain forces’ ability to spare the resources to source, for instance, legally qualified adjudicators should not, therefore, be assumed. Officer numbers are down, crime is up, and we should be careful about placing additional requirements on police forces that expedited conduct investigations might entail.
Of course, we support the aim of increasing efficiency and ensuring justice is delivered. I thank my noble friend for his amendment and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Committee, and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for moving the amendment. To be fair to the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, he stayed here very late—until the end—on the previous day on this. I am sorry that he is not able to be in his place today. He was here to move the amendment when we pulled stumps on Tuesday night at gone 11 pm.
Having said that, the noble Lord’s amendment seeks to introduce a new system of independent legal adjudicators with powers to close down investigations. I think I can agree with the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that delays in investigations are in nobody’s interests—of police officers who subsequently are proved innocent, of victims, or of speedy justice for those who have strayed and committed potential offences. Lengthy delays risk impacting the confidence of complainants and the welfare of the police officers involved.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
It is certainly a first for me.
I thank the Minister for his reply and other people for their comments. I thought I might make only a couple of points in response. I indicated that although the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, suggests a mandatory limit, there may be difficulties with that. I wonder whether the Government, might consider three things in their review, which the Minister mentioned. First, they could set an expectation so that, for example, cases should be completed within 12 months unless, for example, the director-general of the IOPC or some arbiter concludes otherwise. Secondly, I raised the sequential nature of the decision-making. That compound effect gives a longer time than I regard as necessary.
I am trying to work out now whether I should let the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, speak—
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
The noble Lord was not here for the start of the group, so I am afraid that he cannot contribute.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
I will conclude. I wonder whether, in the review, the Government could consider this sequential decision-making, which I do not think helps speed. Thirdly, if they are really adventurous they could look at whether police officers should be employees, because then you would get lawyers out of the system—I sit surrounded by them, but they never make it quicker or cheaper. Everyone else who is an employee can go to the employment tribunal, but officers cannot; it is on these grounds that lawyers get involved. I am afraid that is one of the major factors in why this takes so long and is expensive. I have taken my life in my hands, so I will sit down and withdraw the amendment.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I oppose Clauses 152 to 155 standing part of the Bill. I declare my interests as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group and chairman of the News Media Association. This stand part notice is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who unfortunately cannot be here today as he is on business abroad. I added my name to it along with the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, to whom I am very grateful. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, I am aware that I am surrounded by lawyers wherever I look, but I must admit to not being one of them.
These clauses introduce a statutory presumption of anonymity for firearms officers charged with a qualifying offence involving the discharge of a lethal weapon. Clause 152 creates a presumption that the criminal courts grant anonymity to any firearms officers charged with a “qualifying offence”, unless to do so would be
“contrary to the interests of justice”.
Clause 153 allows the court to preserve or reimpose anonymity after conviction if there is an appeal. Clause 154 defines the reporting direction as barring the publication of any matter that might lead to identification, including name, address, place of work, photographs and video. Clause 155 sets out the kinds of measures that may be required to be taken under an anonymity order, including screening or voice modulation during a court appearance.
Under the clauses, anonymity would apply from the point of charge until conviction and sentence or, where relevant, an appeal is abandoned or dismissed. If an officer is acquitted or charges are dropped, anonymity, including reporting restrictions, can persist indefinitely. Taken together, these measures are a significant attack on open justice, press and media freedom, and the public’s right to receive information, something that should be curtailed in only the most exceptional circumstances. They would undermine the already fragile trust in the police, limit opportunities for public scrutiny of those entrusted with firearms—which is a most serious manifestation of state power—and have a profound chilling impact on public interest reporting.
I will outline the reasons why I believe these clauses are wrong. First, their provision is unnecessary. Judges already have the power to grant anonymity where there is clear evidence of a real and immediate risk to an officer or their family, with proper and proportionate safeguards in place for fairness and review. Under the current law, a defendant applying to the court for anonymity must rightly demonstrate, with clear and cogent evidence, that anonymity is strictly necessary to protect their rights. Such orders are tailored, time-limited and subject to review. They therefore do not interfere with the rights of the media or the expectations of the public, and they strike the right balance between officer safety, which we must obviously be very concerned about, and open justice. That is a workable and trusted balance between safety and open justice. These clauses reverse that position for a special category of alleged offender and are therefore an unprecedented shift in English law.
Secondly, there is no evidence for making such sweeping changes to the law. The Home Office has never provided evidence that police officers as a group are more likely to be subject to harm by being identified as a defendant in a criminal case than any other defendant in a high-profile or controversial case. There is therefore no need to upend the existing law to give firearms officers greater protection from legitimate scrutiny than anyone else. That would create a justifiable perception in the public’s mind that there is one rule for firearms officers and another for everyone else, and they would be right.
Thirdly, these provisions clearly undermine the long-standing principles of open justice that are a fundamental tenet of our legal system and essential to our free society. Justice must not only be done; it must also always be seen to be done by the public, and therefore by the press. Such a sweeping privacy regime, which would apply automatically, regardless of any actual risk posed to an officer, and which gives protection to state agents, would clearly undermine confidence in the system. If anything, there is the clearest possible public interest in serious criminal cases involving police officers being subject to the highest form of rigorous public scrutiny and transparency, not the most lax. Anything that undermines open justice risks increasing the possibility of miscarriages of justice.
Fourthly, one of the most practical advantages of open justice and transparency is the critical role of a robust media in identifying systemic issues and patterns of offending. These clauses would make that impossible. Clause 155, for instance, allows for a wide range of contextual information to be kept from the public, including, vitally, an officer’s workplace. How can the press and the public help identify patterns or bring additional information to light in the absence of such basic information? That would hamper investigations and make public appeals for information far less effective. Indeed, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Mark Rowley has recently supported calls to share more details, not fewer, about suspects with the public earlier, in a bid to stop the spread of misinformation.
Fifthly, and on that very point, these clauses create a heightened risk of jigsaw identification of a suspect, where separate, anonymised details are combined with publicly available information to identify an individual. This is inevitable, particularly in small communities with their own online networks. The danger of false identification, with very serious repercussions for an individual, is all too obvious. That would also produce a chilling effect on legitimate, verified journalism, because editors would inevitably act with extreme caution in reporting, needlessly censoring it to avoid harsh penalties for breaching a court order.
Finally, there are issues about the compatibility of these clauses with the ECHR. Others are far more expert on this than I am, and I will let them deal with it during this debate, but it is clear to me as a lay person that the interference with freedom of expression contained in these clauses is wholly disproportionate given that no pressing social need has been demonstrated.
In summary, no evidence has been provided as the basis for such a sweeping change in the law set out in these clauses, which would produce a two-tier justice system. They would interfere with press and media freedom in a wholly disproportionate way and create a profound chilling effect on public interest reporting. They undermine the principles of open justice that are the bedrock of our judicial system and vital to our open democratic society. They risk further damaging public confidence in the police, already at an all-time low after the appalling murder of Sarah Everard, and in our judicial system. Above all, they are unnecessary because suitable safeguards that balance officer safety with public accountability and scrutiny already exist and have proved themselves workable and effective. For all these reasons, these clauses should not stand part of the Bill. I hope the Minister will indicate that the Government are going to think again.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, I support the stand part notices tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood. Clauses 152 to 155 should be removed from the Bill in their entirety.
Before I begin, I want to make absolutely clear to the Committee that there is no question of whether authorised firearms officers encounter danger, because of course they do. I pay tribute to them and their families for the risks they assume in the course of their daily lives to protect us all. Nor is this about whether the court should protect individuals where there is a real and immediate risk to life or safety, because that already exists. I spent 15 years in chambers as a libel and media barrister with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, defending freedom of expression with great passion against the imposition of reporting restrictions. It is that defence that I am here to speak about today, because these clauses would see a constitutional cornerstone of our democracy overturned.
Open justice is not a concession to the media; it is about the public. It is about understanding what is going on in our criminal justice system. It protects the very sacred principle in this country of policing by consent, in which we rely on the public’s confidence and belief in transparency. It maintains confidence in the legitimacy of criminal proceedings. When, tragically—let us be realistic, it is what we are talking here—the state, represented by a fire officer, has killed or maimed someone by the use of force, open justice provides accountability to the public, and the public should have that accountability. That is why anonymity has always been exceptional. It is justified only on evidence and where strictly necessary. Even in cases of national security and terrorism, that remains the case.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I respectfully disagree with the proposition that these clauses should be removed from the Bill. My views will come as no surprise to the 10 noble Lords who were present in the Chamber on Tuesday night at 11.15 pm to debate my amendment on why police officers who use excessive force on the spur of the moment, in the honest but mistaken belief that their use of force was reasonable, should be sentenced differently. There will be an opportunity to debate that further at on Report.
The underlying principles here as to whether anonymity should be given to police firearms officers in criminal proceedings where they are charged with a qualifying offence are exactly the same. As the House of Lords Judicial Committee said 30 years ago in the case of Lee Clegg, law enforcement officers deserve to be treated differently, since they go on patrol to assist in the maintenance of law and order with no intention of killing or wounding anyone. They face evil people who get out of bed with the full intention of trying to kill them and us. That life and death situation does not normally confront the rest of us. These officers have to make split-second decisions in order to protect us and deserve, at the very least, to be given anonymity if they are charged with a criminal offence, so that they and their families are protected from adverse publicity during those proceedings.
The last thing we want is such brave officers being deterred from volunteering for firearms training when the National Police Chiefs’ Council says that police forces across England and Wales are grappling with a significant shortage of firearms officers, exacerbated by the lack of legal protections afforded to them, particularly regarding criminal and misconduct proceedings.
Clauses 152 to 155 are a welcome recognition by the Government that police firearms officers are in a unique position. As I have said, I would take this further to address how such officers are sentenced, but that must wait for Report. In the meantime, the modest protection of anonymity during criminal proceedings, with an exception built in where anonymity would not be in the interest of justice, is a proportionate measure which is long overdue.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I share with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, concern and admiration for our firearms officers and officers generally, who have a very difficult job. I declare an interest having acted for police forces in cases involving the use of firearms. However, I do not share his conclusions about these provisions.
I should also declare an interest as the chairman of the Independent Press Standards Organisation, which regulates the press or those bodies that choose to be regulated by it. I hope that has given me some indication of some of the challenges that journalists face, particularly in reporting court proceedings. Very often, they struggle to cover court cases because of the reduced number of journalists and the general facilities available to newspapers. Were this provision to become law, they would be faced with a presumption that changes the balance and represents, on the face of it, a challenge to our principles of open justice.
Given that there is already a discretion available to the courts on anonymity, I ask the Minister this: what is wrong with the existing law, which provides that there is such a balance to be exercised by the judge? If there is nothing wrong with the law, there is no need to change it. This is a significant change, and the Government must have some very clear thoughts as to why they are making it. What is the situation that now persists which requires a fundamental change in questions of reporting and free speech?
Supposing it is possible to persuade a judge to rebut the presumption which will now exist in these provisions, what would be a good reason for lifting the anonymity which prima facie is going to be imposed by them? It is important, before we make such a significant change in the law, that the rationale is clearly understood.
While not in any way undermining or questioning the importance of protecting officers in appropriate circumstances, I say that the balance is a very subtle one, and that balance should not be disturbed by these provisions. I do not think we even need to consider the European Court of Human Rights’ position. This is an ancient tradition of open justice, and it is one which is, I am afraid to say, threatened by these provisions.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I oppose the stand part notices and support the Government in their clauses. I have heard the proposers of the stand part notices make much of what is a relatively weak argument, suggesting that this is a constitutional outrage, when all that is happening is a change in the assumption about anonymity. Anonymity is already available; this is just about who has to prove whether it should be granted. A lot of hyperbole has been used about this. I accept that the media will make this argument; I do not deny that. I agree that the police should be held accountable; that is not the issue. It is about a very small group of people. I will try to address the point about evidence. A point was made about what evidence had been advanced; I will try to address at least two things.
First, of course, this was built on the Chris Kaba case. Frankly, I think the judge made the wrong decision about anonymity. I believe that because Mr Kaba was arrested having been connected to two shootings and linked to an organised crime gang who had access to firearms. Naming the officer put him at risk of attacks by connected people. Bear in mind that, three years later, within three hours a jury found him not guilty. It was never a very strong case, but why did the judge order the anonymity order to be lifted in those circumstances?
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for reminding us of his late-night work the other night, and I look forward to discussing that subject when we come back to it on Report. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for bringing a practical police view to this very difficult debate. I come at this from a position essentially in favour of these clauses not standing part, for the reasons so far advanced by my noble friends Lady Cash and Lord Black, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks.
This is a difficult question. Unquestionably, it is a difficult question. If it were not, we would not be here. We have, as parliamentarians, as legislators, to work out where the balance should lie between the desire for anonymity for police officers in these circumstances and the desire for openness, open justice and the ability of the public—not just the press but the public as a whole—to see what is being done in their name in the court system.
I hope I shall not go on too long merely repeating what others have already said, but it is worth reminding ourselves that the courts work on the basis of open justice. The public are entitled to watch, to read and to comment about trials, and to know who has been charged and prosecuted and with what result. There are exceptions to protect national security, vulnerable witnesses, victims of sexual offences and children. We have a regime for, first of all, providing for reporting restrictions; secondly, for restricting public access to the courtroom and for holding all or part of some trials in private; and, thirdly, for withholding the name of witnesses—for example, under a witness order under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. But a witness order under that provision is a special measure of the last practical resort, and requires the court to be vigorous in its consideration of the statutory hurdles that have to be overcome and to ensure that the defendant is not irreparably disadvantaged or denied a fair trial. Fourthly, we have within that regime provision for anonymity in investigations—for example, when considering fatal gang crimes involving the use of guns and knives by those aged 11 to 30.
Police officers are human—I underline the word “human”. They are a human example of state power—and I underline the word “state”. We respect and we admire them for their often dangerous and selfless work. We know from our own work here in Parliament how vital police officers are for our own protection. I was not far away from the scene of PC Palmer’s murder in March 2017. He was unarmed and later awarded a posthumous George Medal, but there were armed officers there who had to kill PC Palmer’s murderer. I heard those shots as I walked along the colonnade in New Palace Yard from my office in Portcullis House to take part in a Division in the other place. The noble Lord, Lord Hanson, may well have gone through the same experience. I was grateful then, as I am to this day, to the police men and women on duty that day who ushered me and other Members of the other place to safety, regardless of their own.
But it is, in the final analysis, a matter of judgment on which side of this argument we need to come down—on the side of anonymity or on that of open justice. I bear in mind the need for armed police officers and their families to be protected from reprisals, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, mentioned. I bear in mind the operational need not to discourage volunteers suitably qualified to become armed response officers or armed officers. We have been reminded this morning of the case of Martyn Blake, which created, I think, the genesis of these clauses.
However, I also bear in mind the constitutional and public policy demands. I would not describe this as a constitutional outrage; it is a perfectly rational debate about which side of a difficult line one wishes to land. It is not a constitutional outrage to do one thing or the other. It is just advancing an argument. But I bear in mind the constitutional and public policy demands for open justice, for public trust and for transparency in a justice system that applies to us all without creating different categories of defendant as a question of blanket rule. Blanket rules of the sort envisaged by Clauses 152 to 155 are, I suggest, best avoided where a stronger, focused case-by-case approval approach can be achieved—and it is, in my experience, already achieved under our current system.
In the last few days, we have seen the ICE officer shoot that woman driving her car in Minnesota. Of course I have only seen the news footage, but I suggest that, here, that ICE officer would be prosecuted for murder, subject to any defence he could advance. That case aside, we face the problem of some lawyers and campaigners using every police shooting as the basis of an anti-police pile-on, or for some other political campaign that they happen to support. In short, if we are, as I hope we will be, sceptical about Clauses 152 to 155 standing part of the Bill, we must prevent the appalling hunting parties against the police. Let us then pause and reflect before agreeing to these clauses.
I dare say we will not make a decision today, other than that the issue advanced by my noble friend Lord Black will be withdrawn. But we all have a little time between now and Report—we come here with the best of intentions and good will—to think a little more carefully about the practical solution to this, and whether we need to use the blunderbuss of legislation or whether we can still rely on judicial discretion, vigorously applied and well argued for in each separate case, to see where justice can be found.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I ask him this? I respect his opinion, for obvious reasons, but one issue he did not address—it was one of my arguments for why these clauses should stand part—is the difficulty of proving the threat at the beginning of an investigation. It is not straightforward. We have to say that someone out there is going to kill this officer or try to attack them—that there is a threat to them in some way. Of course we all make our best attempts to assess whether that is accurate or not. He describes the present system as a blanket arrangement, but actually there is only an assumption, which can be removed, and in the Kaba case was removed. That leaves the officer at risk of that decision being automatic—that is, to be named if they cannot prove otherwise. Why should they bear the risk of being named, when the reverse could allow, first, an assumption they would not be named, and if later that changed, they could be named. What we can never do is name someone, then introduce anonymity—so it is a one-way valve that surely the law might help to respect.
Lord Garnier (Con)
The matter that the noble Lord is bringing up is the very sort of discussion that ought to be had in front of the judge. Presumably, no prosecutor, and no one acting on behalf of a police officer who wished to maintain his anonymity, would advance an argument unless there were some basis for it. If someone went in front of the judge and said, “I’m generally fearful that, just because he’s a police officer who bears arms, he is likely to be the victim of reprisal”, I think they would probably need to do a bit better than that. I suspect nobody would go in front of the judge and make that argument unless they had something better than that.
I suspect that, in the usual run of things, there will be information. It may not be information that the court would wish the world at large to know about. It could be intelligence evidence. It could be other information that both the applicant—the applicant police officer or the applicant prosecutor—and the judge would agree should be kept private. That surely can be done now. We have all sorts of national security cases where evidence is not disclosed to the world at large. All I ask is: let us just think a little bit further. It may well be that, at the end of the day, we shall come to the same conclusion as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and as the Government do in their clauses. But I have yet to be persuaded that we have got to the right answer today.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support keeping these clauses in the Bill. I admire the moral courage of Ministers in this Government for putting these clauses in the Bill, despite the well-made arguments against doing so.
My calculation is that, in central London, a rampaging terrorist’s life expectancy is about nine minutes. Not surprisingly, these events are infrequent, because they are not likely to be successful. This is primarily due to the fortitude, courage and training of the armed police officers of the Metropolitan Police.
I have been on duty in an operational military headquarters, in the field, overseas, when we had to deal with life-threatening emergencies. There is nearly always an information fog, and it is exceptionally difficult for commanders to understand what is actually happening on the ground. The same will apply to police control rooms during a terrorist attack. I understand the difficulties; I have been there. Nevertheless, the Metropolitan Police and other forces usually manage to suppress an attack within a few minutes, for which we should all be really grateful. Unfortunately, it is inevitable that, if there are enough such incidents, perceived or real problems will arise. We only need to think of the difficulties that arose with the Bondi Beach tragedy. We must accept that things might not go as desired.
I am not a lawyer, but the Committee will be aware that I have engaged in armed military operations. I knew that I was accountable for my actions, as well as any troops under my command. That was an obvious risk, but one that, as a prudent risk-taker, I was prepared to accept because I was confident that I would be fairly and promptly dealt with if something went wrong. I am not convinced that the same applies to armed police operations. We have already discussed in the last group delays in the disciplinary machinery. Unfortunately, I was late attending, but I agreed with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said—I apologise for not being there at the start.
In questionable police firearms cases, the CPS has the very difficult task of balancing two conflicting factors. On one hand, there is the very low probability of conviction in these cases—perhaps the Minister will tell us how many armed officers on duty have been convicted of such offences. If that were the only consideration, it would be difficult to authorise a prosecution because the prospect of a conviction would be very low. But, on the other hand, we need to secure public confidence that the police and the state are not above the law and that the evidence against a relevant police officer will be tested by a jury in court. If we do not agree these clauses, we run the risk of prudent risk-takers declining to be trained or to keep their firearms ticket.
The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, touched on the use of the military instead of the police. The military is not correctly trained to undertake civil policing duties. It can in certain circumstances be used, but the military will apply overwhelming military force to resolve the issue.
This lack of willingness to volunteer for firearms duty could, in turn, result in standards being surreptitiously lowered in order to meet demand for authorised firearms officers, leading to precisely the opposite effect to the one we desire. I am sure the Minister will deny that there is any possibility of standards being surreptitiously lowered, but I assure noble Lords that, in the military—not so much in firearms training but in other areas—we are surreptitiously lowering the standards, so this is a very real risk. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, touched on existing recruiting difficulties.
When, regrettably, an armed police officer has to do his or her duty, we cannot allow the lives of his or her family and friends to be turned upside down by media attention that serves no useful purpose.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)
My Lords, this is not a small matter that we are debating. I have listened to both sides of the argument. The argument in favour of these stand part notices was made in detail, initially by the noble Lord, Lord Black, and was then supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Cash. I listened to those submissions, and they strongly reflected my own. I asked myself: is there anything I can usefully add? I do not think there is, but we are dealing with a matter of high principle. The noble Baroness, Lady Cash, reminded us of the statement that hard cases make bad law. What we have heard in opposition to these stand part notices exemplifies that proposition. We are dealing with a very important matter, and we should not allow a few hard cases to make bad law.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I find myself persuaded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. This is a moment when, as legislators, we have to pause and ask where the balance really lies. For me, this is not an either/or. When legislators try to legislate, they must not pass the burden of coming to terms with difficult conundrums to someone else to resolve. I would be quite unhappy if we were to leave it to the judge to decide. If they go for anonymity, the courts could then be seen by some people as being on the side not of the citizen but of a few. We have to resolve this and come to a common mind on where we think this should be done. It seems to me that we should not burden the courts with coming to a decision. Legislators should make up their minds on what way they want to go.
I am persuaded by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. I have always been in favour of open courts, trial by jury and no citizen being above the law. We should all have equality before the law, but that argument can sometimes, unfortunately, ignore circumstances that need to be differentiated—not because you do not want fairness and equality but because, if you blindly go down a particular road, you may cause a greater injustice. That is why I am not in favour of people who are so moralist and who keep to their morals: if you are not careful, you could end up with an injustice.
To those who oppose these clauses and to the Government, who bravely want to put this particular way of doing it in the Bill, I suggest that a further conversation needs to be had. How do we resolve this? Clearly, some of us—and I am one of them—would like to defend police officers who have to decide in a split-second to do something, without a lot of thought. They see a danger and they want to neutralise it—not like in Minnesota, where I do not think there was any danger; I would not want to defend those kinds of actions. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, has given us the figures, and actually the statistics are very low. In the unfortunate cases where this has happened, most of our armed police officers are disciplined and well trained. However, in life, you always end up with risks you did not anticipate.
I would want to go the way that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, argued for—that if somebody took a decision because they saw greater danger and they took somebody out, I can tell you, the media and other people will focus on their family, not on the decision that was taken. We who are legislators cannot ignore the difficulty that that raises for families.
I do not think that volunteers will disappear immediately if these clauses are not part of the Bill. I still think there are people who, for the sake of security and the well-being of society, will continue to volunteer—but you are going to make it more difficult. I plead with all of us in that regard. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, has encapsulated my thoughts on this but I am still in a quandary: will I vote for this or for that? I just hope that the mover of this stand part notice will withdraw it, knowing that Report is still to come, so that it is a clear conversation, and then we can all make up our mind where this is going to lie.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, can I just make an observation that the question is whether we agree these clauses in the Bill or not? If we do not agree the clauses in the Bill, they will fall out of the Bill and then we cannot consider them at a later stage. If we want to consider them at a later stage, we must agree them today.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, it is with great trepidation that I speak, very briefly. Having heard such powerful legal voices discussing these issues—and I hugely respect the legal expertise that we have in the House—on the basis of what we have heard and how the Government have approached this issue, I am minded to support the Government in the initiatives that they are taking here. I feel that we really ought to support these highly disciplined firearms officers. We are living in the era of lawfare and of the courts being used not to the advantage of those who seek to protect us all.
We are very fortunate in this country, unlike in other countries, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, mentioned, to have a situation where the discharge of police firearms is a very rare eventuality. Those who hold that responsibility are highly trained, highly disciplined and highly motivated individuals. If there is a situation where they end up in a court of law because of the discharge of their firearm in the course of their duty, we should support them until there is a decision of that court. Of course, everything changes at that point. But this is about them being endangered, and having the threat of being endangered. I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said about how difficult it is to describe that threat in the beginning—and you cannot go backwards on this. In this very specific and rare eventuality, I believe that we should give those who put their lives in danger to protect us the benefit of the doubt.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I may be wrong, but I had never understood that until there was a vote anything in a Bill disappeared. Consequently, unless I am wrong, unless we vote on these three clauses, they will remain until Report. Consequently, I do not entirely understand what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was telling us.
To move on, I shall speak extremely briefly—and, I have to say, unlike some noble Lords, I genuinely mean briefly. First, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, has pointed out, this is a profoundly important issue. Secondly, hard cases do not make good law. I am very unhappy at the idea that anyone should automatically be given anonymity in a situation in which they have behaved in a way where there is at least a possibility that they may be guilty of some crime. I would prefer to see the situation as it remains today—but I also listened to, and think that it is a very sensible suggestion from, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, that the pause should give us time to discuss further how on earth this should be dealt with.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches we support a carefully framed presumption of anonymity for firearms officers facing criminal charges, but we believe that it should be tightly drawn and subject to clear judicial safeguards.
Giving automatic anonymity to firearms officers who face criminal charges would mark a major and highly sensitive change. It deserves careful and measured consideration and scrutiny to strike the right balance. The public must have confidence that wrongdoing by officers will be dealt with fairly and transparently. But equally—and I think this is very important—officers must feel assured that if they act in good faith and follow their training, the system will protect and not punish them.
We welcome the wider provisions of the Bill to strengthen police accountability, particularly those speeding up investigations by the IOPC, but we understand why firearms officers seek reassurance. These are exceptionally difficult and high-risk roles, where hesitation can have tragic consequences. With fewer than 6,000 operational firearms officers across England and Wales, those concerns cannot be lightly dismissed.
At the same time, we recognise the force of the arguments made by those noble Lords who support the stand part notices proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and accept that a broad, inflexible anonymity system sits uneasily with the principle of open justice. The public have a legitimate right to know when those entrusted with legal powers are alleged to have acted unlawfully. Our preference is for a statutory presumption in favour of anonymity in firearms cases, rebuttable when the court is satisfied that identification is necessary in the interests of justice or public confidence.
We should trust our judges to apply a clear statutory test, protecting officers where necessary, while safeguarding the principles of open justice on which confidence in policing depends. A narrowly tailored presumption, coupled with robust judicial oversight, can provide the reassurance that firearms officers need without creating the perception of a two-tier justice system that treats police officers differently from everyone else. Of course, rebuilding trust in policing must be our shared priority, and ultimately that rests not on secrecy but on transparency, fairness and confidence that accountability will apply equally to all.
Thankfully, fatal police shootings are rare, and it is even rarer still for such cases to reach the courts. In these exceptional, highly charged cases, a carefully limited presumption of anonymity is a reasonable and proportionate step to keep skilled officers in these vital roles, while upholding open justice.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, as I think we all agree, this is a profoundly important issue, and one in which there is realistically no perfectly right answer. But let us start with the position that it remains one of the greatest triumphs of British policing that to this day we do not routinely have armed police officers. The image envisaged by Sir Robert Peel when he established the Metropolitan Police—that of policing by consent and the avoidance of a militarised police force, when he had the example of what he saw on continental Europe at the time—has endured. I have listened anxiously to the speeches today, which have been thoughtful and balanced. But we start, on this side, in His Majesty’s Opposition, with the view that on balance the approach of Clauses 152 to 155 is the right one. I shall say more about that in a moment.
While the vast majority of police officers in this country are unarmed, we know that, in order to protect the public, a few thousand brave officers volunteer to put themselves in harm’s way and become authorised firearms officers. The latest figures show that, as of 31 March 2025, there were 6,367 firearms officers in England and Wales. Of those, 5,753 were operationally deployable. That represented a decrease of 108—or 2%—from the previous year. There is a downward trend in the number of armed police officers, which should be a matter of concern to us all. It has to be arrested.
It is not hard to see why fewer and fewer officers are willing to take on this role. The recent prosecution of, and events surrounding, Martyn Blake demonstrate what can go wrong. Throughout, Martyn Blake was public property. He was left in limbo for two years while awaiting an IOPC investigation, a CPS decision and then a murder trial. As we have heard, he was eventually acquitted in October 2024. Despite that acquittal, the IOPC then announced that it was launching a further investigation for gross misconduct. This remains unresolved. Through all of that, he has been publicly known to everyone.
Matt Cane, the general secretary of the Metropolitan Police Federation, has criticised that in the strongest terms—with which we, on this side, broadly agree. The concern and criticisms which he raised have real-world consequences. Police officers feel that their reasonable use of force may be treated disproportionately or unreasonably after the event in a manner which does not recognise the pressures they face when they make split-second decisions.
During the trial of Martyn Blake, dozens of officers handed in their weapons. There was a serious concern that, in the event of a guilty verdict, police forces across the country would be faced with real, severe shortages of armed officers. The publicity given to all that must have been an aggravating factor for Mr Blake. We have to protect these police officers.
We have heard powerful speeches, from the proposer, my noble friend Lord Black, my noble friend Lady Cash and others, not least the noble and learned Lords, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers and Lord Garnier, either in full support of these stand part notices or asking us to look very carefully at them with a view to doing something along those lines.
There are important issues to consider: open justice; whether or not there should be special treatment for police officers; and concerns about unintended consequences. I remind the Committee of the provisions in Clause 152(3), which says that the court must, first,
“cause the following information to be withheld from the public in proceedings before the court, in each case unless satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so”;
then come the identification details. The court must also
“give a reporting direction … in respect of D”—
the defendant—
“(if one does not already have effect), unless satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so”.
This is putting in place a presumption which can be rebutted.
I feel that this is rather broad. In practice, it would be helpful for the courts and for those who have to deal with applications to act on that presumption and to lift that bar, if this was put rather more clearly, with some examples. I do not have any to put before the Committee today, but I came to that view when listening to the debate. I invite the Government to think very carefully about whether something should be done about the terms in the clause. This might go quite a way to addressing the concerns of those who are legitimately concerned about the wrong sort of special treatment being given to police officers, and about open justice more generally.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
His Majesty’s Opposition are broadly in favour of these provisions, but I ask the noble Lord: if this becomes law, how is a judge going to change his or her approach to the issue of anonymity from the position that prevailed before this change? How is it going to alter things?
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
He is going to start—assuming that the judge is a he—from the position that, unless there is an application to the contrary, the bar against publication is in force. I am asking the Government to consider, before we return on Report, whether guidance can be developed and something put into the Bill which addresses the concerns about it being too difficult and imprecise to address in practice. We can listen to and address this on Report. At the moment, we support the provisions in the Bill, but I advance certain—I would not say reservations—anxieties about how this will work in practice and whether, in fact, it would be an absolute bar. Clearly, one hopes that this is not what is intended and that these words are not there just as some sort of fig leaf.
This is not an easy position. We heard some powerful and very persuasive speeches on the other side from the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, calling for support for our officers, and from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who, perhaps, more than any of us, knows what is truly involved for these police officers.
We support the clauses as they are. I remind the Committee that, as we stand here debating the issue of anonymity for firearms officers, outside this building, we are being protected by members of this very special group. In and around this building, they work every day—day in, day out—to keep us safe. We are able to continue with our important work of legislating only because of the safety which armed police officers provide. We owe those who protect us a real degree of protection. On the assumption that they are acting in good faith, they must be spared from the anxiety that if something goes wrong—and it will have gone wrong if they feel they have to shoot—they must not then be left exposed, as Martyn Blake was. We have seen how that went wrong. On this basis, for the time being at least, we support these clauses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for giving notice of his opposition that Clauses 152 to 155 stand part of the Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, for introducing the clause stand part debate and allowing this important and interesting discussion. I acknowledge from the outset that the Government agree these are not easy issues.
Clauses 152 to 155 largely stand or fall together, creating a bespoke system for a very small and discrete category of defendants in criminal trials; namely, authorised firearms officers charged with offences arising from the discharge of their weapon during the course of their official duties.
Notwithstanding the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, about lawyers—of which, of course, I am one—made during the course of the debate on the last group, I agree with much of what he has said. The starting point for the Government is that armed police officers perform a unique and high-risk role. They are trained to use lethal force, on behalf of the state, to protect the public, often in fast-moving and dangerous situations. This puts them personally at risk of death or serious injury every day in the course of their duties. They deserve our thanks and admiration for putting themselves in harm’s way to protect the public—and that, a point made by many of your Lordships, includes you and me. Because many of those with whom they engage are involved in serious crime, it exposes them and their families to the risk of retribution. That is the Government’s starting point.
There is another equally important principle in play: we do not have secret trials in this country. The principles of open justice and the ability for the press to report on cases continues to be one of our proudest and most carefully and jealously guarded traditions. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, for whom I have the utmost respect, for putting in impassioned terms the importance of freedom of the press and freedom of speech.
So why then have the Government decided to introduce a presumption of anonymity in trials for authorised firearms officers? This limited presumption is being introduced due to the unique nature of firearms officers’ roles and the risks that arise from them being identified during court proceedings. What marks them out from other categories of defendant is that these are not risks merely to their reputation but to their lives. These are not theoretical risks. Firearms officers who have been charged with an offence can face serious death threats and other forms of intimidation. The threats do not stop with them but extend to their families as well. The real and present nature of this danger cannot be ignored.
I want to give two illustrations of incidents which demonstrate how extreme the consequences can be for those who serve as firearms officers. In one case, a contract for murder was issued against an officer who had acted in the line of duty and who was later found to have acted entirely within the law. In another, a bounty was placed on an officer who, as things turned out, had been lawfully carrying out their responsibilities. The threat is not theoretical; it is a stark reality. The safety of our officers and those they love must not be compromised. Some of these officers may later be found not guilty by a jury, but if they and their families have faced real and credible threats, by then the damage is done.
The time has come for action to be taken. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has said that firearms officers are fearful of the consequences and processes for them if they are involved in a death or serious injury case because of what has happened to colleagues, mostly so because of how it has played out in the media.
The noble Lord, Lord Black, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, made the point that the courts already have the power to order reporting restrictions in a case where the court judges that disclosure of a defendant’s identity would give rise to a real and immediate risk to life, and asked why a presumption is necessary. Our answer is this. It must be remembered, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, pointed out, that police officers volunteer for armed roles and they are not compelled to undertake such duties, nor are they paid more to do so. Data from armed policing shows the start of a slow decline in the number of those wishing to serve as armed officers. The armed policing attrition and retention document records that, since 2019, there has been a loss of 583 armed officers. That is an 8.8% reduction. Everyone hearing this should be worried. We rely on these officers to keep us and those we love, as well as our fellow citizens, safe. We, a Labour Government, are persuaded and have decided to act.
We have concluded that we need to strike a balance between the safety and security of our brave firearms officers, who are presumed innocent unless or until convicted by a court of law, and their families and our inviolable principles of open justice and freedom of the press. I venture to suggest that this is what these provisions achieve. The most important things to note are that these. First, once a jury has decided that the defendant is guilty then of course their identity will be made public. Secondly, these provisions establish only a presumption of anonymity during the trial. The judge at any stage has the ability to order that part or all of the defendant’s identifying characteristics should be revealed. It changes only where we start, not necessarily where we end up. Thirdly, the media and others will be informed, as is usual, of cases where there is a reporting restriction in place. Journalists and others will be able to make representations to the judge as to why they say that the identity should be known at an early stage, to help the judge decide where the balance should be struck in any individual case.
I remind your Lordships of the old truism about the difference between what is in the public interest and matters in which the public are interested. It is judges who make decisions of this kind every day and are best placed to do so. I add the reassurance that, where a judge concludes that narrower steps will suffice, the court will order only the minimum necessary. I can say to your Lordships from my own experience, and knowing my former judicial colleagues as I do, that they take the freedom of the press to report trials very seriously indeed. I venture to say that the two distinguished former judges who have spoken in this debate—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—have shown just that.
Open justice remains the starting point. This measure introduces a narrow, rebuttable presumption for a small, clearly defined cohort. Proceedings will remain public, evidence will be tested in open court, and judicial reasons are given. Only the defendant’s details may be withheld, where necessary, until the point of conviction. It expressly allows the court to lift anonymity wherever it would be
“contrary to the interests of justice”
for the anonymity to remain.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, that this is a difficult issue that needs to be approached with care and that everyone should be moderate in the way they approach it. However, this measure does not compromise transparency or judicial independence. All it does it ensure that officers are not exposed to undue risk before the facts have been tested and decided upon by a court. It is about fairness, safety, and maintaining confidence in policing and justice.
I hope that my explanation of these clauses has gone some way to reassuring your Lordships. It would, as always, be a pleasure to meet the noble Lords, Lord Black and Lord Faulks, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, again—I think this is the third time in 48 hours that I have offered to meet him—as well as representatives of the News Media Association, who have written to me at least twice on this important topic. I would be more than happy to discuss all of their concerns. In the meantime, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Black, to withdraw his opposition to the clause standing part.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
I thank the Minister very much for her comments and the offer to meet. I suspect she is involved in a large number of meetings at the moment, and we will try not to add too much to the burden.
This has been a very good debate on a difficult subject, but one, as we have heard from a number of people, that is of profound importance. We have to get the balance right, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said, and that is what this debate has shown.
I will make three quick points, if I may. First, to underline what we heard a number of times in this debate, of course we all have huge admiration and respect for firearms officers. They are a very brave group of people who do a great deal here to protect us, and we are in their debt. They deserve protection. The points we have tried to make are that they have it at the moment. The difficulty with these clauses is that it is made automatic. That means, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said, it is not always going to be easy to rebut.
There is an issue, as far as the media is concerned, that a presumption of anonymity could mean that the media is not put on proper notice and therefore is unable to challenge the presumption, if indeed those media outlets possess the resources to do so. If it is left to potluck that reporters become aware then open justice erodes, because the media has not got a chance to consider whether it should contest the presumption.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and others have said that, thankfully, it is a very small number of cases such as this that ever come to court. It is not about that; this is a matter, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, of high principle. In my experience, open justice and press freedom do not perish because of obvious assaults against them but because of apparently innocuous incremental changes such as this and the provision of special cases. The point, as my noble friend Lady Cash said, is that if anonymity becomes the default, openness has to be justified. That is the end of a very slippery slope, which is one of the things the Minister and I can talk about when we meet.
Finally, to echo a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, made, at the end of the day, this is about state power and the exercise of state power. We chip away at the scrutiny of that at our peril. To do so, we should have overwhelming evidence. I appreciate what the Minister said in summing up, but I still do not believe that the case has been made. A number of noble Lords have said that we have time before Report to consider this further. It is a matter of huge importance, so let us take the time before Report to do so. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my opposition to the clause.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes provision that is no longer needed because of the general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, which was inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and came into force on 20 August 2025.
Baroness Chakrabarti
“Service as a police officer: aggravating factor in criminal sentencing(1) On sentencing for any criminal offence, current or past service as a police officer shall be presumed to be an aggravating factor.(2) Where in a particular case, a court decides against any such aggravation justifying an increased penalty, it shall state the reasons for this decision.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause and another in the name of Baroness Chakrabarti relate to the criminal sentencing of serving or retired police officers. This amendment creates a rebuttable presumption that such service should be an aggravating factor.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I will rise slowly to allow for the appropriate exodus.
I have Amendments 425 and 426 in this group. They are probing amendments only, and therefore I do not propose to detain the Committee for too long, not least as these follow the excellent previous debate, for which I commend the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, and all the participants. Many of the sentiments in that discussion informed my thinking behind these two amendments.
Let me explain. Like other noble Lords, I have a huge amount of respect for the overwhelming majority of police officers in this country, perhaps best exemplified by those who keep us safe outside and inside this building, and indeed those former officers who contribute so ably to debates in your Lordships’ House. Unfortunately, that is not the whole story of policing.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am never sure what a probing amendment means, because surely all our amendments are probing, and I certainly would support both these amendments on Report, because they are actually crucial. Although I am vastly older than the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, I, too, have been working on this for quite a long time, but only for two and a half decades. The number of police officers who have, in some way, been found guilty of a crime and yet still get their police pensions and all the benefits of having been a police officer for some years, however badly it has ended, really is annoying.
Police officers do a very difficult job—I am very appreciative of that and understand the problems—and most do it well. But when someone abuses that role, the damage is much greater for public trust. It is wider than any single case. Trust in policing depends on people believing that no one is above the law. In the previous debate the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, made the point that the rule of law is for us all, and I will bring that issue up again when we get to the public whatsit Bill, on—
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the noble Baroness very much.
At the moment the rule of law is not for us all, as exemplified by the way we treat police in some cases. On pensions, why do the Government prefer decisions about pension forfeiture to be taken later behind closed doors rather than in open court, where reasons are given and can be tested on appeal? If a judge has heard all the evidence in a criminal case involving a police officer, and has seen the harm done and the abuse of trust, why do the Government think that a judge should have no say at all over a publicly funded police pension?
I ask this out of long experience. We have been told for decades now that existing systems are enough or that reforms are coming, and clearly that is not happening. I personally would like to see, instead of these little baby steps, a bold, straightforward move towards the kind of accountability that people can see and understand. Time and again, in cases of serious police misconduct, the consequences remain unclear and invisible to the public.
From the public’s point of view, the current system makes very little sense. Some serious criminal convictions of police officers fall outside the pensions rule altogether, simply because they do not meet a narrow legal definition. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why judges who hear the evidence are excluded and why transparency in court is still seen as a step too far.
When this Labour Government got elected, I really hoped for some changes in the way that we apply a sense of fairness to the whole of our legal system. Quite honestly, they have disappointed me very badly. They are no better than this side of the Chamber. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, we have been waiting a long time for this, and a Labour Government should really put it right.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, both these amendments seek to sharpen the consequences for police officers, serving or retired, who commit criminal offences. High-profile cases and damning reports have exposed toxic elements of policing culture, eroding public trust. Yet the vast majority of police officers do an excellent job and are let down by a small minority. Recent cases highlight public expectations that the law should rightly demand higher standards of personal integrity from police officers and, at the very least, adherence to the law of the land.
There is also no question but that public confidence in policing’s ability to police its own is fragile. While the latest figures from the Independent Office for Police Conduct show record high complaints, over a quarter of the public lack confidence in the organisation itself, most cannot even describe what it does, and nearly half distrust the police complaints system. That should give us pause for thought, because it is really quite serious.
When officers are seen to evade scrutiny or punishment, trust erodes further. This has major repercussions for those doing the job properly, because many members of the public then say, “Well, they’re all the same, aren’t they?” I fully accept the noble Baroness’s argument that more can and should be done.
Amendment 425 would create a rebuttable presumption that police service can be treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing. This rightly recognises the unique betrayal of public trust when those entrusted to uphold the law instead break it. However, I have a concern that in marginal cases, being a police officer could flip from helping to reduce the sentence, as somebody who has served the public, to becoming an automatic burden.
Amendment 426 goes further, granting courts the power to forfeit a sizeable chunk of an offender’s police pension. This could serve as a highly effective deterrent. However, I worry on two counts. First, it could discourage quality recruits, who fear that one mistake could destroy their and their family’s lifetime financial security. Secondly, it could entail taking away pension benefits that the officer has already earned fairly during what were presumably good years of service.
These amendments definitely merit serious consideration, but they also focus on symptoms rather than causes. From these Benches, we want to see the Government go further to strengthen the front line of police misconduct systems, with vetting that catches risks early and misconduct processes that are swift, transparent and trusted. Only then will sentencing reforms such as this land with any amount of force.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 425 and 426 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, relate to the criminal sentencing of serving or retired police officers. We on this side of the Committee cannot support them. These amendments are well intentioned, and we understand where the noble Baroness is coming from, but we believe they will cause more problems than the issues they are trying to address. I do not see, for example, that they would have had any impact on the behaviour of the officer in the Everard murder or in other cases of police misconduct.
Amendment 425 would create a rebuttable presumption that current or former police officers should have their service as a police officer treated as an aggravating factor when being sentenced for a criminal offence. We, like the noble Baroness, believe that police officers should be held to a high standard. Abuses of power should be treated with the utmost seriousness, but the amendment is far too wide and risks creating unintended outcomes. Sentencing should, as far as is reasonably possible, be a specific exercise based on the facts of the case before the court.
At present, the courts already have the ability to treat an abusive position of trust or authority as an aggravating factor where relevant. This will allow for judges to distinguish between offences that may have been connected to an individual’s role as a police officer and those that are completely independent of it. They should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Amendment 425 would apply regardless of whether the offence had any connection to police service, resulting in the inclusion of offences that were wholly unconnected to an officer’s professional role and committed perhaps many years after the officer had retired or left the force.
Introducing such a provision, even as a rebuttable presumption, risks introducing an unnecessary and inappropriate counterproductive legal complexity. In practice, judges reflect on the defendant’s status and whether it is an aggravating factor. Furthermore, it would require the court to judge a person by their job and quite possibly what they were doing many years before. It could be 20 years before the commission of the offence and wholly unconnected with their service.
Similarly, we have significant concerns about Amendment 426. Pensions are deferred pay. They have been earned by service. I appreciate that issues arise where, while being so paid, the officer embarks on perhaps corrupt behaviour, but the police service will have to think about how it addresses that. It requires careful consideration of terms of service. If the police service wishes to include appropriate terms to address that sort of conduct, it is a matter for careful and balanced drafting, not for the relative sledgehammer—I mean that politely—proposed here. Once money has been earned and transferred to the relevant individual, that money is now their property. This amendment would undermine that principle and give the courts the power to deprive someone of money that may be entirely unrelated to the crime of which they are being convicted. It is potentially a large mandatory fine on top of any other sentence. We all know that police officers who go to prison face undoubted unpleasantness and very often have to be offered solitary confinement and protection. That in itself is a very substantial penalty.
We agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, about the risks of these amendments and the steps that should equally be taken to improve the way in which the police service operates. But the forfeiture of pension rights for just any criminal offence, especially in cases distinct from instances of abuse of police powers, could lead to disproportionate unintended consequences. We recognise that maintaining public confidence in policing is essential, but that confidence must be upheld through clear standards and conviction when things go wrong, then more effective punishment if needed; and, if necessary, by revision of the terms of service, but done by a matter of the terms of service, not by this rather blunt instrument. We look to the Minister for assurances on those points.
Relevant penalties must be imposed on the basis of conduct, not just status, so we cannot support the amendments. The context in which the sentence is passed is the fact of service; that would be relevant, but it is relevant only if that particular case comes before the court.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti indicated that this was a probing amendment and I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss these points.
I start by saying to the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Doocey, and my noble friend that this Labour Government are committed to making improvements in police standards. That is why we have introduced significant reforms to strengthen police vetting and to act on misconduct and performance systems. This includes placing a duty on officers to hold and maintain vetting clearances and introducing a presumption of dismissal for proven gross misconduct. There are a number of measures in the Bill, but also in secondary legislation—and I trail the White Paper on police reform, shortly to be produced—that will show that this Labour Government, to answer the noble Baroness’s point, are committed to upholding standards and improving them, particularly in the wake of the murder of Sarah Everard and the conviction of police officers for simply heinous crimes. I put that on the record as a starting point because, with due respect, I do not accept the noble Baroness’s position that we are not doing anything on these matters.
I also support my noble friend’s broader position on strengthening accountability in the police service. I wish to see that happen but, in probing these amendments, I ask her to consider whether they are proportionate, fair or necessary. I take up and share some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, made in his contribution.
Amendment 425 would make an individual’s current or former service as a police officer a statutory aggravating factor when sentencing them for any criminal offence. It is right that an officer’s service should be an aggravating factor where an offence has been committed in connection with their service, particularly where officers have abused their position of trust. It cannot be right that individuals should be sentenced more harshly than other members of the public based on their occupation or, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, said, their former occupation. That is why the existing sentencing guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council must be followed by the courts, unless it is not in the interest of justice to do so, and make clear that abuse of power or position is an aggravating factor in sentencing. My noble friend knows that, because she mentioned it in her contribution. Introducing a statutory provision is therefore unnecessary. I submit to my noble friend that there is no gap in law or practice, and it would be neither fair nor proportionate to presume that a person’s current or previous service as a police officer was an aggravating factor in all cases.
Amendment 426 would give powers to the Crown Court to make decisions on the forfeiture of police officers’ pensions where an officer has been convicted of a criminal offence. As I have mentioned already, I am sympathetic to strengthening accountability in the police service, but responsibility for the forfeiture of a police officer’s pension is already set out in legislation. I know that my noble friend knows this, because she referred to it. In most cases, the matter is in the hands of elected police and crime commissioners. Police and crime commissioners are not only the pension supervising authority for police officers but the locally elected officials designed to represent the public and local communities. I therefore contend to my noble friend that they are clearly well positioned to consider the impact of such offending on public confidence in policing.
However, it is also worth mentioning to the Committee that the Home Secretary has a role in this matter. Pension forfeiture cannot happen without a conviction having been first certified by the Home Secretary as being gravely injurious to the interests of the state or liable to lead to serious loss of confidence. While the Crown Court has an existing role as the relevant appeal body following a forfeiture decision, the process of considering whether to pursue and apply for pension forfeiture is not, I suggest, properly the responsibility of the criminal courts, especially given that they have an appeal role in that process and that there is no mechanism in the amendment that would allow the Home Secretary to make submissions to the Crown Court on public interest factors that should be considered.
I know that my noble friend has probed in this amendment, and I know she knows this because she referenced it in her speech: those two mechanisms are available. We are trying to look at the key issue, which in my view is sorting out vetting issues and standards and making sure that we maintain those standards. That is what we are doing in the Bill, and in the White Paper that will shortly be before the House of Commons and the House of Lords. I therefore ask my noble friend, at least on this occasion, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I did not hear an answer to my question about why a judge should not hear about pension forfeiture in an open court. The forfeiting of pensions does happen, but it happens outside the court in closed rooms, and we never really understand the reasons given. Why not allow it to happen in court in front of a judge?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As I just said, it can be done in court in front of a judge on appeal. The decisions are taken by the police and crime commissioner and/or the Home Secretary, who is accountable for those matters, and the Government intend to hold to that position. It may not satisfy the noble Baroness, as ever, but I look forward to her support on the key issue, which is improving vetting to make sure that we do not have those significant bad apples in the police force in the first place. That is our key focus in the White Paper and the measures in the Bill.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I said these were probing amendments because I thought it was important that we discussed in Committee on this Bill the issues of police standards, discipline and public confidence, as well as all the other measures that we are constantly debating to do with additional police powers. I am so grateful.
I say gently to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, that in his response to the pension forfeiture provision he spoke as if this was not already an established principle. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, got it right when she said the issue here is about how you will inspire most public confidence when forfeiture proceedings are happening. Would there not be some benefit in this being part of the sentence and therefore being given greater publicity because it has been announced in an open Crown Court? I think that is really the only difference between us.
I am grasping at any straw of how we might try to improve confidence in policing in this country, where, year on year, this is not happening. I was particularly grateful to my noble friend the Minister for, in a sense, responding to the provocation of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to talk about what he plans with the White Paper and so on. I am sure we all look forward to engaging with all that. For the moment, though, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Doocey
“Police training – independent review(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish an independent review of the quality of in-service police officer training within police forces in England and Wales. (2) The review must—(a) assess the consistency, effectiveness and outcomes of all training provided to police officers after completion of their initial entry-level training, including all—(i) in-service training,(ii) workforce development programmes,(iii) refresher courses, and(iv) specialist training,(b) consider the extent to which training equips officers with the necessary skills, knowledge and professional standards to reflect the demands of modern policing, including—(i) digital skills,(ii) investigative skills,(iii) trauma awareness and conflict management, and(iv) processes by which police officers are informed of, and trained in, changes to the law, and(c) make recommendations for improvement, where appropriate.(3) The review established under subsection (1) must complete its work within 12 months of its establishment.(4) Within three months of receiving the review, the Secretary of State must lay a statement before Parliament containing their response and proposals to take forward the recommendations in the review.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to establish an independent review on police training.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 427 concerns one of the most vital levers for improving the performance and professionalism of our police service: the training of front-line officers. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the training that officers receive once deployed by their forces. At present, the College of Policing sets national standards and issues codes and regulations, but it cannot force them to comply. Implementation depends on the forces themselves, the Home Office and inspectorates to give those standards real force. The result is uneven training and a postcode lottery for the public.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, on Amendment 427, and I have signed Amendment 428, which I will address. I come to the issue of mental health because I was present at and contributed to the debate the last time your Lordships’ House reviewed and improved the Armed Forces covenant. Mental health plays a vital part in that. I have friends and family members who are past and present members of the military, and I have seen how the military, over the last 15 to 20 years, has managed and improved its mental health.
That is the position I took when trying to have a look at how our police, not just officers but ancillary staff, are supported when they face difficult circumstances that might put their mental health under pressure. The difference between the MoD’s approach and the College of Policing’s approach is really quite stark. To start with, the College of Policing—I looked at some individual constabularies as well—is all about signposting elsewhere to outside organisations. There is virtually nothing on what happens inside your own organisation if you are a police officer. The front page of the advice rightly refers to the Samaritans first; it then talks about Mind, social media support, and support for police officers and staff experiencing mental illness or distress. Then, and only then, on page four, does it start to talk about what happens inside your own place of employment and how you can find support there.
The contrast with the MoD advice on mental health is that soon after the headline
“Armed forces covenant and mental health”,
it has a massive headline that says:
“Getting advice or help urgently”
for “serving personnel”; it goes through that and then it does it for “veterans”. It starts by saying that
“your first point of call should be your chain of command, unit medical officer, welfare officer or chaplain if you are in the UK or overseas”,
so if you are a serving member of staff you know instantly that your first place is the place in which you live and work, and you have your chain of command—the people above you and the people who may be junior to you.
I recognise that the details of the Armed Forces covenant are different from the employment relationship that police officers have, but before I move specifically on to the amendment I want to say that one of the other things that the armed services learned as a consequence of the Afghan campaign was that they needed to get a much better dialogue going on between staff. They were almost the first people to start introducing mental health first-aiders. It absolutely transformed areas of the military where it was introduced with gusto. This idea about the chain of command meant that there was an instant response from somebody who, like a first-aid trainer, could go and say to a colleague, “Are you all right? Have you got some problems?”, or whatever.
In policing, it appears very patchy as to whether mental health first-aiders are properly encouraged. In fact, the only thing that I could find online was that Staffordshire Police said in 2023 that it had over 50 mental health first-aiders. That is a really good standard, but there is no evidence held centrally about that level. It also indicates the seriousness with which a service, in its entirety, looks after its personnel.
I looked at the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, which sets out some criteria to start to gather that information about the response to mental health—not just mental health first-aiders. Again, I could not find anything online that was solely about policing. However, there was a recent report by the King’s Centre for Military Health Research, jointly researched by King’s College London, the OU and the Royal Foundation, entitled Assessing the Mental Health and Wellbeing of the Emergency Responder Community in the UK. That obviously is not just the police; it includes the ambulance service and firefighters.
In its very good research paper, the centre noted that, across the three emergency responder services, there was generally an absence of definitions and very little monitoring and evaluation. The paper talked about the importance of trauma support, including for PTSD. It emphasised, as I have already mentioned, the reliance on signposting to outside bodies and a lack of involvement inside police forces, and it certainly emphasised the lack of data collection and evaluation, including on self-harm, suicide, and alcohol and substance misuse.
The paper noted that there was no real sense of how emergency responder services were going to address what worked and did not work, and therefore whether any training that they were doing was going to be relevant. The paper recommended a promotion of good practice, so that responders know what good practice is, as well as the promotion and extension of support for “mental health/wellbeing ‘champions’”, which I think means mental health first aiders and some of the other forms of that.
The key thing the paper said was that there should be access to a single “Universal Gateway” website, analogous to the MoD page, and that to have that universal gateway there must be a single, universal collection of data and evaluation, so that across the board the police can understand what works and what does not work.
The UK systematic review found 81 recent results of ad hoc research projects, of which 43 were from police forces. Frankly, everybody needs to work together much better to make this work. That brings me back to the amendment, which, at the very least, sets out a route to collect that data right across the police forces in England and Wales. It focuses on a series of issues that I have already mentioned, and it would be a good start to approaching issues of mental health in the way that the military does for its people, which is having success. I hope that the Home Office Minister will look at that when deciding whether or not this amendment should be supported.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 427 and 428, both in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, raise important questions about police training and how best to ensure that officers are properly equipped for the demands of modern policing.
Amendment 427 would require the Secretary of State to establish an independent review of in-service police training. We recognise the important underlying principle of the point being made here. Policing has changed significantly in recent years, not least because of the growth of digital crime, involving investigative techniques and greater awareness of trauma and professional standards. It is entirely right that we ask whether training keeps pace with these demands and whether there is sufficient consistency and effectiveness across forces. An independent review is one way of taking stock of that landscape and identifying gaps or best practice.
However, reviews of this nature inevitably come with costs in time and resource and risk introducing potential further bureaucratic hurdles for the police. It is worth reflecting on whether there may be other mechanisms, such as through existing inspection or the monitoring of professional standards frameworks, that could achieve similar outcomes. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government currently assess the quality and consistency of in-service training and whether further work of this kind is already under way.
Amendment 428 focuses specifically on mandatory mental health training for front-line officers. The intention behind this amendment is clear. Police officers are often the first responders in highly distressing situations involving individuals in mental health crises. A degree of appropriate training in de-escalation and communication is clearly valuable. However, we on this side have some concerns that I hope the Minister can address.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for raising these issues. I know she feels strongly about them. We have an interchangeable Front Bench here between the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Brinton. It is always of interest to me that we have a good dual ability between the two noble Baronesses on these matters; I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, from the Front Bench/Back Bench.
The noble Baroness is right that training and support are vital. Police officers do a difficult job. They need to identify and have that support. I am grateful to her for shining a light on this in the amendment today. She knows—I just want to put this on the record again—that the College of Policing currently sets standards for police training and development, including the national policing curriculum, to support initial learning for new recruits, and standards and an accreditation for those who work in high-risk or specialist roles. The College of Policing also works strongly with police forces to support standards and to look at ongoing training and development. Again, our White Paper, which will appear in very short order, will consider the future workforce and will set out reform proposals on leadership and on culture to ensure that the Government’s safer streets and other projects and the mission that we have is equipped with support to achieve those objectives.
The noble Baroness will also know that my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, who is currently the chair of the College of Policing, have been appointed to review police leadership in a new commission, which the Government support. I expect that that will include looking at the wider training issues that the noble Baroness has made reference to today. I do not want to pre-empt that work, but it is important that we just recognise that. The request for the Home Secretary to commission as independent review, as Amendment 427 suggests, would potentially duplicate or pre-empt what is already being undertaken by the White Paper and by the two colleagues from this House.
Amendment 428 would ensure that police officers are equipped to deal with people suffering a mental health crisis. It is an extremely important issue. It is important that our police have the training and skills to not just be able to identify when a person is vulnerable but to understand how to intervene appropriately when people are experiencing a mental health crisis. For the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has given, very often officers will be the first port of call when mental health crises happen, because they are the first port of call in every circumstance. It is important that officers are equipped to make appropriate decisions in that range of circumstances and to treat people fairly, with humanity, and understand the issues accordingly.
Evidence shows that they are doing a reasonable job. The Mental Health Act review by Professor Sir Simon Wessely noted that
“numerous examples of police treating those with mental health problems with kindness and compassion”
were identified. That is what the public can expect, and that is what we want to see.
I say to both the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Doocey, that the College of Policing sets relevant standards, guidance and training on these operational matters. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said that she tried to find examples of that. The College of Policing currently has a mental health learning programme available via College Learn. It has programme specification and training guides which are updated and have been updated very recently—in the last few years. There are module titles on mental health and the police, providing a first response to mental health incidents, responding to suicide, providing specialist support at incidents of mental health and developing a strategic response to mental health.
With operational support from chief constables, who are independent of government, how they use that resource is a matter for the police. Different police forces will face different challenges and pressures and have different ways of doing it. But there is a level of support, which the outcomes of the police White Paper and the reviews by the two noble Lords I have mentioned will assist and support. It is important that we recognise that work is ongoing.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I think I was making a very slightly different point. I am aware of these courses, but my argument was that what the military has achieved has been through culture change within the entire organisation, rather than just sending people on a course to get a qualification.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is important to do that, but I also say to the noble Baroness that the police are not mental health experts, nor should we expect them to be. At the end of the day, they will be the first responders who have to identify and support people. The work on the Right Care, Right Person project over the last two years by police and health partners, to ensure that people who are in mental health crisis get the right response from the right person with the right training and skills at the right time, is important. That work has shown a decrease in unwarranted police intervention in mental health pathways. We want people with a mental health challenge to have support. The police are dealing with the crisis in the moment, and perhaps the consequential behaviour of the crisis, rather than the underlying long-term trends.
There will always be a role for police in dealing with mental health calls where there is a risk of serious harm. It is important that police have access to relevant health information and use their police powers to do that.
Importantly, as I have mentioned already, there is an important set of training material available, which goes to points that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, mentioned. The College of Police’s mental health training is for all new officers to go through. There is an additional suite of training material I have referred to that provide, I hope, the approach to the culture change that the noble Baroness is seeking. This training provides officers with knowledge to recognise what mental health challenges there are and to communicate with and support people exhibiting such indicators.
I think this is a worthwhile discussion, but I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that it would be helpful to withdraw the amendment now, and we will reflect on the outcome of the White Paper in due course.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and my noble friend Lady Brinton for her summing up, which I thought was excellent. I just want to make a couple of quick points.
I am very much aware that the College of Policing determines what training should be provided for police officers. However, the point I was making—perhaps not strongly enough—is that the training does not work. The training is inappropriate; every police chief will tell you that. HMICFRS, which is the inspectorate, has said on multiple occasions and in multiple reports that the training is inadequate and there need to be changes, and nothing has happened. I honestly think that, whatever happens, there has to be an independent national audit of police training because there has not been one since 2012. The last one was a PEEL inspection, which examined individual forces but not the national picture.
I am so looking forward to the Minister’s White Paper. I cannot even begin to describe how excited I am about it. I think I am correct in saying that the Minister has referred to it—that it will solve all our problems—in almost every topic we have ever discussed. My only concern is that, if it contains as many subjects and if it is going to solve as many problems as the Minister suggests, it will probably be more like an encyclopaedia than a White Paper. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Doocey
“Neighbourhood policing(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that every local authority area in England and Wales has a neighbourhood policing team which must be assigned exclusively to community-based duties, including—(a) high-visibility foot patrols,(b) community engagement and intelligence gathering,(c) crime prevention initiatives, and(d)s solving crime.(2) The Home Office must publish proposals detailing the additional funding that will be required to ensure that police forces can meet these requirements without reducing officer numbers in other frontline policing roles.(3) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report detailing—(a) the number of officers and PCSOs deployed in neighbourhood policing roles,(b) the total cost of maintaining the required levels, and(c) the impact on crime reduction and public confidence in policing.(4) If a police force fails to meet the minimum staffing levels required under subsection (1), the Home Office must intervene and provide emergency funding to ensure compliance within six months.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to ensure that every local authority area in England and Wales has a neighbourhood policing team which must be assigned exclusively to community-based duties.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 429 and 430, in my name. An effective, responsive and trusted police service must be built from the ground up, not imposed from the top down. I hope the forthcoming White Paper will start from that premise and reflect the Government’s stated commitment to community policing.
The Minister will no doubt highlight the neighbourhood policing guarantee and the promise of named officers in every community, and much of the Bill is described as strengthening neighbourhood officers’ ability to tackle the priorities of most concern to local communities—respect orders, tighter shoplifting laws and new vehicle seizure powers. However, none of this addresses the central challenge for chief constables: how to deliver on these promises amid rising demand, high turnover and chronic funding shortfalls. Front-line delivery depends on forces retaining officers in visible community roles rather than constantly redeploying them to plug shortages elsewhere.
Despite the new neighbourhood policing grant, the early signs are troubling. Last month, Cheshire police announced a 70% cut in PCSO numbers, from 87 to 27, despite public opposition, citing the need to save £13 million. Nationally too, PCSO numbers fell by 3.3% in the year to March 2025—a loss equivalent to 253 full-time officers—while front counters continue to close, and more and more school liaison programmes disappear.
This simply is not good enough. Public confidence rests on local responsiveness, yet neighbourhood policing teams today have about 10,000 fewer officers and PCSOs than in 2015. The police inspectorate has warned that some forces lack sufficient neighbourhood officers to deal effectively with anti-social behaviour, with huge variations of service across the country. Between 2019 and 2023, over 4 million anti-social behaviour incidents were not attended by an officer in person. Some forces responded to every report; others to very few. Of course, trusted neighbourhood officers are critical to tackling not only anti-social behaviour but knife crime, domestic abuse and retail theft, to name just a few.
Amendment 429 therefore seeks to guarantee for every local authority area a dedicated neighbourhood policing team protected from being routinely diverted to fill response gaps, and to require an annual Home Office report on the state of community policing.
Amendment 430 would make it a statutory duty for forces to maintain neighbourhood teams at effective staffing levels, the level to be determined by forces, councils, communities and ward panels to ensure that resources meet local demand. To support this, we propose ring-fencing 20% of future police grants, supplemented by a share of recovered proceeds of crime. This approach preserves operational flexibility. Forces could, of course, choose to exceed the minimum level if they so wished. I urge the Government to work with these Benches towards our shared goal—restoring visible, trusted and effective neighbourhood policing. I beg to move.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for tabling Amendments 429 and 430. Neighbourhood policing is one of the most important facets of the job, and we support any approach that intends to increase the presence of officers within neighbourhood communities. It is all consistent and very much part of the approach of that great Conservative Sir Robert Peel. Visible police presence on the streets of local communities is an incredibly important role. There is the obvious consequence that more officers out on patrol results in more crime being deterred and prevented, but the latent impact is that more noticeable, familiar and engaged officers contribute to an atmosphere of order and civility within local neighbourhoods—in other words, generally better behaviour.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for her amendments. I start, however, with the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, who prayed in aid the great Conservative, as he said, Robert Peel. From my recollection, Robert Peel was certainly not in charge of the police force during the 14 years of the previous Government, under which the noble Lord served. I was Police Minister in 2009-10 and know that we lost 20,000 police officers—I repeat, 20,000—in the first years of the Conservative Government. I think Sir Robert Peel had gone walkabout during that period and was not serving as a neighbourhood police officer under the Conservative Government’s watch at that particular time.
There was a lamentable decline in neighbourhood policing between 2010 and the last election. This Government have delivered on our commitment in the election to restore neighbourhood policing. We have already announced that police forces will be supported to deliver an increase of 13,000 officers for neighbourhood policing by the end of this Parliament. In the previous six months, we have delivered 80% of our year-one target, with nearly 2,400 additional neighbourhood officers in post. We remain on track to reach a full 3,000 uplift by April this year, which goes to the heart of the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. We backed that with £200 million of additional investment in the current financial year, as part of a total funding settlement to police forces of £17.6 billion. Total funding will again rise next year, 2026-27, by £746 million, taking the total funding for police forces up to £18.3 billion next year. That is a major level of investment in policing that this Government have brought forward, and I argue that it meets the objective of the noble Baroness’s amendment.
It is because of our neighbourhood policing guarantee that every neighbourhood across England and Wales now has named and contactable officers. These neighbourhood teams are dedicated to engaging with communities, gathering intelligence, and preventing crime and anti-social behaviour. Forces are ensuring that regular beat meetings take place, providing local people and businesses with a direct platform to shape policing priorities. We have more visible patrols, and officers and PCSOs have started to complete the new neighbourhood policing programme. There is career pathway training, launched in June 2025. There are designated leads for anti-social behaviour in every police force and a commitment to 72-hour response times to neighbourhood queries. These are all measures that I am sure Robert Peel would have welcomed had he been in charge for the previous 14 years—but he was not, and it did not happen, but it is now.
The new police standards and performance improvement unit will ensure that police performance is consistently and accurately measured. The work of the unit is going to reinforce our commitment to transparency and, for the noble Baroness, I pray in aid the upcoming White Paper on police reform—she will not have too long to wait for it now. It will detail how wider reforms will support the Government’s pledge to rebuild neighbourhood policing.
The amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, are absolutely in the right direction of travel. The question is whether she wants to constrain chief constables with the demands that she seeks to put centrally. I argue that the Government will continue to bolster neighbourhood policing and have reversed the cuts imposed by the previous Government—the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, seems to have had a memory blank around what happened over that time. The Government have set clear standards of local policing, and will work with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the College of Policing and others. We are heading in the direction of the noble Baroness’s amendment, without the need to legislate.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Could the Minister say something about the Police Federation’s attitude to the list of changes to enforcement that he has laid out?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government work closely with the Police Federation and will always listen and gauge the situation with them. I have met the chair of the Police Federation on a number of occasions, and other Ministers in government do the same. We will engage with that body. Like other federations or any form of trade union—although it is not a trade union—there will on occasion be differences between the organisation, the police chiefs and the Government, as is perfectly natural. I believe that we are investing in supporting police officers on the ground to do a better job in what they are trying to do and ensuring that the Government undertake a focus on neighbourhood policing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, seeks. On that basis, I urge her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
I thank the Minister for his response. I do not think that we are miles and miles apart. To be clear, I would never do anything that I thought chief constables would not be very much in favour of. They do a fantastic and astonishing job, and I would never do anything that I thought would be operationally wrong for them.
Our amendments are designed to complement what the Government are trying to do, but our aim is to ensure that all communities receive a guaranteed minimum level of visible local policing attached to the funding that makes that happen. I look forward to discussing in further detail with the Minister how that can happen. We are not miles apart and I am sure that when we see this mythical White Paper it will give us all the answers that we require. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Doocey
“Duty to record algorithmic tools(1) Each police force in England and Wales must disclose its use of any algorithmic tool used in the exercise of its functions that may affect the rights, entitlements or obligations of individuals by completing entries in the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard (ATRS).(2) Under subsection (1) “algorithmic tool” means a product, application or device that supports or solves a specific problem using complex algorithms.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment places a duty on police forces to disclose any algorithmic tool used in the exercise of its functions.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, powerful AI tools are transforming policing and reshaping how forces investigate, patrol and make decisions, often with profound implications. This amendment would make it a legal requirement for forces to disclose any algorithmic tool used in this way that might affect a person’s rights or freedoms.
The Government’s algorithmic transparency recording standard, ATRS, provides a consistent way for public bodies to explain how their algorithmic tools work, what data they use and how human oversight is maintained. Its goal is a public, searchable record of these systems. Use of the ATRS is mandatory for arm’s-length bodies delivering public services, though the previous Government did not extend that to the police, despite calls from the Committee on Standards in Public Life and from the Justice and Home Affairs Committee.
The College of Policing has now integrated the ATRS into its authorised professional practice. Forces are expected to complete an ATRS report for all relevant tools. That is welcome progress. The hope is that forces will increasingly comply to build public trust and meet their equality and data protection duties. However, while compliance is now expected, failure to record a tool is still not a legal requirement. A force could still choose not to use the ATRS, citing operational necessity, and it would not be breaking any law.
Transparency is vital across public services but nowhere more so than in policing, where these systems have the power to alter lives and restrict liberty. That is why Justice and civil liberties groups such as the Ada Lovelace and Alan Turing institutes want police use of these tools to be publicly declared and for this to be placed on a statutory footing. What is ultimately needed is a national register with real legal force—something the NPCC’s own AI lead has called for.
Government work on such a register is under way. I welcome that project but it will take time, while AI capabilities advance very rapidly indeed. The ATRS is the mechanism we have for now. This amendment would immediately strengthen it, requiring every operational AI tool from facial recognition to predictive mapping to be publicly declared.
Why does this matter? Take gait analysis, identifying people by how they move. No UK force has declared that it uses it, but its potential is recognised. Ireland is already legislating for its use in serious crime. Without a legal duty here, a UK force could deploy gait analysis tomorrow, with no public knowledge or oversight, just as facial recognition pilots proceed today with limited transparency.
This year, forces will spend nearly £2 billion on digital technology and analytics. With growing demand and limited resources, it is no surprise at all that forces turn to AI for efficiency. Yet, without total transparency, this technological shift risks further eroding public trust. Recognition of that need is growing. No one wants to return to the Met’s unlawful gangs matrix, quietly risk-scoring individuals on dubious grounds. For that reason, I urge the Government to accept this vital safeguard. It is a foundation for accountability in a field that will only grow in power and in consequence. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Doocey explained, Amendment 431 seeks to place a statutory duty on every police force in England and Wales to disclose its use of algorithmic tools where they affect the rights, entitlements or obligations of individuals.
We are witnessing a rapid proliferation of algorithmic decision-making in policing, from predictive mapping to risk assessment tools used in custody suites. Algorithms are increasingly informing how the state interacts with the citizen, yet too often these tools operate in a black box, hidden from public view and democratic scrutiny. As we have discussed in relation to other technologies such as facial recognition, the deployment of advanced technology without a clear framework undermines public trust.
This amendment requires police forces, as my noble friend explained, to complete entries in the algorithmic transparency recording standard. The ATRS is the Government’s own standard for algorithmic transparency, developed to ensure public sector accountability. My Private Member’s Bill on public authority algorithmic and automated decision-making allows for a more advanced form of reporting. In my view, the ATRS is the bare minimum required for accountability for AI use in the public sector.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness’s amendment would place a duty on police forces in England and Wales to disclose their use of any algorithmic tool that may affect the rights, entitlements or obligations of individuals by completing entries in the algorithmic transparency recording standard.
That standard, ATRS, was developed as part of the Government’s wider digital and AI policy to ensure transparency about how public sector bodies use algorithmic tools in decision-making that impacts the public. It provides a template to publish information about such tools—specifically, information concerning what the tools are, why they are used and how they influence outcomes. This is seen as an important step to build public understanding of and trust in algorithmic systems used by government.
ATRS is already mandatory for central government departments and their arm’s-length bodies when tools have a significant influence on decisions with public effect or interact directly with the public, and guidance has been issued to support the publication of records. I recognise the intention behind this amendment, to promote transparency, accountability and public confidence in the use of algorithmic tools in policing. The use of complex algorithms and artificial intelligence in law enforcement raises legitimate questions about fairness, oversight and the protection of fundamental rights. It is right that Parliament scrutinises how we manage such risks.
I look forward to the Minister’s response, including the Government’s assessment of whether the ATRS framework as it currently applies can readily be extended to policing and what further measures might be needed to ensure that transparency and accountability are enhanced, without unintended consequences for operational effectiveness.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 431 deals with the use of algorithmic tools in policing. While the Government agree on the importance of transparency in the use of algorithmic tools by police forces, we do not believe that the amendment would be the optimal means of delivering either meaningful improvements in public confidence or operational benefits for policing.
The proposed duty would require police forces to disclose all algorithmic tools through the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard—the ATRS. The ATRS was designed for government departments and arm’s-length bodies, not for operationally independent police forces. While it is an effective tool for those organisations, its high level of technical detail and lack of narrative explanation mean that disclosures would not provide the clarity expected by the public and would risk burying key information in jargon. More importantly, mandating disclosure of all tools beyond the exemptions policy of the ATRS could inadvertently compromise operational security and policing tactics.
The Government are, however, keen to encourage transparency in the use of algorithmic tools by police forces in England and Wales to maintain the support of the public for their use and in keeping with the core tradition of policing by consent. In line with this, the Government have commissioned work on transparency measures for police use of AI and are working closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s AI portfolio and the National Policing Chief Scientific Adviser to develop policies encouraging and supporting appropriate levels of transparency while safeguarding operational integrity. This approach will ensure that transparency is meaningful, proportionate and does not undermine the effectiveness of policing.
It is important to recognise that we are listening to the public in dealing with concerns that have been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, around policing encroaching on civil liberties. Indeed, the Government commissioned and published research into public attitudes on the police’s use of AI last year. The research demonstrated strong support for AI use by the police. There are rightful concerns about the need for AI use to be underpinned by rigorous oversight, humans always being clearly involved in decision-making and transparency. These findings have been supported elsewhere; for example, in recently published research by CENTRIC, which surveyed 10,000 members of the public. That is why we are working closely with the NPCC to build upon and implement the principles of the covenant for the use of AI in policing, to which all forces in England and Wales have signed up. Of course, it is important.
The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, referred to the use of gait analysis, and there was a comparison to live facial recognition. It is important that we understand the risks of bias and discriminatory outcomes from using any policing tool.
To be clear, police deployments must comply with the Equality Act 2010 and data protection law. Forces are required to assess potential discrimination risks and should be able to evidence that tools are necessary, proportionate and fair. Humans remain clearly involved in decision-making, and forces are expected to monitor performance against protected characteristics so that any bias is identified and addressed. Where tools cannot meet these standards in practice, they should not be deployed or must be withdrawn pending remediation.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to black box systems. To be clear, we are not comfortable with black box systems being used in policing. Policing requires—
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I thank the Minister. Much of what he said about developing an alternative to the ATRS has been encouraging, but, obviously, quite a lot will also depend on—and he went on to talk about data protection—whether officers are trained in how Article 22 of the GDPR operates in terms of automated decision-making. What assurance can the Minister give about the level of knowledge and training in that area?
Lord Katz (Lab)
As I said, police deployments must comply with the Equality Act 2010 and data protection law, which, of course, include the latest data protection law under the GDPR. In relation to that specific point on Article 22 of the GDPR, I will have to write to the noble Lord to give him the full details, but, as I say, the general principle of compliance applies.
Just to finish the point I was making in reference to the noble Lord’s point about black box systems, where a system is inherently opaque, forces must have compensating controls such as rigorous testing, performance monitoring and strong human review, or not use that system.
Given these assurances—and I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he was encouraged, and we will wait to hear from his colleague as to whether she is encouraged by these responses—I hope the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am very interested in this area and supportive of the right use of AI in policing, because it can be enormously helpful to the police in terms of resources. I remember when I was at the Cabinet Office, they were doing a trial where they were using AI instead of officers to look through CCTV of abuse and child abuse, and that was saving a lot of resource and a lot of difficulty for police officers. The Minister did not mention what kind of use the police were making of AI. Does he have any information on that, or can I be referred elsewhere?
Lord Katz (Lab)
A range of use is made by police forces at individual force level. Each force makes operationally independent decisions as to what tools they test or deploy. Sometimes it is around administrative tasks that we see across lots of public services and sometimes it is specifically around operational issues and investigation. It is probably best that I do not go into too much detail, but I can certainly go back and talk to officials to see what we might be able to follow up on in writing with the noble Baroness, if there is more detail we can provide.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Yesterday, I looked at the public ATRS repository that is meant to record what AI tools police forces are deploying. It contained only two entries for police AI tools, even though we know that many are already being used, including systems such as live facial recognition, which is not listed at all. A great deal of AI development takes place within individual police forces, rather than through national programmes, and there are several reasons why these tools may not be appearing in the central record. Some forces believe that putting information on their own website is sufficient to meet transparency requirements. Others may avoid reporting tools by categorising them simply as standard software rather than as algorithms or AI systems. There may also be worries about publishing full information which could make it easier for defence lawyers to challenge decisions in court.
I think, therefore, that both the Government and we are clear—as well as the Official Opposition—that there absolutely is a problem that needs to be addressed, because it is not being addressed at the moment. AI is moving at such a rapid pace that this is not something that can be kicked into the long grass; it really needs to be addressed now. I therefore look forward to seeing the proposals that the Government are going to come forward with—I will not mention the war or the White Paper—but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Doocey
“National plan on police data intelligence systems(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a national plan to modernise police data and intelligence systems in England and Wales.(2) The plan must include steps to be taken to further the aims of—(a) replacing any antiquated police technology;(b) closing capability gaps identified in the National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse;(c) enabling real-time secure information exchange between police forces and partner agencies;(d) supporting improved—(i) risk identification,(ii) early intervention, and(iii) co-ordinated action,to protect children.(3) The national plan must set out clear milestones of how to achieve the aims set out in subsection (2) within five years of the plan being published.(4) Every 12 months after publication of the plan under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must lay a further report before Parliament outlining the progress to date in achieving the aims set out in subsection (2), until those aims have been completed.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment aims to take forward part of Recommendation 7 of Baroness Casey’s National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, relating to updating police information systems.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 432 seeks to press the Government on their plans to address long-standing problems of fragmented police and criminal justice data systems. I must tell noble Lords that I was working on this very subject when I was a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, which I left more than 16 years ago, and the system has neither changed nor got any better. The recent national audit on group-based child sexual exploitation produced by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, described policing’s data intelligence infrastructure as antiquated and identified systemic failures that continue to put children at serious risk. The audit also highlighted the wider paucity of technology underpinning policing.
These concerns echo what has been said for many years, and when I served on the Metropolitan Police Authority, the same warnings had already been voiced about creaking systems that did not keep pace with the demands placed on them. Yet despite endless reviews, there is still no fully integrated digital system linking the police with the rest of the criminal justice system.
Fragmented, outdated IT undermines public protection more broadly. Officers’ time is wasted on manual workarounds; investigative opportunities are missed; prosecutions are delayed, and known risks are not always identified, let alone shared. As digital evidence proliferates and crime becomes more cross-border and complex, the lack of seamless data sharing between forces and agencies becomes even more damaging.
Concerns about poor IT integration between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service were being formally raised as far back as the late 1990s. A major joint inspection published in July 2025 reiterated that the CPS case management system was never designed to interface properly with the 43 different police IT systems, contributing to delays, low charge rates and victim frustration. In other words, the same structural problems persist nearly three decades on.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I support much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said about the problems we face. This links in well with my amendments, which will be taken next week: Amendment 436 on enforcement data and Amendment 437 on police paperwork.
The fact of the matter is that a lot of officer time is wasted. There is too much paper and too much copy and paste, and, as the noble Baroness said, opportunities are missed. I know this because my son works in the Met and often complains when he comes to see me about the poor IT integration, particularly between the police, the CPS and the courts, where cases are being progressed.
I am sure that the Minister is well aware of all this and that steps are being taken to improve things, and I know, having worked in government on IT systems-related work, that it is very difficult. However, there is an enormous advantage to be gained from making progress in this area and spending police time on chasing and catching criminals, not on so much bureaucracy.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I want to make a very brief contribution—cheekily, because I have not taken any role in this Bill. My noble friend’s amendment, what she said in support of it and the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, are highly pertinent to the debate on the Government’s proposal to restrict jury trials. On the Tube in, I read an account of the report from the Institute for Government, which has looked at the Government’s proposals and concluded that the time savings from judge-only trials would be marginal at best, amounting to less than 2% of Crown Court time. It suggests, pertinently, that the Government
“should instead focus on how to drive up productivity across the criminal courts, investing in the workforce and technology required for the courts to operate more efficiently”.
As others who know the situation much better than I do have said, it sounds dire. One is used to all these problems of legacy systems—lack of interoperability and so on. I remember all that being debated at EU level. It is difficult and probably capital-intensive work—at least, initially—but instead of promoting these headline-grabbing gestures about abolishing jury trials, the Government need to fix the terrible lack of efficiency in the criminal justice system. I am not sure that the civil justice system is any better. Having, unfortunately, had a modest involvement in a case in the county court, I found that it was impossible to phone any staff. You might be lucky to get a response to an email after a week.
Making the system work efficiently, with all bits interacting with each other, would do a great deal more to increase productivity and save the time of all those people who are running around. One hears accounts from people who work in the criminal courts of reports not being available, files being lost and staff being absent, let alone the decrepit state of court buildings. All this investment needs to go in before the Government resort to gesture politics and things such as abolishing jury trials.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 432 was so well introduced by my noble friend Lady Doocey. This lack of appropriate technology and how it is handicapping our police services is something that she feels very strongly about. I was delighted to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and my noble friend Lady Ludford had to say, because this lack of the appropriate technology extends beyond the police services into the wider criminal justice system. This proposed new clause would address the desperate state of police data infrastructure by requiring the Secretary of State to publish a national plan to modernise police data and intelligence systems within 12 months.
As mentioned in the explanatory statement, this is not an abstract bureaucratic request. It is a direct response to, among other things, recommendation 7 of the National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. The audit painted a damning picture of the current landscape: intelligence systems that do not talk to one another, vital information trapped in silos and officers unable to join the dots to protect vulnerable children. It is unacceptable that, in 2025, we still rely on fragmented, obsolete IT systems to fight sophisticated networked criminality. This amendment seeks to mandate a coherent national strategy to ensure that antiquated police technology is replaced, that intelligence regarding predatory behaviour is shared effectively across police borders in real time and that we finally close the capability gaps that allow perpetrators of group-based child sexual exploitation to slip through the net.
Amendment 432 would ensure that, when the police hold vital intelligence, they have the systems to use it effectively. We cannot claim to be serious about tackling child exploitation if we do not fix the digital infrastructure that underpins our investigations.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing forward this amendment, which seeks to require the Government to publish a national plan to modernise police data and intelligence systems in England and Wales. At its heart, this amendment speaks to a very practical and pressing concern: that our policing infrastructure must stay up to date with modern crime, particularly the most harmful and insidious forms of abuse.
Outdated and fragmented information systems can frustrate effective policing. That point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, in the National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, which noted that some police forces are still operating antiquated legacy systems that inhibit real-time data sharing and hinder co-ordinated action across forces and with partner agencies.
Group-based child sexual exploitation is a complex crime. Our response must therefore be equally networked and technologically capable. Recommendation 7 from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, made it clear that improving data systems is essential—I emphasise that word—to ensuring children’s safety and enabling earlier intervention and more efficient information exchange. I look forward to the Minister’s outline of the steps the Government have already taken to address this issue.
This amendment seeks to take that recommendation forward by requiring a national plan with clear steps and milestones to modernise police data and intelligence systems. We strongly support the idea of having clear milestones not just for police forces and agencies but for the public and Parliament. Transparent targets allow for progress to be measured and debated, and provide operational leaders with something concrete and tangible to work towards.
We also welcome the requirement for annual progress reports to be laid before Parliament until the plan’s objectives are achieved. That level of ongoing scrutiny is important if we truly want to drive systemic improvement rather than to allow good intentions to gather dust. I therefore echo the helpful contributions of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford; we really must do better.
I look forward to the Minister’s response to this amendment. I would be grateful if he would outline how the Government intend to address the problems identified in the national audit and how they will respond to the constructive challenge that this amendment presents.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for explaining the rationale behind her amendment, which would require that a comprehensive national plan to improve police data and intelligence systems is set out within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent.
While I am sympathetic to the intent of this amendment—I think probably everyone in the Committee is—I stress that Parliament already has a role in holding the Home Office to account on policing systems. The Public Accounts Committee has oversight of the Law Enforcement Data Service and has required the Home Office to provide detailed information on its development. The Commons Home Affairs Committee also regularly scrutinises Home Office digital transformation and policing technology, and it is open to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House to do likewise.
Additionally, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services publishes State of Policing: The Annual Assessment of Policing in England and Wales. This report is laid before Parliament, ensuring that Parliament remains informed about the performance, challenges and progress of police forces across England and Wales. This provides information on police efficiency, effectiveness and progress on reforms, including those relating to IT and crime data integrity.
Work to improve access to policing data is already under way. For example, last June the Home Office conducted a preliminary market engagement to better understand what solutions the market could offer policing to improve data integration. We are currently evaluating those responses against the existing policing landscape to determine the best way forward. We also awarded a contract to deliver a police technology strategy and road map.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, I am obviously delighted to hear about the White Paper. We are really looking forward to it being published. He helpfully mentioned a contract that has been let to look at this whole area—a police technology strategy and road map for intelligence and the technical use of it. I wondered who that contract had been let to and what the timeframe was for delivering conclusions. The other point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, was the question of having enough capital for the IT. Being a businesswoman, I know very well how expensive that can be. If the Minister could say a little bit more about that, that might help us before Report.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I do not have details of the contract in front of me. I am, of course, aware that there could be commercially confidential issues at play which might prevent the level of disclosure that she wants, but, in the spirit of trying to be helpful, I will certainly go away, take it back and write to the noble Baroness if I can.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am very sorry. I am recalling the passage of the Procurement Act, where we discussed at some considerable length what contract could and could not be kept from the public. The detail can be confidential, but the fact of the contract and who it is let to should surely be part of the public domain—it should be on websites.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I will certainly defer to the noble Baroness’s knowledge of the Procurement Bill because I think it went through the House before I was in the House. I am happy to share what detail that we can under the details of that Act. I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness.
I will also go away and look at the issue of capital funding. I am afraid I do not have the figures in front of me, but of course it is important that we fund all these systems adequately. We would contend that, unfortunately, for the past 14 years some of the investment in policing that we would have liked to see has been lacking, and we have been very clear about our wider approach as a Government to investing, particularly in neighbourhood policing but in policing at all levels. We want to improve on recent experience.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
I thank the Minister for his response, but I am, frankly, gobsmacked at his suggestion that my amendment was not needed because the Home Office had a role in deciding what IT the police had and making sure that they had what they needed. For more than two decades, report after report has documented the same weaknesses: fragmented systems, wasted effort, and vital intelligence lost between agencies. People who did not understand would find it almost impossible to believe that vital intelligence can be lost between agencies, but it has been happening for years and years. We cannot keep treating this as a series of isolated IT upgrades that are needed when what is needed is a national strategy, with clear responsibility and sustained investment. There is no way past that; that is what is needed and it is what must be provided. This amendment does not prescribe the solution. It simply asks for leadership and for a timetable to deliver what everyone thinks is now essential.
The Minister mentioned talking to different people and finding out what was needed. All you have to do is talk to 43 chief constables and they will tell you exactly what is needed, for free. We do not have to go out to thousands of people and run various inquiries, taking days and months trying to work out what is needed. Everyone knows what is needed: the money, the will and the leadership. But, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Policing: devolution to Wales(1) Schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 is amended as follows.(2) In section B5 (crime, public order and policing)—(a) omit “and policing”, and(b) omit line 41 “policing”.(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause seeks to devolve policing to Wales, by removing it from the list of reserved matters in the Government of Wales Act 2006.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, Amendments 433 and 434 are in my name. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, for adding their names to both amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for supporting Amendment 434. I look forward to hearing contributions from across the Committee on how we can ensure that policing and youth justice in Wales genuinely meet the needs of the people of Wales.
I will take the amendments in turn, beginning with policing. Amendment 433 would remove policing from the list of reserved matters in the Government of Wales Act, thereby devolving responsibility for policing to Wales. My case rests on two central arguments. The first is the current shake-up in police governance across England and Wales and what that means for Wales, and the second is the reality of how policing in Wales is already funded.
First, on governance, His Majesty’s Government’s proposal to abolish police and crime commissioners in England and Wales makes the amendment particularly timely. In England, PCC functions are expected to transfer to mayoral authorities. Wales, however, has no equivalent governance structures. That leaves a serious constitutional gap, with no clarity as to where those powers will ultimately sit. This moment therefore presents a clear choice: either Wales is left in a governance limbo or policing is devolved to the Senedd, allowing Wales to take responsibility for its own public safety. It cannot be right that devolved English regions, such as Greater Manchester, can exercise greater control over policing than the democratically elected legislature of Wales.
Secondly, on funding, what strengthens this argument considerably is the financial reality. My understanding is that in 2024-25 only around 43% of policing expenditure in Wales came from the UK Government. The remainder came from within Wales itself, with approximately 44% funded directly through council tax; in other words, the people of Wales are already paying for the majority of their policing.
It therefore follows that policing policy and priorities should better reflect Welsh needs and Welsh circumstances. The Welsh Government have, for example, used their health budget to support police officers working directly within the education system, engaging with young people on substance misuse, healthy relationships and cybercrime. This preventive work not only supports public health objectives but helps build trust between communities and the police.
The geography and demographics of Wales are markedly different from those in much of England. We have fewer large urban centres and many rural communities, where access to services is already challenging. Centralisation, often driven by cost-saving decisions made at a distance, has had a particularly damaging impact in Wales. Court closures provide a clear example—increasing travel times, costs and complexity for victims, witnesses, offenders and professionals alike. Within this context, policing must strike a careful balance, recognising Cardiff’s role as a capital city, while also addressing the unique challenges faced by rural communities, where service delivery is often more expensive and more fragile.
Wales is also a bilingual nation, yet the College of Policing, which trains officers for England and Wales, is not required to comply with the Welsh Language Act. Welsh-medium training for police embedded in Welsh communities should not depend on good will. It should be embedded as a core requirement. That too points towards the need for devolved control.
I turn to Amendment 434, which would remove youth justice from the list of reserved matters and devolve it to Wales. Youth justice is already, in practice, quasi-devolved. The services that young people most frequently interact with—education, health, social services—are all devolved. In Wales, the vast majority of young people who come into contact with the youth justice system are low-level offenders and many are dealt with out of court through youth bureaus. These bureaus run by Welsh local authorities take a public health and restorative justice approach. The Welsh Government’s child-centred framework, Children First, Offenders Second, has been widely recognised. Sometimes described as the “dragonisation of justice”, it reflects Welsh values and Welsh priorities.
Once again, funding tells an important story here. In 2022-23, around 64% of youth justice funding in Wales came from devolved sources. While more recent data is not publicly available, there is little reason to believe that this position has materially changed. That same year, the proportion of funding provided by the Ministry of Justice to Wales was lower than for any English region. For example, the Youth Justice Board core grant made up 44% of total funding in the north-east of England and 40% in the north-west. In Wales it accounted for just 24%. Once again, Wales is largely funding a system it does not control.
On the wider constitutional point, Scotland and Northern Ireland both have full responsibility for their justice systems and Wales remains the outlier. This is not an argument for devolution for its own sake; it is an argument for fairness, coherence and effectiveness. Many of the most powerful levers for reducing crime—health, housing, education and social care—have been devolved to the Senedd for over 26 years. Retaining justice powers here at Westminster fragments responsibility and weakens accountability. When systems fail, it is often unclear who is responsible, and communities pay that price. Welsh Labour’s 2021 manifesto committed to pursuing the case for devolution of policing and justice, as set out by the Thomas commission. We have had report after report, commission after commission. This is not a moment for further exploration, it is a moment for action.
Let Wales take responsibility for policing and youth justice. The people of Wales are already paying for these systems. They deserve the ability to shape them in line with their needs and values. The time is now. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope that His Majesty’s Government will give serious consideration to these amendments as the Bill progresses through the House. I beg to move.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I have not added my name to Amendment 433, but I have to Amendment 434. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having tabled it.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the amendments, to which I have put my name. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, has made such an eloquent speech in relation to youth justice, I will concentrate on the police because the arguments are identical. The reason I say they are identical is that the three commissions that have looked at this issue—commissions made up not of politicians interested in hanging on to power but of individuals who have experience and expertise in the systems—have all recommended the devolution of youth justice and the devolution of the police. The first was Sir Paul Silk, the distinguished clerk; then I chaired a Commission on Justice in Wales, which reported in October 2019; and then there was the report of Dr Rowan Williams and Professor Laura McAllister. All recommended the same thing.
In view of the pressing need for a debate to occur at 4 pm—it may be a minute or two early—I refer to paragraphs of the report that we wrote. The police are dealt with at paragraphs 4.77 to 4.151, and youth justice is dealt with at paragraphs 4.181 to 4.195. I give those paragraph numbers in the hope that someone in the Home Office might read them. One of the problems of the report that the commission I chaired submitted is that no one has ever answered it. I assume it has never been answered because it is unanswerable. It is therefore important, in the light of the forthcoming paper on the police, that this point is grappled with.
The two fundamental arguments have been outlined by both the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. First, if you devolve everything else, you have to devolve police and justice. They are integral to the proper management of a system. Secondly, there is the democratic argument that if Wales is paying the greater part of what it costs, there should be accountability—certainly greater accountability than that enjoyed by the Mayors of Manchester and London. At the moment, the accountability is the other way around.
Where this is so important is that the view used to be expressed that the people of Wales really were not up to governing themselves. That was the 19th-century and early 20th-century view and, thank goodness, is gone. But now one asks: what is the argument against devolution? It is very difficult to see what it is. It will be a testing point as to what will happen on the publication of this White Paper.
The Government are abolishing police and crime commissioners. I express no view as to whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, but it forces the Government to grapple with what happens in Wales. Are they going to set up some elaborate structure to avoid devolution, or are they going to face up to devolution? We shall know the answer to this in the forthcoming White Paper. I hope that the Home Office officials, when they have read the paragraphs to which I have referred, will see that there is one unanswerable response to this question: devolution. On the other hand, if they set up some elaborate structure, no longer will it be said, “Well, the Welsh aren’t quite up to running their own police force”. It might be said, “There are other reasons why politicians don’t like giving up power in London. They want to hang on”. One has already seen reflected in remarks made in and across Wales that it is about time that these important powers were transferred to Wales to make the Government coherent, rather than hanging on to them and to power for what I hope I have wrongly understood—or been told—are purely party-political reasons. I hope that is not the case, but the proof will be in the pudding of the police White Paper.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches are grateful to the noble Lady Baroness, Smith of Llanfaes, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for tabling Amendments 433 and 434, and to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for adding his name to Amendment 434. These amendments relate to the devolution of policing and youth justice to Wales.
My noble friend Lady Humphreys has signed both amendments as they agree with Lib Dem policy and our ambitions for Wales, but, unfortunately, she cannot be in her place today. Our manifesto for the general election in 2024 promised to:
“Deliver a fair deal for the people of Wales by … Devolving powers over youth justice, probation services, prisons and policing to allow Wales to create an effective, liberal, community-based approach to policing and tackling crime”.
To the disappointment of many in Wales, the issue of devolving justice to Wales was absent from Labour’s general election manifesto, despite Keir Starmer committing a year before, in 2023, to introducing a take back control Bill to devolve new powers to communities from Westminster. This commitment appears to apply to England only, and gradually, over the months since the election of the Labour Government, their lack of ambition for Wales has become more apparent.
After the State Opening of Parliament in 2024, there was no new mention of new powers for Wales in the King’s Speech. In July 2025, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, said that the UK Government could row back on its promises on the devolution of probation and youth justice, despite the Welsh Government beginning the groundwork to prepare for what they believed to be a realistic project.
Noble Lords have raised queries about the consequences of the decision taken by the Government in November last year to abolish police and crime commissioners—a decision that those of us on these Benches applauded. At the time, noble Lords from Wales were concerned about the lack of clarity on the Government’s plans for the transference of the PCCs’ functions to Wales. The assumption was that the functions would transfer to mayors in England and to the Senedd in Wales. However, far from providing clarity, the answers they received amounted to pure obfuscation. Now we learn, in what could be described as a slap in the face to the Senedd, that the functions of the PCCs are to be transferred to a new board, placing the Welsh Parliament on the same level as a non-mayoral authority in England.
On these Benches we understand the difficulties so ably clarified by the noble and learned Lord in his contribution to the Sentencing Bill of devolving just one part of a system. But where has English Labour’s ambition for Wales disappeared to? For all the platitudes about mutual respect and co-operative working, the disrespect is beginning to show, sadly. Where is the recognition that Wales has been ready for the devolution of the justice system for the last 25 years at least, and where is the road map for our two nations to achieve that together?
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I do not come from Wales. I am speaking because I have sympathy, and I have friends there. I remember somebody asking me, “Are you evangelical or Anglo-Catholic?” I said, “Catholic, yes; Anglo, no”. Wales may sometimes feel it is singing that song.
The devolution of justice and policing to Wales are two sides of one coin, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said. To those who tabled Amendments 433 and 434—the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain—I simply ask one question: if policing and youth justice, this one coin with two sides, are devolved to Scotland, why not Wales?
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, we oppose Amendments 433 and 434, which seek to devolve policing and youth justice to Wales. Let me be clear: I make no observations on the principle of devolution for its own sake, but these amendments would make profound constitutional and operational changes. They are presented without convincing evidence that devolution of policing or youth justice would improve outcomes for victims, communities or young people themselves.
Policing and youth justice are not isolated administrative functions—
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
May I ask the noble Lord whether his staff have read the report that contains all the evidence? To say that this is put forward without evidence is not correct.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
I cannot answer that from the Dispatch Box, I am afraid; nor do I have many staff.
Policing and youth justice are not isolated administrative functions. They sit at the heart of a single, integrated criminal justice system spanning England and Wales. Police forces operate across borders daily; so too with the criminal justice system. Intelligence sharing, counterterrorism, and serious organised crime and public order policing all rely on consistent legal frameworks, operational standards and accountability structures. Fragmenting those arrangements would introduce complexity, duplication and risk at precisely the moment when policing faces unprecedented pressures.
Policing in Wales is already delivered locally, is locally accountable and is responsible to Welsh communities. Police and crime commissioners in Wales set priorities based on local need. Chief constables in Wales are not directed from Whitehall on day-to-day policing. What is proposed is not so much localism but the creation of a new layer of political control over policing.
The amendments ask your Lordships’ House to place policing and youth justice under the control of the Welsh Government. This has been run by Labour continuously since devolution began. It is therefore legitimate to ask what that Government’s track record tells us about their capacity to take on these serious responsibilities. In area after area of devolved public policy, Labour-run Wales has failed to deliver. Educational outcomes in Wales have fallen behind those in the rest of the United Kingdom on many international measures. Health waiting times are persistently worse than in England. Major infrastructure projects have been delayed or mismanaged. Those are not ideological assertions; they are documented outcomes of more than two decades of one-party dominance and failure.
When systems fail in devolved areas, the response of the Welsh Government has often been to blame Westminster rather than to reflect on their own actions or inactions. If policing and youth justice were devolved, who would be blamed if and when crime rose, youth reoffending increased or serious failures occurred? Experience suggests that accountability would become more opaque, not clearer and more robust. Constitutional change should be driven by clear evidence of benefit, not by political symbolism. It has not yet been demonstrated how these proposals would reduce crime, improve public confidence or deliver better outcomes for young offenders; nor has it been shown that fragmentation would be avoided and how cross-border crime would be tackled more effectively, or failures remedied. For these reasons, we cannot support the amendments.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and my noble friend Lord Hain for tabling these amendments. I speak as Home Office Minister but also as a resident of Wales, a Member of Parliament for Wales for 28 years, a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales who helped bring in devolution, and a Welsh Whip who took it through the House of Commons, so I am a supporter of devolution and know my way around this patch. However, I say to the noble Baroness that the Government cannot support in full the direction of travel that she has proposed.
I recognise again the great contribution that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has made on this issue and in his reports, but the view of the Government remains that devolving police and youth justice would require extensive institutional change and carry major operational and financial implications. Devolving policing in particular would undermine the UK Government’s ability to deliver crime prevention and the safer streets mission in Wales.
The noble Baroness raised finance. The position she mentioned in Wales is no different from that across the border in Cheshire. Taxpayers there have a burden of funding carried forward, with UK central support. That is a common issue. The noble Baroness does not have too long to wait, as the police settlement for England and Wales will be issued by the Home Office very shortly. I expect that—
Baroness Brinton (LD)
The noble Lord commented about it not being the right time for Wales, but does this mean that the Labour Government are changing their view about police devolution in Scotland? It works perfectly well.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There are significant differences between the positions in Scotland and Wales. Scotland has its own legal system, prison system and policing system; it has had that for some time. In Wales, we have a very integrated England and Wales court system and a cross-border, east-west relationship. For example, the regional organised crime centre that services the area of north Wales where I live is a cross-border co-operation on a cross-border issue.
We have looked at the noble and learned Lord’s points and reports and, from my perspective, attempting to separate elements of the offender management system from the wider criminal justice system would in practice be extremely complicated. It would lose some of the economies of scale that we have in the current arrangements, and it would put a jagged edge on an entirely new and complex interface. I know that the noble and learned Lord has looked at those issues, but that is the view of the UK Government. The UK Government recognise the importance of Welsh partnership structures such as the Policing Partnership Board for Wales and the Police Liaison Unit, but ultimately the Government have no plans to devolve policing in Wales at this moment.
Noble Lords mentioned the decision announced on 13 November last year to abolish police and crime commissioners. We have put in that plan, and it will require legislation at some point to give effect to those proposals. There will be further discussion in the forthcoming White Paper on them, but we have committed to work with the Welsh Government and other stakeholders to ensure that new arrangements provide strong and effective police governance for Wales, while recognising the unique nature of those Welsh arrangements.
Having said that, on the Labour Government’s commitment that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned, we are working with the Welsh Government to undertake a programme of work on the Labour Government’s 2024 manifesto commitments around youth justice, which goes to the heart of one of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness. In light of the manifesto commitment, we are trying to ensure that the youth justice system delivers effectively for the people of Wales. We are undertaking a programme of work to meet that aspect of the manifesto commitment, which meets in part the objectives of the noble Lords who spoke to these amendments.
I am conscious of time, and I am sorry that this is a speedy debate pending the debate that is due any moment now. We can return to this on Report, as the noble Baroness may do, but the view of the Government to date is as I have outlined.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
First, I do not want the Minister to answer this now, but I would be very grateful if he would look again at the funding for the police in Wales. Unless I am mistaken, Manchester and London do not have a Government who make a grant to policing as the Welsh Government do. Secondly, the argument has been put forward, but the arguments that we have put contrary to all this have never been answered—and I hope they will be answered in the police White Paper. If the argument is a good argument, it stands or falls by its strength. The Government in London have never had the courage—and those who seek political advantage have stood behind that lack of courage in failing to answer independent views that have been expressed.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government will answer those questions, and they can make a very robust case for why devolution of policing should not happen. As I have said, we are exploring the issue of devolution of youth justice with the Welsh Senedd and the Welsh Government, and in the forthcoming police White Paper we will look at what the governance systems should be in consultation with the Welsh Senedd, police and crime commissioners and the police chiefs in Wales. That is a further debate. The noble Baroness has opportunities on Report to table amendments to get a fuller debate, and there will have to be legislation capacity at some point around the objectives set in the announcement on 13 November and in the forthcoming White Paper, which is coming very shortly. In the light of all that, and given the time that we have now, which is far too short to debate this in full—and I would like to do that at some point with the noble Baroness—I ask her to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, although I admit that I am quite disappointed with the position expressed by the Government. I certainly do not agree that it is too complicated to devolve policing to Wales when apparently it is not too complicated to abolish PCCs and create a brand-new structure—so I do not accept that argument. But today we have a debate to come after this one, so I shall withdraw the amendment. However, I do not think that we have resolved the argument over how the policing will be governed after the abolition of PCCs. I hope that the police reform White Paper includes detailed proposals in relation to that issue.
The Minister mentioned some positive steps on youth justice, and it would be good to have further discussions on the details between Committee and Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
Before we start the next debate, I would like to alert two of the noble Lords whose maiden speeches we are looking forward to that the speaker that they thought was in front of them, either the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, or the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, is no longer speaking in the debate. Just to make sure that they are not taken by surprise, it will be the speaker preceding those speakers on the list before noble Lords stand up to make the speeches to which we are all looking forward to very much.
Retail and Hospitality Sector
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest
That this House takes note of the impact of Government policy on the retail and hospitality sector.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this important debate. I declare my interest as a non-executive director of the Watches of Switzerland Group plc, a FTSE 250 company, and as founder of Team Domenica, a charity based in Brighton which owns and operates a pub—the North Star.
I see that the Deputy Speaker is sitting on the Woolsack. As my noble friend Lord Borwick pointed out to me, the Woolsack symbolises the economic foundation of the nation from the days when the wool trade was of huge importance to England. The fact that the Lord Speaker presides on this wool-stuffed cushion demonstrates that government is supported by business. But this Government are the most anti-business that I can remember. Perhaps because no one in the Cabinet has any experience of running a business, they simply have no empathy or understanding of its risks and challenges.
I do not understand how the Government can claim to be helping hospitality, small businesses and retail. Admittedly, in her most recent Budget, the Chancellor added a new lower rate multiplier but, at the same time, removed previous relief and massively revalued all the rates upwards, leaving pubs facing eye-watering increases. She also announced that business rate discounts would fall from 75% to 40% and that, from April, there would be no further discounts.
As Mark Wrigley, a publican in Manchester, wrote:
“Two years ago, we paid £9,000 in rates, which rose to £13,000 in 2025. But this year, it has more than doubled to £31,000. Within three years, it is expected to reach £42,000”.
He said that these figures are based on the so-called rateable value—a calculation that often seems plucked from thin air. He wrote that the pub’s rateable value
“is a scarcely believable £97,000”;
his annual rent is £70,000.
“So the RV is 40 per cent higher than the rent … And the madness gets worse. When we compare our RV to other pubs and bars on our street, some of them pay much less, while one of them has seen its RV soar from £50,000 to a frankly ludicrous £165,000”.
And this is being replicated across the country.
Pubs are facing an average tax rise of 76%, while hotels’ tax bills are going up by 115%. Utility costs have risen by 57% in the last five years. Ed Miliband’s energy policies have not helped, although perhaps he might feel that, with every pub that closes, we are getting closer to net zero.
One pub a day closed last year. Just think for a moment what this means for rural communities, for employment and for the social fabric of our country. When a pub shuts, a small part of England dies. Particularly in rural England, local pubs are vital to combat loneliness and social isolation. They are places that welcome everybody: places where you belong as soon as you walk in the door; places where you do not need to be invited to visit; places which are, literally, home from home for many.
If the Prime Minister’s local pub, the Pineapple, in north London closed, he could easily find somewhere else to slake his thirst, drown his sorrows and contemplate his U-turns. In rural villages, which have already seen shops and post offices close, there would be nowhere else to go. The Government’s proposed intensification of the drink-driving laws is clearly designed to stop these locals getting into the car and going to the next village—if, indeed, the pub there remains open.
The Chancellor is effectively destroying pubs, as much as if it were her very purpose. An estimated 89,000 jobs were lost in the hospitality sector after her first Budget. UKHospitality predicts that a further 100,000 jobs are at risk after the November Budget. This week, we learned that, in the month after that Budget, the number of staff on payrolls fell by more than 42,000—the biggest fall in the number of workers since the pandemic. The lowering of the NI employer threshold seems to have been designed to kill off starter jobs which are at the heart of the hospitality and retail industries.
Flexible working is key in both hospitality and retail. As Sam Carlisle, a rural restaurateur, eloquently put it:
“These are jobs that fit around lives”.
If zero-hours contracts are abolished under the Employment Rights Act, as planned, hospitality businesses might as well close altogether. I know from my own experience at the North Star that you must monitor rotas minutely.
Retail and hospitality are significant and huge players in the economy. These sectors are less impacted by AI and should therefore be stimulated to grow and expand. This is where the human jobs of the future will be, and fiscal policy should be supporting them, not increasing the burden. When people work, their well-being tends to get better; getting them into work will reduce the burden of benefits and reduce the strain on our healthcare system in treating people for depression. When Team Domenica advertised for jobs for our pub, for every job we advertised, we got over 200 applications. What does that tell you?
The Government’s proposal for extending licensing hours is tokenistic: many pubs already close two days a week and are closing earlier in the evenings as they can no longer afford the staff costs. Hospitality employs people from every socioeconomic background, in towns and villages all over the country. The impact of so many policies all at once is confusing and devastating. Put simply, it means that pubs will simply not be able to afford to employ the people who need the job most.
Tom Kerridge, the chef and restaurateur, has gone on record about the 148% surge in costs on one of his establishments. I imagine he now has buyer’s remorse, having been vocal about voting for the Labour Party in the last election—or indeed anyone else who took Keir Starmer at his word when, as leader of the Opposition, he declared:
“my Labour Party is determined … to breathe life back into our high streets”.
He said:
“Small businesses are the beating heart of our economy”.
Instead, they are now on life support.
The are rumours of a U-turn on pubs, but nothing for hotels and restaurants. The hospitality sector must be looked at as a whole. A friend of mine who owns and runs three successful hotels and was planning to start a fourth has changed her mind. Instead, she is having to make redundancies in her existing portfolio and curtail all capital investment. Without such investment, there is no growth. The employer national insurance changes alone cost her £0.5 million on her bottom line.
Hotels are facing a dual tax hike. On top of business rates, there is now going to be an overnight visitor levy, which Labour is allowing mayors to impose. The steep rise in wage costs, national insurance and other regulatory costs means that the 5p discount to the business rates multiplier announced in the Budget is not sufficient to ease these pressures. What is needed is the full 20p discount permitted in legislation.
A new surcharge is being applied to higher-value premises with rateable values above £0.5 million. This is hitting high street shops, supermarkets, hotels and sports clubs. Twice as many retail premises are being hit compared to the online warehouses, which this was supposedly meant for. In its 2024 election manifesto, Labour promised it would
“level the playing field between the high street and online giants, better incentivise investment, tackle empty properties and support entrepreneurship”.
I think that should now win the Booker Prize for fiction.
Our local town of Heathfield in East Sussex has a charming café, the Pink Cabbage Co, which is run by an energetic, inspirational, entrepreneurial lady called Lucy Howlett. She employs 16 people, all local. The café is always full, the food is delicious and it is an important part of the community. She told me that, after last November’s Budget, having spent months mitigating as much as she could from the previous Budget, she lay on the floor and cried. At the end of that month, having paid all her bills, she had £23. She decided to do tapas nights. Why tapas? Because the food can go on one platter and you can prepare it beforehand, so you need to employ fewer staff. I remember the days when being an entrepreneur meant that you grew your business, you employed more people and you were an important contributor to the economy, not that you had to think of creative ways to lose your employees.
I have spoken previously about Heathfield Ironmongers, which closed after 100 years of trading. Since then, several other businesses in our two-street town have closed their doors. We now have seven charity shops, and there have also suddenly sprung up a Turkish barber and two Vietnamese nail salons—cash only. How can they afford to operate when the traditional English shops have had to close? I wonder.
The Government claim to want more young people in work, but their policies have made it harder for them to find jobs. It is often said that one needs to be cruel to be kind, but the Government’s policies on the minimum wage are kind to be cruel. Subsidising job opportunities and creating state-funded work placements, as the Government are suggesting, is not the answer. Enabling the private sector to employ more people by removing a punitive tax burden is the sustainable way forward.
This Government have said they want long-term growth, but instead, because of the last two Budgets, retailers and hospitality owners are facing harsh financial choices, forcing them to pull back on investment when they should be focusing on growing their businesses and creating job opportunities.
Napoleon, in an ill-judged sneer, described England as a nation of shopkeepers, implying that the English were too materialistic to be focused on profit. The Woolsack signifies a nation driven by trade and commerce, but where are we now? We are a nation of charity shops, boarded-up high streets and a plethora of fake and illegal Harry Potter shops and so-called British tourist shops, which are creeping from Trafalgar Square down Whitehall, as I am sure many noble Lords will have noticed. It is desperately sad that Nelson, on his column after his great victories over Napoleon, should have to witness the state-promoted decline of our nation’s proud history as shopkeepers. I beg to move.
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great honour to rise in this House for the first time. I would like to thank noble Lords across the House for their warm welcome.
I speak today as the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres of Lewisham, a title I hold with enormous pride. Lewisham is where I serve as the directly elected mayor, and I have proudly called it home for over 40 years. It is where community, resilience and ambition are part of everyday life—an area proud of its history of inclusion and as a borough of sanctuary. It is a place where you can eat your way around the world.
My journey here has been shaped by a strong work ethic, a belief in fairness and opportunity and a commitment to public service. I bring with me a background in science, computing and law, alongside lived experiences rooted in place, community leadership and local government.
It was a grant from Lewisham Council that allowed me to attend university and be the first in my family to do so, completing a degree in physical sciences with computing. I worked at the UK Atomic Energy Authority.
In later years I undertook a degree in law and was called to the Bar in 2006 while maintaining my IT career within investment banks and bringing up my son, the honourable Darnell Dacres, as a single parent. Together, these experiences have shaped who I am today.
I am deeply conscious that none of us arrives in this House alone. My paternal grandfather served in the RAF here, coming from Jamaica, during the Second World War. My parents came to this country as part of the Windrush generation, seeking opportunity and determined to build a better future. They raised me and my siblings with a deep respect for education, a strong sense of responsibility and the belief that leadership is shown through example. Those values continue to guide how I serve, and I know that they are values shared by noble Lords across this House.
Before turning to the substance of today’s debate, I would like to place on record my sincere thanks to Black Rod and the Garter Principal King of Arms. I am also grateful to my noble friends Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lady Kennedy of Cradley for their support and friendship. I thank my noble friends Lady Smith of Basildon, Lord Collins of Highbury and Lady Wheeler for their support as I join this House. I also thank the staff of the House of Lords and the doorkeepers for their professionalism, guidance and—yes—directions.
I would also like to thank my noble friends for their care and support of my guests on the day of my introduction. My family spanned four generations and my guests included people who have played a significant role in my life, including my former primary school teacher, Tom Deveson, and my law degree lecturer, Professor Vick Krishnan. Their presence was a powerful reminder of the lasting impact of education, encouragement and daring to dream.
These experiences bring me to the subject of today’s debate and the positive impact that the Government’s policies are having on retail and hospitality, when shaped with local communities in mind.
In Lewisham and across the country, I know that retail and hospitality are central to the vitality of our high streets. Independent cafés, restaurants, market traders and shops provide jobs, support local supply chains and create welcoming social spaces. They are often the first step into employment for young people and an important source of flexible work.
I have seen how targeted support, town centre investment and measures that boost footfall can make a real difference. In Lewisham, regeneration, improved public spaces and new housing have already brought, and will continue to bring, more people into our high streets, helping local businesses to grow, employ local people and invest with confidence.
When policy is well designed, with local communities empowered to make decisions, our retailers and hospitality businesses do not just survive; they thrive.
Positive interventions strengthen local economies, sustain livelihoods and help to ensure that high streets remain vibrant and resilient.
Retail and hospitality succeed when policy recognises their role, not only as economic drivers but as anchors of community life. My experience in Lewisham shows what is possible when government works in partnership with local leadership and local enterprise, and when the voices of communities are heard.
As I take my place and my duties in this House, I do so with a deep sense of responsibility, determination and hope. I look forward to contributing constructively to our work, informed by lived experience, grounded in community and guided by the desire to improve lives.
My Lords, I thank you.
Lord Hannett of Everton (Lab)
My Lords, it is an absolute privilege to congratulate my noble friend Lady Dacres of Lewisham on an excellent maiden speech. I am sure all noble Lords will agree with me that she is going to be a real asset to this House. My noble friend was born in south London, her parents coming from the Windrush generation. She represents the best of our country. My noble friend brings to this House a wealth of experience in local government, serving first as a local councillor and then as a cabinet member, as Deputy Mayor of Lewisham and finally as the elected Mayor of Lewisham—a proud record. She is hugely respected and liked both in London and across the wider local government sector, as demonstrated by how, the day after taking her seat in the House of Lords, she was at Windsor Castle with her parents and son receiving an OBE from Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal. I know that my noble friend is already making friends across the House and that all noble Lords are looking forward to hearing more thoughtful contributions like the one she just made. We welcome her.
This is an important debate on an important sector—in fact, as a former general secretary of the trade union USDAW I am particularly well versed in the retail sector. I often try to avoid tribal politics in these discussions, because the issue is the most important thing. I have to say to the noble Baroness that she nearly pulled me into a debate of comparing records, but of course time does not allow me to forensically examine previous legislation from the other side, maybe during the 14 years that they were in office.
I look at the time we have been in office and I see a determination—a Government with values, of trying to do the right thing, not just for employees but for employers and growth, and with a vision for good. Therefore, when people criticise the legislation of a Government who have been in office for a relatively short time, I say, “There should be some humility about the trends started on your watch”. I say that not to be adversarial but to say that when you criticise a Government who have been in office for a short time, you have to be honest and self-reflective with regard to your own performance.
More positively, I said that I know the retail sector, and I know that any legislation that comes in takes time to bed in and that the full impact of legislation is seen over time. I want to draw attention to two issues that make a difference and which apply to these two sectors.
The Employment Rights Act, which was rightly scrutinised in this House, has gone through, and history will judge its impact over a period of time. The other one that I draw attention to, although there are many over the lifespan of many Labour Governments, is the introduction of the national minimum wage in 1998. I was a member of the Low Pay Commission for 11 years and took evidence from employers, employees, economists and a whole range of interested groups. I remember at its introduction how the critics—by the way, some of them in the trade union movement—and many employers declared that this was the end of the world, that to lift people out of a low wage with a minimum floor was risky. That was 1998; it is now 2026, and no Government would even think about replacing that. So my cautious note to the critics on any period of legislation is: give it time but also have a period of self-reflection.
The reason why coming into the House is important to me is that I want to be a part of a Government who have values at the core and who want to do the right thing by those at the bottom and not just those who can look after themselves at the top. I have seen this in evidence. Will we get things wrong? Of course we will, but who does not? For me it is about how the passion and the values of this party will sustain it going forward.
I just want to make reference to the Low Pay Commission again for this reason. I represented USDAW members in many of the large supermarkets, and we had good relationships with most of the big companies. But not all employers are equal. The invention of good legislation is a crucial part of our responsibility. If we are about anything, it has to be about supporting those who are the most disadvantaged, the most vulnerable and the most insecure. I have to say that in these two sectors, many people fall into that category. It succeeded because we were prepared to take a few risks and to compromise.
I do not want to just throw it back to the other side, but if it going to lead with its chin, let it be accepted that pubs were in decline under the watch of the previous Government. It is not something that this party was responsible for when we started.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I start by welcoming today’s maiden speeches. One of the most civilised aspects of life in the Lords is the Long Table. I had the pleasure this week of dining with the triumvirate of the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres of Lewisham, and the noble Lords, Lord Forbes of Newcastle and Lord John of Southwark. I know that they and the noble Baroness, Lady Shah, will make an energetic and positive contribution, such as we have already heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres.
My noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest started off with a stirring speech. She explained clearly how pubs are struggling and waiting desperately for the extra help that the Government have promised. The uncertainty of their position, as the Government dither, is deafening. One minute, Rachel Reeves is imposing a huge increase in their costs, notably on rates, through a botched revaluation. Then we have a series of briefings suggesting that not only pubs but hotels and others might benefit, only for their hopes to be dashed by the Chancellor yesterday in Davos—hardly a democratic gathering. I hope that the Minister will have the grace to share the Treasury’s thinking with us. Parliament is paramount, however much the leadership might like to think differently.
I am speaking today because my neighbour, who owns a London pub, thinks that he will become bankrupt and have to move abroad unless substantial changes are made on rates. He has a pub with a hostel—not a smart hotel but a lodge, in the bureaucratic vernacular. He is in the category where rateable values alone will rise by 70% rather than 30%. Can the Minister look into this unfairness? Add to this the quadruple whammy of: first, the increase in NICs; secondly, the steep rises in the national minimum wage, particularly for young people; thirdly, IHT on family businesses that will still kill many of them; and, fourthly, the new cost of the Employment Rights Act. Multiply that across the economy and you have a crisis, so it is no surprise that thousands of pubs are closing.
The position will erode further with the introduction of a lower drink-drive limit. It will strike a hammer blow to pubs in rural areas—look at Scotland. Like so much modern regulation, it is not necessary. Those who, like me, take care to stay below the limit will stop going to the pub and the reckless will continue to drink and drive. The Government are right to say that they will act on rates, but it is complex. I am not convinced that Treasury Ministers have ever taken the time to understand what they have done.
What is clear is that growth is going backwards, which brings me on to hospitality more broadly. It is a huge industry suffering from that quadruple whammy and from tourist uncertainty, not helped by the failure to tackle street crime. Magnets for tourism such as music venues and stately homes are also in peril. The visitor levy on hotels is a threat to a slowing sector that is already facing a high tax burden and mushrooming construction costs. There is also another long-term hit: the impact of slimming drugs, reducing demand in restaurants and for alcoholic drinks. I have a relative who manages a vodka start-up. Assailed by national insurance, rates and a tougher economic backdrop, he is now working with a partner in the US, which they see as a more business-friendly country, even with today’s rolling Trump news.
Finally, I turn to retail. This is a highly productive sector. But it already shoulders a disproportionate tax burden: 7.4% of all business taxes, or £33 billion a year, according to the BRC. As well as rates, there are more costs in the pipeline on packaging and recycling. Employment is falling in retail, as it is in hospitality. The Government should be wary of increasing the burden there. The sector saw the promised rates reform as a possible driver of growth, only to be gravely disappointed.
The truth is that this Government have so far made a mess of the economy. Taxes, spending and now inflation are up, while growth, productivity and employment are sluggish. I believe that this partly reflects the Government’s ignorance of business, particularly less elite businesses such as retail and hospitality, as was highlighted by my noble friend. The noble Lord, Lord Timpson, is an honourable exception, as is the noble Lord, Lord Leong, who is winding today. A useful new year’s resolution would be for the Prime Minister to seek their counsel as he frames his overdue U-turn on rates.
Lord Smith of Hindhead (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Monckton for securing this important and timely debate today and wish her every success and good luck with her pub venture. She, like others, will need some luck when being involved with the hospitality industry.
I declare my interests as set out in the register, in particular my financial interest as the chairman of the Association of Conservative Clubs—a role that I have undertaken since I stepped down as the CEO last year. For the record, I have worked for the association my entire working life, having joined the team some 39 years ago. I congratulate the four new Members of your Lordships’ House who are making their maiden speeches in this debate. I sincerely wish them well and look forward to hearing their future contributions.
We are all well aware that the hospitality industry is facing a crisis worse than it has ever seen—astonishingly, even worse than it experienced during the Covid pandemic and lockdown. We know this as there are daily articles in the press and coverage in the media about the plight of pubs and, in particular, the unfair rating increases that are set to cripple many establishments, with eye-watering multipliers which, for many, will be unsustainable over the next three years. Putting to one side the increase in wages, which affects all employers, and food inflation and other costs, the proposed increases to business rates have been seen as the final nail in the coffin. I am therefore pleased that noises from His Majesty’s Treasury indicate that there may be some re-examination of this issue, with the prospect of some sensible arithmetic being applied.
My concern, however, is that this appears to be directed towards the plight of pubs alone, and I would like to make a case for the circa 3,000 private members’ social clubs. I do not mean just the Conservative clubs that I know so well, but the working men’s clubs, the Royal British Legions, miners’ welfare institutes, naval and Air Force clubs, railway clubs, Liberal and Labour clubs—indeed, all the social clubs that make up such a significant part of so many people’s lives. These clubs are not run for profit or underwritten by a hedge fund or private equity firm, as so many pub companies are, but managed by volunteer officers and committees. Some 12,000 people are employed within the clubs.
So often, we hear how important pubs are to their communities, which is true, but every one of the members’ social clubs that I have mentioned is a community in itself. They are part of the fabric of many people’s lives, and essential to the social well-being of members, as well as to the furtherance of the objects for which the clubs were formed. As such, I ask the Minister to feed back to the Treasury team that any help or assistance that may be on the way to help pubs should be extended to help clubs in the same way, for the same reasons, and for the same outcome—in other words, a level playing field.
The society which socialises together is a stronger society, and our pubs, clubs, bars, restaurants and hotels put that into practice every day. As I said in my maiden speech, 10 years ago, virtual friends can never be the same as actual friends. Let us do everything we can to ensure that our clubs, pubs and all the places where we socialise remain, so that we can continue to meet friends and make friends in the years ahead.
Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is the tradition in your Lordships’ House that maiden speeches are heard in silence, originally as a mark of respect for the recently deceased father of the hereditary Peer being introduced. This does not apply in my circumstances today, obviously, but I did lose my father six months ago, and I am profoundly sorry that he is not here to witness my first contribution in this place.
I first wish to express my thanks and gratitude to all Members across the House for the warmth of their welcome, and extend this to the staff, particularly Black Rod, the Clerk of the Parliaments, the doorkeepers, security guards, clerks, catering staff and all those who sustain the life of this remarkable institution. Your support has made these first few days far less daunting than they might otherwise have been.
I would like to thank my sponsors, who represent important milestones in my life. I first met the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, at the age of 15, when, as my constituency MP, she came to speak in an assembly at Wolsingham comprehensive school. It was she who sparked my interest in politics generally and Labour values specifically, and she has been a steadfast mentor and friend for the past 35 years. The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and I were contemporaries as leaders of our respective great northern cities, Leeds and Newcastle, building the case together for investment in the north through our collaboration in the northern powerhouse partnership, as co-founders of Transport for the North, and participating actively—in fact, both chairing—Core Cities UK.
Growing up in rural County Durham, my post-school employment options were limited. I, like many others, found my first job in the hospitality sector. In 1992, I was paid £3 an hour to work in a fast food restaurant. I had a zero-hours contract, no minimum wage, no predictable income, no sick leave or holiday pay entitlement, and no trade union or pension rights. Thankfully, for retail and hospitality workers these days, successive Labour Governments, including this one, have made progressive changes to employment legislation, bringing in more protections. But I still have my name badge from those days, as a reminder that I am older than many of my rights.
I welcome this Government’s recognition of the hospitality sector’s importance and the steps already taken to stabilise and support it. Expansion of the small business support scheme, and transitional business rates relief, are not abstract economic interventions; they are lifelines for the pubs, cafes, restaurants, hotels and other venues that give our communities their heartbeat. But hospitality also offers us a wider metaphor for the kind of economy we want to build. No Government can create a good society through policy or programme alone. By supporting businesses to grow, and by encouraging them in turn to create more and better jobs, we can offer opportunity, hope and a sense of belonging for future generations.
I belong to Newcastle. I am immensely proud to include the name of my home city in my title. At the time of my retirement from local politics, I was the second-longest serving leader of the council, second only to Lord Beecham—I imagine that being second to Lord Beecham is something that many Members of this House have experienced in previous years. I was also its first LGBT leader. I worked hard to create a culture of no outsiders, a place where everyone is valued for who they are and the talents they offer. But I am concerned about the trend towards exclusion, rather than inclusion, that I witnessed during my 22 years in elected politics.
At various times in our history, some people have been othered and blamed for the perceived ills of all. Jews, Muslims, LGBT people, asylum seekers, single parents and many others have been, and continue to be, denigrated and dehumanised. We must be staunch in our opposition to the politics of grievance: they are divisive, corrosive and diminishing of all of us. There is much hatred in this world, but the answer to this is not more hate; it is the opposite. It is love; love for our families, our friends, our neighbours, our communities and our country. Beautiful and gloriously imperfect though we may be, we always have so much more in common that unites us rather than divides us.
I believe that the mark of future success of this nation is not the riches of a few but the fortunes of the many. I believe that opportunity should be universal and hard work rewarded, and that the purpose of economic growth is to spread wealth, as well as generate it. It is therefore with the spirit of ambitious and generous collaboration, with curiousness about how we can change things for the better, and with a fundamental belief in the dignity and equal value of all, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, that I approach my service to your Lordships’ House.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Forbes of Newcastle, and to welcome him to your Lordships’ House. I also extend a welcome to other noble Lords making their maiden speeches today.
I thank my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, for his excellent maiden speech. He made some immensely wise comments that superbly illustrate his capacity for, and commitment to, the work that he will undertake in this place. His mention of the values that have shaped his life are those that we should all aspire to and live out in our collective endeavours in this House. His calling our attention to the importance of inclusion is particularly vital.
The noble Lord’s years of dedicated service to local government and his commitment to creating thriving communities will greatly benefit this House. His lived experience, coupled with his kind heart, fierce mind and strong spirit, underpins his integrity, determination and resolve to seek the welfare of people and communities, especially those in deprivation. A keen listener and one who is ready to learn, he is well equipped for his new role in your Lordships’ House. I wish him well and look forward to working with him.
I turn to the subject of this debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest, for bringing it to your Lordships’ House. I am aware that, with the noble Lord’s contribution, noble Lords are getting a double dip of north-east input, but I hope this adds value.
Just yesterday, two chefs from Michelin-starred restaurants in Newcastle and Northumberland warned of major hospitality job losses caused by higher tax bills. Cal Byerley and Kenny Atkinson said that many businesses were on their last legs. For some hospitality venues in Newcastle, it is too late, with popular and long-standing venues having closed their doors permanently even in recent weeks. The North East Chamber of Commerce reports that many businesses used the temporary reliefs during Covid and subsequent energy crisis support to cover fixed costs rather than to invest, meaning that resilience remains thin.
On the upside, in Newcastle city centre, bus reform and subsidised young person fares have increased evening and weekend footfall, helping the night-time economy, which in Newcastle is rather lively. Regeneration investments make the city a more attractive visitor destination, which supports hospitality and retail spending. Information given to me by the North East Chamber of Commerce reports that the visitor economy supports around 63,000 jobs and contributes over £6.6 billion to the regional economy, representing 8% to 11% of regional GDP.
The Government’s announcement today of the investment in cultural organisations is therefore welcome in its potential to boost the broader economic landscape. Similarly, the overnight visitor levy could be a tool to invest in communities and support better jobs. Time will tell. Will the Minister monitor its impact?
In Northumberland, co-ordinated tourism strategies promote heritage assets such as Alnwick Castle and the coastal trail. This draws millions of visitors annually, boosting accommodation, cafés and retailers in towns such as Bamburgh and Berwick-upon-Tweed. However, these gains are strongly seasonal. A café might thrive in August but struggle in January, even as fixed costs remain year round. Government policies, through business rates, labour regulation and demand-side investment, exert powerful and concrete effects on retail and hospitality in Newcastle and Northumberland.
An underlying theme is what policy does at a granular level to communities and their ability to thrive in the short, medium and longer term—a point that the noble Baroness made so eloquently in her opening speech. The noble Lord, Lord Forbes, and I have in common that we both grew up in the north-east, as well as the year of our birth, 1973—the year Sunderland won the FA Cup. In that regard, we will both have similar memories of the impact of the decline of industry on communities, and the knock-on effect of that on the economic prosperity of the region and on people, the effects of which are long-standing and intergenerational.
The challenge now, which is also an opportunity, is not only to craft a policy environment that balances cost pressures with sustainable demand and opportunity for growth but to truly set forth a long-term vision that enables the welfare and flourishing of people and communities—not driven by fear and anxiety, but drawn by confidence, hope and economic sustainability.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I join all noble Lords in thanking my noble friend for this debate. I look forward to the remaining maiden speeches and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres of Lewisham, and the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, on their excellent contributions to today’s debate. I also refer noble Lords to my interest in the register as a businesswoman for over four decades.
I suspect that, like me, many noble Lords over the past 14 to 15 months have met and spoken with many businesses, a proportionately large number of them from the retail and hospitality sector. According to the House of Lords Library, the number of businesses in hospitality in 2025 was around 176,685. What does the Minister believe the number will be this time next year? Hospitality is the seventh largest of the main sectors and almost all of hospitality—99.6%—is made up of SMEs. Some 7% of all jobs in the UK in 2025 were in this sector. What does the Minister think that number will be this time next year?
Most businesses are started by local people to serve local communities, creating economic wealth and job creation in those communities. Hospitality usually sits in the centre of those communities. They do not just have economic impacts; as other noble Lords have said, their presences brings people together. Hotels help bring in tourism, along with pubs, cafés, restaurants, et cetera. Social interactions bring an abundance of good health and well-being benefits. But we have seen a decline over the past 25 years in the number of pubs, going from 60,800 in 2000 to 45,000 in 2024, as stated by the British Beer & Pub Association.
Sadly, we have seen many of our industries leave our shores; that surely cannot be good for our long-term desire to be a resilient country that can withstand the sort of global shocks that are increasingly impacting on our everyday cost of living. Instead of helping to support these incredibly important sectors, the attack on small and medium-sized businesses has been blood-curdling. I remind noble Lords that most businesses are SMEs—local people investing their hard-earned money into enterprises that very often will take quite a few years to show a return on their investment.
There was a time when we prided ourselves on being world leaders in enterprise. My grandfather started his manufacturing business in 1952 and my father in 1967. They illustrated to us how this great country enabled anybody and everybody to be socially and economically upwardly mobile, part of the economic growth of the nation and to give back to the community. I started my first business in 1980. A brilliant example is the Ugandan-Asian community, who came as refugees from Uganda. They contributed so much to my city, Leicester, even though the then Labour council had advertised for them not to come.
Given the impact of the national insurance hike from 13.8% to 15%, the increase in the minimum wage in April, the level at which employers will have to pay NI going from £9,000 to £5,000, the fact that many businesses in retail and hospitality are facing revaluations, which will see huge increases in their business rates, and the levels of crime and attacks on these sectors, meaning an increase to the costs of insurance, property protection and other added costs, how will the Government provide support to businesses that are already reeling from sluggish growth? Can the Minister tell the House how many job vacancies have been filled with the Pub is the Hub initiative? Does he seriously believe that £1.5 million of support for hospitality is sufficient? What has the response been from the hospitality sector?
Finally, if the Government are serious about helping hospitality, what can they do to help reduce its energy costs? To help the Minister, if the Government are serious about climate change, reducing carbon emissions and, above all, supporting the continued existence of the hospitality sector, maybe, instead of providing advice on how to get to net-zero carbon emissions, the Government could provide products at zero cost, or at hugely subsidised costs.
Lord Borwick (Con)
First, I must declare my interest, in that my wife, Victoria, is chairman of VisitEngland—what older Peers might call the English Tourist Board.
I congratulate all noble Lords who have made their maiden speeches. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest, on securing this debate on such an important subject. It has allowed me to open up an unimportant interest in my personal history: the fact that I was born in a hotel. I can claim to be one of the few people to have arrived at a hotel stark naked. Noble Lords may have left a hotel stark naked, in circumstances that I would rather not know, but very few will have arrived at one in that state.
Retail and hospitality are industries with much in common, but they have at least one important difference. In hospitality, problems, like babies, tend to arrive at strange hours of the day and night. An innkeeper must have someone who is responsible for solving problems available 24 hours a day, and someone who can solve problems at minimum cost is likely to be paid above minimum wage. Retail has a much more predictable time cycle of problems, but they are no less urgent. Shoplifting is a growing problem for all retail businesses, and government policy could be more helpful. Science could be used, in the form of permitting the more widespread use by shopkeepers of facial recognition systems in stores. I have little doubt that this will be considered on these Benches in due course.
The more interesting subject is the problems that the two sectors have in common. The most clear-cut is that both sectors have a relatively high use of minimum wage labour, because they use a lot of young people. For many people, a job in retail or hospitality is their first interaction with that wonderful, valuable and rare creature: the customer. They learn something in their first job that will be invaluable and exciting—that customers can and must be satisfied. Some young people learn lessons in self-reliance from retail and hospitality that they have not achieved in years of schooling. With a bit of luck, they might have been at a school that has a scheme run by a fabulous charity called Young Enterprise, which teaches 15 year-olds to run a small business. It is hoped that the kids pick up entrepreneurialism through this route. Last year, that great charity, founded by an old friend of mine, the late Sir Walter Salomon, taught more than 566,000 young people how to manage money and start a business.
However, no amount of entrepreneurial skill teaches you to cope with the biggest problem that retail and hospitality have in common: the cost of taxation in the form of national insurance and business rates. No doubt other noble Lords will talk of the difficulties caused by a tax on jobs—as national insurance is sometimes called by those not calling it a disguised income tax—but business rates have a peculiarity of rising fast and unpredictably. The recent rise in business rates has caused a lot of stress to shopkeepers, uncertain if their customers will be prepared to pay the increase in retail prices needed to finance it. Of all the problems caused by government to business, the most intractable and dispiriting will always be taxation.
What is the solution? It is entrepreneurs. Behind every retail shop and every hospitality pub is an entrepreneur. They need to be encouraged. If we are lucky, she or he will be a driven individual, determined to do well despite problems. These entrepreneurs feel unappreciated —so many of them are leaving for places such as Dubai because of government policy. This happened in the 1960s and was called the brain drain. Their children, the entrepreneurs of the future, may easily never come back. That is one of the tragedies of socialism.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, on securing this debate. I also congratulate our new colleagues on their maiden speeches, which were both entertaining and informative. I am sure we will hear more from the other maiden speakers as the debate goes on.
I do not have personal experience of the hospitality sector, other than that, as a Minister, I had responsibility for tourism. However, I was engaged for a large part of my life, as was my family, in retail, and I think there are a couple of areas that we have not touched on today. One of them is the fact that customers’ habits are changing and have been for many decades. The traditional shops on the high street, with produce spilling out on to the pavement, have passed—probably because somebody with a clipboard wants to ensure that the pavement is not cluttered up. The other big thing is online retail, which has had a huge impact.
We need to focus on the fact that we do not have, and have never really had, a proper system for dealing with town centre and city centre retail. First of all, we make life as difficult as possible for people to get into it. That comes back to parking—inadequate or expensive parking, with wardens running around issuing tickets. How is anybody going to buy anything of substance if they are forced on to public transport in the pouring rain? People are not going to do it; they are just going to go somewhere where they can stop at the door. That was the lesson of America over many decades. The other factor is that the smaller units in town centres have rates that are much higher per square foot than out-of-town shopping centres—the supermarkets and big stores are a classic example of that.
We all want to support tackling climate change, but we have to be realistic. If going into the town or city centre becomes more and more expensive and difficult, people will go somewhere else, because they have options. We need to re-engineer our town centres. We have talked about it—it has been around for years—but nobody has actually done it. It seems that all I hear of, even at home in the last couple of days, is significant retailers packing in because a Marks & Spencer, say, has moved out of a town centre to a shopping centre on the edge of town. Footfall drops and the local retailer is left high and dry.
Whatever way you look at it, rates are an enormous cost. When you add the cost of employing people, you get to the “Why bother?” stage. I have been in local government for 25 years, and local councils depend heavily on business rates for their revenue. There is a temptation to say, “Oh, big business can cope with it”. That is true to some extent, but it is not true in town centres by and large because the big battalions—the Sainsbury’s and the Tescos—apart from their express units, go outside. We have changed habits, and we have not managed to mix residential, retail and hospitality in our town centres in a sensible way. All we get is vape shops, charity shops and so on, proliferating in these places and making the town centres completely unpleasant environments.
Looking at the totality of the challenges that our retail sector is facing, I have to say to the Government and the Minister that he needs to take this back to his colleagues because it needs to be rethought. What we are doing is taking the existing problems and simply making them worse. Some local authorities, for a perfectly legitimate reason of trying to improve climate change, are actually forcing people out and making life so difficult that people are not prepared to go into retail. I hope that this debate will stimulate the Minister to bring it back to his colleagues, because I think there is a widespread feeling on all sides of the House that much more needs to be done.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Monckton on securing this debate and will take us back to how she started—with the Woolsack, which is currently sustaining the graceful and delicate form of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. The people who designed this Chamber knew what they were doing. England medievally was a one-sector economy, as dependent on the wool trade and as associated with that one sector as today Qatar is with natural gas or the Maldives is with holidays. They were reminding us that everything we do as politicians and people in government is literally supported by the surplus of the private sector. They knew that they needed to remind us of that, and they need to remind us still.
I have been struck ever since I arrived here by how readily people spend money that is not theirs and how easily we expect warmth and approval when we demand that more be spent on something, but we never—or almost never—talk about where it is coming from. I think that happens because of a bit of faulty wiring in our neural networks. When a politician talks about public spending, it is received as though he is talking about his own money. So when he proposes spending more, he is thought to be generous—as though it was his own—and when he proposes spending less, he is thought to be mean. In fact, of course, he is standing up for people who will never thank him—what the poet calls
“Your children yet unborn and unbegot”.
These are the people who are not there yet, whom he is sparing from our extraordinary debt levels.
I think a similar dynamic happens with the very unpopular thing that I am about to talk about now. It is specifically hitting the hospitality sector, as opposed to business more widely: the huge and unprecedented rises in the minimum wage. People always personalise this. Whenever anyone criticises the levels of minimum wage, the reaction is the rhetorically powerful but logically utterly irrelevant question: how would you like to live on £12.21, or whatever the current rate is?
For what it is worth, my first job, like that of the noble Lord, Lord Forbes of Newcastle—to whom I say welcome and thank you for speaking so well—was also in that sector. I worked as a waiter in a golf club. It taught me lots of things, some of which were really useful. For example, since then I have always been able to tell the difference between when a waiter has genuinely not seen you and when he is just busy—not for me a lifetime of making little squiggling gestures in the air ineffectively, because I learned that. It also taught me punctuality. It taught me how to deal with customers. It taught me how to deal with employers, and how they are different from your parents or your teachers; the relationship is an altogether more transactional one. For me, as for millions of others including my children and, I am sure, others in this Chamber, that sector was the beginning of how I got into the world of work.
The measure we should be applying is: are we making it easier for that sector to hire people, or are we, as we keep pushing up that wage level, privileging one section of low-paid workers over everyone else, particularly people who are looking for work, who are becoming more and more numerous? It is difficult to have this argument without emotion, but I invite noble Lords to ask a couple of questions about the mechanics of those rises.
When I joined your Lordships’ House the minimum wage stood at £8.72. Now it is £12.21—an extraordinary rise. It has gone from being so low that it did not make much difference, in the period that the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, talked about, to being, I think, the highest in the OECD after France and New Zealand. What has been the impact of that rise? We can see it in the unemployment figures. We can also see it in the skewed incentives.
Lots of things happen when the minimum wage increases. First, some employers will simply claw it back in other ways. They will be less forthcoming with offers of subsidised purchasing, help with travel or other perks. If it gets high enough they will go elsewhere, either to automation or, let us be honest, to the large pool of illegal workers in this country—perhaps more than 1 million people. It is almost never noted that the people most affected as low-paid workers are also consumers of the industries most affected. If the minimum wage is passed on to customers in the fast food sector, let us say, or indeed in hospitality generally, it is not so much Members of your Lordships’ House who are affected by the rising prices.
Prior to these rises we had 30 years of structurally low unemployment in this country. We had waves of people coming here from southern Europe because they had regulated employment sectors and high minimum wages, and therefore structurally high unemployment. All the way through previous Governments of both parties, we managed to stay away from that and to remain a magnet for young people. By heaven, we are going to miss that when it goes.
Baroness Shah (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great honour to rise for the first time here in your Lordships’ House, and I do so with a profound sense of humility. To sit among Members whose experience, wisdom and dedication to public service I have long admired is both a privilege and a responsibility I do not take lightly.
I begin by thanking the staff of this House—the clerks, Black Rod’s team and particularly the doorkeepers, whose professionalism, warmth, patience and, today, hydration have been extraordinary as I have found my way, mainly slowly, around its procedures and corridors. I am also deeply grateful to my two sponsors, my noble friends Lord Evans of Sealand and Lord Katz, for their generosity, encouragement and guidance. Their support has meant a great deal to me, and I thank them sincerely for welcoming me so warmly to your Lordships’ House. I would also like to thank my noble friends Lady Smith and Lord Kennedy of Southwark for helping me through this very surreal process.
It is a great honour to be the first Jain in Parliament, and swearing my Oath of Allegiance on Jain scripture was a moment of great significance for my community and family in London, Kenya, India and beyond.
My journey to this place has been shaped by family, by education and by public service. My grandmother and my mother both lived lives of unshakable commitment to their families, whose lives are marked by challenges and community expectations, but also by determination. They believed deeply in education, not as an abstract good but as a practical route to dignity, independence and opportunity. My father, a small business owner, worked hard to ensure that my brother and I could stand on firmer ground than he had himself.
I learned that progress is rarely sudden and never accidental. It is built patiently through work, service and a sense of responsibility to others. Those values have guided me through every stage of my life.
They also sustained me through profound personal loss. My husband Richard died in 2016 at the age of 36. Living with bipolar, he was a man of great kindness and creativity and an exceptional singer, whose life was cut short by cancer. His experience deepened my understanding of mental health, grief and the fragile line many people walk while still contributing richly to their families, workplaces and communities. Ten years ago, my life was very different. I was a back-bench councillor, a mum to a six year-old, a carer to my husband and a history teacher. Had life been different, I would probably be talking about being a head teacher rather than my elevation to this place.
I mention this not for sympathy but because it strengthened my conviction that public policy must be grounded in compassion, and that our systems, whether in health, housing or employment, must be designed for real lives, not idealised ones.
As I said earlier, my professional life began in education. Teaching is an act of hope. Every day, you stand before young people and make a quiet promise that their background need not determine their future. I taught students of extraordinary talent and ambition, many navigating overcrowded housing, economic insecurity and uncertainty about what lay ahead. They taught me that aspiration exists everywhere but opportunity does not.
It was those experiences that led me into local government, where I sought to turn principle into practice. As a Labour councillor in the London Borough of Brent, home of Wembley Stadium, I had the privilege of working in one of the most diverse and dynamic boroughs in the country.
I led work on regeneration and planning, and my work was driven by a simple belief that growth must be inclusive and development should strengthen communities. I encountered daily the reality of families living in temporary accommodation and young people being priced out of housing, often due to wage stagnation. These challenges demand long-term thinking and political courage, and I am proud of our work to deliver housing of all tenures and to play our part in tackling the housing crisis.
Alongside this, I led work in economic development, with a particular focus on supporting local businesses and high streets—the subject of this debate. High streets are not merely commercial spaces but social infrastructure. When they thrive, communities thrive. When they decline, the effects ripple far beyond empty shopfronts.
Working in partnership with the Mayor of London, I helped to deliver programmes to support small businesses in Wembley to get online, recognising that digital access is no longer optional but essential. I championed affordable workspace policies, ensuring that start-ups and growing businesses could access space they could genuinely afford and remain rooted in their communities, and supporting businesses to adapt and grow—the power of local, regional and national government working together.
I come to this House shaped by education, local government and lived experience. I do not claim expertise in all fields, but I hope to contribute particularly to debates on education, housing and regeneration—areas where long-term thinking is essential. I look forward to joining your Lordships’ House in scrutinising, revising and improving legislation. In that spirit, I bring with me the voices of the students I taught, the residents I served, the businesses I worked alongside and the families whose values brought me here.
I will endeavour to listen carefully, to speak thoughtfully and to serve with integrity.
I thank all noble Lords all for the warmth of their welcome, and I look forward to contributing to the vital work of this House.
Lord Rook (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great honour to welcome my new and noble friend Lady Shah to her place in your Lordships’ House, and it is a joy to congratulate her on a beautiful maiden speech. Tomorrow marks the first anniversary of my own introduction, and over the past year I have sometimes wondered exactly what I contribute to this place. Reflecting on my noble friend’s life and leadership, it is abundantly clear that she offers a huge amount to this Chamber and this community.
My noble friend’s experience in education will greatly enrich our work in helping to shape legislation that helps children to flourish and thrive in the future. Her contribution to grass-roots politics and community life in Brent will deepen our understanding of what it takes to build stronger and more united communities at a time of growing division. Her distinguished service in local government will offer invaluable insight into how central and local government can collaborate more effectively and creatively. Her vision for the arts and creative industries will challenge us all to forge a future for our country as a creative superpower.
Last but by no means least, as someone who spends a great deal of his time welcoming people of faith to this House, I am delighted to welcome my noble friend Lady Shah as the first parliamentarian from the Jain community in this country. Her presence here is a source of great pride to that community and an answer to its prayers.
As I reflect on my own first year, it is the moments of humanity and humility displayed by your Lordships that have made the greatest impression on me: when adversity is met with honesty, when courage meets crisis, and when sometimes the harder aspects of human experience have shaped the terms and tone of our deliberations. It is clear from my noble friend’s speech that she brings all those qualities in abundance. She spoke movingly and bravely about her late husband, Richard, and her presence here honours his legacy. To her daughter, Emily, we say: “You should be very proud of your mum—and also don’t worry, we don’t sit at weekends, so the newly ennobled Baroness Shah will continue to act as your chauffeur and personal assistant, getting you to all your dance lessons on Saturdays”.
In commending my noble friend Lady Shah to me this week, a noble Minister said simply, “She is so lovely. She has so many friends”. In this House, it is our convention to use the term “friend” to describe those in our own party. Despite this, I have no doubt that my noble friend Lady Shah will make many great friends across this House in the years to come. To that end, I welcome her as our new and noble friend.
To turn to today’s debate, I commend the Government’s recent support for pubs. This may be somewhat surprising, as I speak as a lifelong teetotaller. I was brought up in the Salvation Army and my only taste of alcohol so far has been the occasional sip of communion wine, the occasional cheeky portion of sherry trifle, and an occasion when my drink was spiked with ouzo on holiday in Greece. Despite remaining abstemious, which is even more surprising as I am now an Anglican, I recognise the importance of what the Government have done, economically and socially, to support pubs.
In the Budget, the Chancellor took decisive action to support pubs. She recognised the contribution that they make to our economy and our community. Treasury analysis suggested that pubs might face 45% increases in costs in the next year. As a result of the action by the Chancellor, that increase is probably reduced to around 5%. That is not marginal; that is the difference between survival and the ability to plan and invest.
Pubs are good not just for business and our economy but for our community and society, as has been picked up in this debate already. Research by Pub is The Hub, a non-profit organisation, demonstrated the critical role that pubs play, fostering community cohesion, social interaction and resilience. Research outlines additional services, both economic and social, provided by our public houses. Measuring social return on investment shows that every £1 invested in services and activities delivered through a local pub generates more than £8 of social value to the community in return. Our pubs provide places where people gather—they belong, they are known—and they reduce loneliness and isolation. In many rural and deprived areas, they provide a hub for services that may otherwise have disappeared. They contribute to individual well-being and community resilience in ways that are hard to replicate elsewhere.
For these reasons, it is possible for this lifelong teetotal noble Lord to raise a glass to our public houses, even if it contains only lemonade and lime. What is more, I say cheers to the Government for the support provided to the hospitality sector for the good of our economy and the good of our community.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to hear the very personal stories of today’s maiden speakers, and we look forward very much to the fourth one coming. I too congratulate my noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest on securing this crucial and timely debate. I declare my interest as a board member of Historic Houses and the owner-operator of hospitality assets in Wales.
As others have done, I will address the growing crisis facing our hospitality and retail sectors—a crisis significantly exacerbated by recent government policies. These are not abstract statistics but the livelihoods of 3.8 million people working in tourism-related businesses.
The hospitality sector faces a perfect storm. Inflation is driving up costs, while the cost of living crisis erodes consumer spending. Yet, rather than providing relief, government policy has compounded these challenges at every turn. To be specific about the financial burden, the 2024 Autumn Budget imposed £1.4 billion in additional costs through national living wage increases, on top of £1.9 billion in increased employer national insurance contributions and £500 million in business rates. This is a cumulative £3.8 billion burden on a sector that is still recovering from the pandemic.
As my noble friend so eloquently outlined in her introduction, the human cost is already evident. By July 2025, more than 100,000 jobs had been lost, driven primarily by the rise in employer NICs. UKHospitality warns that current policies could see another 100,000 jobs disappear. These are not just numbers; they represent families, communities and their local economies.
This comes at a particularly unfortunate time. The Social Mobility Policy Committee of your Lordships’ House, of which I was a member, drew attention to the fact that there are almost 1 million young people not in education, employment or training. The hospitality sector has historically been a crucial entry point for young people seeking their first employment. We have heard personal examples from noble Lords today. My first job, during that hazy summer after GCSEs, was at a local go-kart track where I learned the value of a hard day’s work. Yet, just when we most need these businesses to provide opportunities for young people, government policy is forcing them to cut jobs, rather than create them.
Heritage businesses face particularly acute challenges. Changes to business property relief and agricultural property relief mean that 54% of Historic Houses members cannot develop or diversify their businesses, while 41% are making redundancies or putting a freeze on hiring. We are forcing custodians of our national heritage to choose between their workforce and their heritage obligations.
The tourism sector contributed £145.8 billion to UK GDP in 2023. Yet, we have allowed the UK to plummet to 113th out of 119 countries for price competitiveness. Visitors to the UK pay on average 43% more tax than they do when visiting other destinations. We are pricing ourselves out of the international market.
The proposed visitor levy would add a further burden. While Manchester’s and Liverpool’s business improvement districts succeeded through genuine sector involvement and transparent revenue ring-fencing, without these safeguards we risk creating another tax that discourages visitors and burdens the micro-businesses which comprise 76% of tourism enterprises.
The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act presents another challenge. The 14-day cooling-off period for subscriptions creates perverse incentives. Members can sign up, visit multiple attractions and cancel for a refund, bearing no relation to the costs incurred. This affects Historic Houses, the National Trust, English Heritage, our museums, zoos and countless other attractions. We must allow traders to set deduction calculations based on the proportion of service actually provided.
The evidence mounts. More than 17,000 shops, offices and warehouses in rural areas sit empty, and 37% of Historic Houses members have not seen visitor numbers return to pre-pandemic levels. We are witnessing the slow constriction of a vital sector through accumulated policy decisions made without considering their cumulative impact.
We on these Benches urge immediate action and look forward to the Minister’s response as to how he is going to address these sector challenges.
Lord John of Southwark (Lab) (Maiden)
My Lords, it is the greatest pleasure to rise in this debate and to give my maiden speech—the last in a quartet from the Labour local government family. I did wonder whether we look like a 1990s pop group announcing our reunion tour.
I first thank Black Rod, the Clerk of the Parliaments, the doorkeepers, the police and all of the House staff who made my introduction such an awe-inspiring and memorable experience, and to all noble Lords for giving me such a warm welcome. I of course give my very real thanks to my noble friends Lady Smith of Basildon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark who supported me at my introduction. Not only are they the real A-team of the Labour Benches, but they have been very real friends and champions of mine over many years. Both have strong connections with Southwark, the borough I led and which I am so proud to have in my title, which is now very widely and objectively regarded as the best borough in London.
I understand that it is customary in a maiden speech to a go a little bit “Strictly Come Dancing” contestant and to talk about my journey to this place. In my case, my journey began in Weston-super-Mare. My parents were not political, but my Labour Party education came from my great-aunt, Peggy England-Jones, who was the party agent and secretary in Swansea for many years, and among whose charges was a young MP, my noble friend Lord Anderson of Swansea, who I am terrified to note has known me since I was aged seven.
My journey moved from Worle comprehensive school in Weston to university at Queen Mary College here in London; a career at the Bar, practising for the last 25 years in contentious probate; election as a local councillor in Southwark for 20 years, with 10 of those as council leader; and two and a half years as chair of London Councils. In the last few years, I have returned to practice at the Bar, have become involved in business and am proudly a member of the board at the Old Vic Theatre, one of our very real national cultural gems.
That journey has informed my political priorities and interests, from delivering high-quality social and private housing across Southwark to promoting the regeneration of a borough which not so long ago was seen as somewhere no taxi driver would take you, because it was “sarf of the river”. Today, you can look from the Shard and London Bridge to the Elephant and Castle, from Blackfriars Road to Peckham, and from Bermondsey to Canada Water, and see the demonstrable benefits of growth in new homes, new businesses and new jobs, and from ensuring that every young person has the best start in life and vastly increased skills and training opportunities, to ensuring that the arts and culture are something which are accessible to all and valued by many. Those are the priorities which will inform my work in this House and why it feels appropriate for me to be speaking on this subject today—for I believe that local government has a critical role to play in creating the best circumstances for the retail and hospitality industries to flourish.
When Southwark embarked on the regeneration of the Elephant and Castle, few would have believed that it could so quickly develop such a vibrant new hospitality offer, so that people of all ages now choose to meet and spend their leisure time there. I am pleased to report that the aim of recreating the Elephant’s historic heyday as the Piccadilly of south London is well on the way to being achieved. But it did not happen by accident, and that together with other examples, such as Borough Yards and Peckham Levels in the borough, demonstrate the critical role that local authorities can play in creating and curating the environments in which restaurants, bars and shops can prosper. It requires vision and it requires confidence.
I am not blind to the fact that the nature of retail and hospitality on our high streets is fundamentally changing; it has been for at least the last decade. The complaints from the sector today are, sadly, not new. I am sure that it can sometimes feel that government gets in the way or adds unnecessary burdens, but we will all have also seen a café, bar, restaurant or shop which does succeed—apparently against the odds.
Let us recognise the challenges the sector faces, encourage local governments to be the leaders in place-making—which we know they can be—support our local businesses and reject any counsels of despair. Let us be the optimists.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to welcome my noble friend Lord John and thank him for his excellent maiden speech, which was both entertaining and wise, as befits a barrister of over 25 years’ standing. I am sure we were all impressed by his knowledge and insight into how best to develop commercial and residential spaces where communities can thrive. These challenges are faced by so many local councils up and down the country, and we have so much to learn about how to do this successfully.
The transformation of the Elephant and Castle site from a run-down housing estate and shopping centre to a highly desirable residential, commercial and retail centre is just one example of my noble friend’s skill as a hugely respected council leader in London. In fact, my noble friend Lord Spellar, who lives in the development at Elephant and Castle, described it as rather like one of the better parts of Manhattan. That is indeed praise for the work that my noble friend Lord John has succeeded in doing.
My noble friend Lord John has also been applying his expertise to work with other councils across London, helping to make London the thriving, attractive city it is becoming today. I know that his commitment to the arts, in particular his work with the Old Vic and the Central School of Ballet, will also be welcome across this House. He has a huge contribution to make to the work of this House, and I am sure he will continue to make that impact in the months and years to come. We will watch his progress with great interest.
There has been much criticism from the party opposite about the passing of the Employment Rights Act and its impact on the retail and hospitality sectors, but I am proud of the fact that the Government delivered their manifesto commitment to bring the UK’s outdated employment laws into the 21st century by passing the legislation in December. It will turn the page on an economy blighted by insecurity, poor productivity and low pay, which the previous Government were happy to see continue.
Instead, hundreds of thousands of the lowest-paid workers will be protected from exploitative zero-hours contracts for the first time, allowing them to manage their work and income and to plan for the future. Families will benefit from day-one rights for paternity, parental and bereavement leave. Workers will benefit from improved sick pay and will no longer have to choose between their health and financial hardship. The new Fair Work Agency will ensure that good businesses are not undercut by bad employers.
We are raising employment standards to those already enjoyed by the better employers in the retail and hospitality sectors. We are confident that these measures will be beneficial for employers, will help to keep people in work and will reduce employment costs for employers by increasing staff retention and creating a more loyal and motivated workforce.
The government report on the legal and economic implications of the Employment Rights Act supports our expectation that the Act will have a beneficial impact. For example, it shows that, far from being an outrider, the measures will simply bring the UK closer to the OECD average for employment law protections.
It also shows that in areas of new policy, such as zero-hours protections, the adoption of similar laws in other OECD countries has led to productivity and employment improvements. Its econometric analysis shows the Act as having a small positive effect on employment.
As the Bill was nearing its conclusion, representatives from the main business organisations wrote to the Secretary of State welcoming the outcome of the dialogue on the Bill, which they said
“represented a significant step forward which will have a positive impact on growth and opportunities”.
They went on to say that
“now is the time for Parliament to pass the Bill”.
This support from the business community was crucial to the passing of the Bill and set the way forward as to how we should work with businesses in the future. Underpinning these new rights will be a partnership between trade unions, employers and government, which will create a new spirit of co-operation. This partnership will be crucial as we move forward with the next phase of implementing the Act.
We have made it clear to businesses that these new rights will not be implemented overnight. We have always said that we would engage and consult comprehensively on the implementation of the measures in the Act to make sure that they work for everyone. This period of consultation has now begun, and it is important that all voices are heard and understood. The implementation road map sets out a timetable for the phased introduction of the new rights, ensuring that all stakeholders have time to adapt to the change so that it works for everyone. The consultation process will be supplemented by guidance and codes of practice, with ACAS and other delivery partners providing time and resources to support the process.
All this should mean that employers—particularly small and micro-businesses—have the time and the space needed to prepare, with tailored support where necessary. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the business representatives in the hospitality and retail sectors should, crucially, play an active and positive role in shaping the detailed implementation of the legislation going forward so that their voices are properly heard? Does he agree that the Employment Rights Act, when fully implemented, should have a positive impact on the economy and on our vital growth agenda? I look forward to his response.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I will start my speech with the special crisis that pubs face, outlined with figures from the British Beer & Pub Association. In addition to the business rates problem to which I will refer later, pubs face multiple policy changes that will affect sector costs. First, there is the issue of wage increases, putting pressure on pubs’ margins. The national living wage rose by 7% in 2025 and is going up by 4.1% in April 2026. The national minimum wage rose by up to 18% in April 2025 and is forecast to rise between 6% and 8.5% for 16 to 20 year-olds in 2026.
Then there has been the effect of increased national insurance. The threshold for employer NI decreased from £9,100 to £5,000 and the rate of employer NI increased in April 2025 from 13.8% to 15%. In addition, there are the problems of the change of rules for packaging recovery notes, shifting the full cost burden on to brewers; the regulatory burdens and uncertainty from the newly introduced extended producer responsibility; the deposit return scheme, which I will discuss later; and, of course, the reduction of the legal alcohol limit, especially affecting rural pubs.
The trade body UKHospitality’s key message is that the 2025 Budget did not deliver needed changes, such as a rebalancing of the business rates system, easement of employment costs or a reduction in VAT. Rather, there was minimal rates relief, steep hikes in rateable values—wiping out the 5p business rate discounts for hospitality—as well as wage increases and holiday tax proposals. Rising costs and taxes add further pressures on business, resulting in job losses and closures. Sector job losses since the 2024 Budget have reached 100,000, and without immediate action this will continue leading to reduced investment, further hollowing out of high streets and fewer opportunities for young people, the group most dependent on hospitality for employment.
Let us look at the business rates problem in more detail. The 5p discount for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses is far below the 20p relief allowed under legislation, and the benefit is outweighed by steep rateable value increases. Hospitality faces far steeper multiyear increases in rates bills than supermarkets, warehouses, offices or banks, directly contradicting the Government’s manifesto commitment to levelling the playing field between high street businesses and online giants.
UKHospitality estimates that business rate rises will cost small hospitality business £318 million. An average pub’s rates bill will rise 15% in year 1, reaching 76% over three years. A four-star hotel’s rates bill will rise 30% in year 1, reaching 115% over three years. In comparison, online companies’ warehouse rates will rise by only 9% in year 1 and 16% over three years. In contrast, large supermarkets will see rates fall by 2% in year 1 and rise by only 4% by year 3.
According to the Association of Convenience Stores, local shops are facing significant increases in business rates as a result of the 2026 revaluation and withdrawal of reliefs. While the ACS states that the introduction of lower multipliers for retail businesses was welcome, these changes do not go far enough. The multiplier needs to be set at a materially lower level to properly offset these increases and protect local shops. Transitional relief will only delay the impact of higher bills; it does not remove it. Even when increases are capped, many retailers are facing rises of several thousand pounds in April, with full effect pushed further into the parliamentary term rather than resolved.
Independent retailers, particularly those operating on petrol forecourts, are set to be hardest hit. These businesses benefited proportionately more from reliefs that are now being withdrawn and face sharp increases, despite the new retail, hospitality and leisure multiplier and transitional release package. These higher business rates costs directly affect the retailers’ ability to invest in stores, retain staff and continue to provide essential community services. Without further support, higher business rates risk undermining jobs, investment and the long-term viability of local shops that communities rely on every day.
Listening to the Minister’s response to the repeat of the Commons Urgent Question on Tuesday, I got no indication of a rapid response to the business rates problems for these businesses. I emphasise to the Minister here today the urgency of the situation. With his rare business experience among the Labour Front Bench, he must realise that remedial action is needed as soon as possible.
Lord Kempsell (Con)
My Lords, how perspicacious it was of my noble friend Lady Monckton to secure this vital business today. I join others in expressing my appreciation for her opening speech, which set the scene for this debate, replete as it was with illustrations and examples from her own experience. I congratulate newly minted noble Lords and Ladies on the Benches opposite on their maiden speeches. If they are to be treated as a pop group, they sang, if I may say so, a beautiful song in this Chamber. I hope that they continue to feel very welcome in your Lordships’ House.
George Orwell imagined his favourite public house. He called it the Moon Under Water, and stipulated, in post-war style, that it should have,
“draught stout, open fires, cheap meals, a garden, motherly barmaids and no radio”.
The prices have gone up since 1946, and I think you are more likely to hear music nowadays in hospitality establishments, but even George Orwell, that master of English dystopia, could not, even in his worst nightmares, have imagined the fate that awaits British pubs today under this Government. Indeed, his vision of the Moon Under Water has given way to the grim reality of the pub under Starmer.
There is one fact in this debate which sums up all other points—this indictment alone: that under Labour, one pub permanently closes every day in this country, and that is before all the measures from last year’s Budget are fully implemented. Noble Lords opposite spoke with high mind about public services in this country. I have to inform them that, in many places in Britain, especially in rural Britain, the pub is the only real public service that remains. Hospitality venues are safe and hospitable places, one of the few on the high street where people can meet without breaking the bank. British landlords are de facto social workers, changing lives as well as changing barrels, whether, as we have heard in this debate, by giving young people their first job and income or by healing the epidemic of loneliness that is faced by the old. How much more vividly the humblest member of hospitality establishment staff understands the daily reality of life in this country than those who sit in the Cabinet—not one of whom has run so much as a small business between them, let alone faced the scale of challenges that now confront the hospitality sector.
From April, when the minimum wage increases and the new rateable values take effect, pubs, cafes, restaurants and other venues will face what for many of them will be impossible bills. Business rates for the average hospitality business will rise by 94% over the next three years. Labour is driving publicans and hospitality entrepreneurs, like farmers, to the brink of despair. The Government already moved in the Budget last year to destroy their profits, and now they are targeting their revenues, meaning that many of them will not even be able to open. I hope that the right honourable Chancellor in the other place enjoyed a drink in Davos. How much more she could have learned had she travelled instead to the Dog and Duck.
I am old enough to remember—it was only a few weeks ago—when the Government promised not to increase taxes on working people. There are no harder-working people in this country today than those in the hospitality trades. Can the Minister, who speaks with experience and gravity on these topics, please answer the questions that have been raised in this debate? Until those questions are answered by the Government, it will be no surprise if every Labour MP continues to be routinely barred from public houses in Britain. I hope that the Prime Minister likes to use vending machines, because if he carries on with his policy he may never be served in a public house in Britain again.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. I congratulate the four new Members on their excellent speeches.
I draw the attention of your Lordships’ House to Section 21 of the Employment Rights Act, which extends the liability of employers for the harassment of their employees to third parties, and its impact on the hospitality sector. From October this year, employers will have a duty to protect their workers from third parties. I should make it clear that we are not talking about third-party sexual harassment, which they were already liable for, but third-party non-sexual harassment.
What does that mean for the hospitality sector? Employers will have to take “all reasonable steps”—those are the words in the Act—to protect their employees from harassment by customers. That might not sound too onerous, until you factor in that harassment includes indirect harassment, which has been defined by the employment tribunal as including overheard conversations, remarks, comments or jokes that an employee may find offensive or upsetting by virtue of their protected characteristics. It is for that reason that the Free Speech Union has been referring to Section 21 as the “banter ban”.
A couple of weeks ago, the Government quietly released a 40-page impact assessment about Section 21. It says that it is likely to cost the owners of small businesses £23.7 million to familiarise themselves with their new legal obligations, with ongoing costs of £124,000 a year for 10 years. The total cost during that period, it says, could be as high as £59 million. That is a woeful underestimate.
One of the assumptions in the impact assessment is that it will take business owners no more than half an hour to master their new duties under Section 21 of the Act. That is not the view of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, as set out in a briefing that it produced for your Lordships’ House when we were debating the Bill. The EHRC drew attention to the conflict between Clause 21, as it then was, and existing anti-discrimination provisions. It said that a third party may themselves be protected from discrimination while their conduct could simultaneously be considered harassment by an employee. That makes the legal balancing of rights and obligations difficult for employers to manage in practice.
I will give just one example of the kind of conflict that the EHRC has in mind and which hospitality businesses will now have to navigate. Should they prevent trans women customers from using the ladies’ lavatories? On the one hand, a female employee may have a claim for third-party harassment in the tribunal if she finds herself having to share the facilities with a biological male. On the other, a trans woman customer may have a claim for discrimination if the business owner, as a service provider, fails to discharge its duty under Section 29 of the Equality Act, which makes it unlawful for a service provider to discriminate against a person who is using, or seeking to use, its services.
This is precisely the issue that the Women and Equalities Minister has been wrestling with since the EHRC submitted its advice last October about how to revise the code of practice on services, public functions and associations covering, among other things, access to single-sex women’s spaces. We were told in this House only this week that the reason there has been such a delay in issuing this code of practice is that this is such a fiendishly complex area of law and it is essential that the Government get it right. Yet, if a Government Minister cannot master this area of the law in three months, with all the legal resources at her disposal, what hope do publicans have to get their heads around it in half an hour?
Section 21 of the Employment Rights Act imposes a new duty on small businesses in the hospitality sector that touches on an incredibly complicated area of law, with real financial risks if they get it wrong. For many publicans, the cost of the legal advice alone, let alone the compliance costs, will be the final straw. Remember that we are talking about just one section of the Employment Rights Act. Could the Minister, at the very least, give retail and hospitality businesses a 12-month reprieve before strangling them with this new profoundly unwelcome bit of red tape?
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, it was a delight to hear the four maiden speeches from the noble Baronesses, Lady Dacres and Lady Shah, and the noble Lords, Lord Forbes and Lord John, who bring really meaningful experience to your Lordships’ House. I want to empathise with the noble Lord, Lord Forbes: I was in exactly the same position with my father 10 years ago.
This has been an interesting but somewhat predictable debate. I expected all the issues that came out, and mostly from the people who I expected to give them, but it has been an important debate because it was an opportunity to air the pressures facing Britain’s high streets. Some of those pressures are historical—Covid, Brexit and things like that—and some are general and local, such as those brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, such as parking, the overall environment, the variety on the high street and the presence of anchor stores. But some of the pressures can be laid at the door of the current Government.
Noble Lords talked about raising employers’ NICs, which has undoubtedly had a catastrophic effect on employment in businesses. Retail and hospitality are very people-centred and are among the businesses worst hit by this rise. Lib Dems oppose this and we would scrap it. Energy costs have hit some sectors of the high street particularly hard, and hospitality is very much hit by the increase. We do not think that the Government have demonstrated the necessary practical understanding of what that has done to those businesses.
SMEs—which, of course, many pubs are—in particular are exposed to a deregulated energy market with little support after the previous Conservative Government’s decision to slash the energy bill support for businesses by an average of 85% when they replaced the energy bill relief scheme with the energy bills discount scheme, which itself ended in March 2024. We estimate that 3.1 million SMEs saw a total bill increase of £7.6 billion when the initial energy bill relief scheme ended. That is a huge benefit.
A couple of Peers decided to relitigate elements of the Employment Rights Act, and I am delighted that they did. Since the noble Lord, Lord Young, trooped out his greatest hit, I am afraid I will have to bring mine out. During the debate, I felt the phrase “banter ban” to be entirely revealing. Since time immemorial, the phrase, “It was only a piece of banter”, has been used to justify homophobia, racism and misogyny, and I think it is a very revealing choice of words.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, was more subtle in her relitigation. I take issue with some of the points that she made, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, will no doubt fail to resist that temptation. However, I note that she is correct in that there is still an awful lot of consultation and, of course, of secondary legislation to come. I reiterate another of my greatest hits: when the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, stands up and brings this issue to the fore, I hope that he can persuade his Front Bench to engage in meaningful debate on secondary legislation—which means jeopardy that that secondary legislation will be voted down. Until His Majesty’s loyal Opposition meaningfully make that threat, the Government are on a pass. That is done for the day.
For retail, the competition from online sales has continued to mount. Over the past 15 years, we have seen internet shopping increase its market share by five times to around a quarter of all sales. It is clear that although some high street businesses also practice online trading, they cannot compete with the global concerns supplied from out-of-town fulfilment centres. There have been government claims of levelling the playing field between their two retail models, but there is no such levelling.
Here, we come to the bit about non-domestic rates. I know that the Treasury has been busy, but I find completely incredible the recent claims that the Chancellor was surprised by the effect of the changes she is making to business rates on retail and hospitality. This time last year, some of us were debating the then Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill, which is now an Act. During the stages of that Bill, my noble friend Lady Pinnock, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on the Cross Benches, and I spoke at length of the twin effects of the scaling back of the Covid relief and the future valuation, which was, at that time, not available. We noted that the phasing would not eliminate the sharp jump in rates. We launched a wider critique of the structure and effect of business rates, arguing that the Government’s proposals on multipliers were poorly targeted and risked damaging public services and regional fairness, rather than delivering a genuinely fairer system for high streets.
My noble friend Lady Pinnock repeatedly criticised the lack of an impact assessment, saying that the Committee on the Bill was “debating in the dark” about a combined effect of the new higher multipliers and the withdrawal of the Covid-era reliefs. She argued that the Government’s claim to be creating a fairer system was not being met because the Act relies solely on rateable value rather than genuinely targeting online distribution warehouses, despite all that rhetoric about an Amazon tax. She was able to cite an Amazon warehouse near her home which is levied at about £25 per square metre, versus a local shop in the town just nearby which is at 10 times that, at £250 per square metre.
That said, without a root-and-branch change in the way that valuations are done, business rates will continue to penalise high streets and advantage large out-of-town operators. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, with all his expertise, added further valuation data to that argument, which the Government and the Minister simply ignored.
Above all, we criticised the absence of a meaningful impact assessment and the absence of new valuations. It is clear that, without these, the ministerial comments at the time were plain nonsense; the Minister was reading out wild guesses and wishful thinking from the Dispatch Box. However, by the time the Chancellor stood up this autumn, that information was available, so either her comments at the time of the Budget were seeking to deceive us or she had allowed herself to be deceived. Either way, the new business rates will be a hammer blow for many high street businesses, where rates are often more than rent, as we heard, and the Chancellor should and could have been aware of that when she made her announcement.
There is, of course, a need for holistic reform of business rates. The Liberal Democrats have proposed a commercial landowner levy, but in the short term we also propose to lower the retail, hospitality and leisure multiplier by the full 20 pence permitted under the legislation recently passed by the Government, as opposed to the 5 pence reduction that the Government have implemented. Also in the short term, to further stem the haemorrhaging of businesses, we would cut VAT from 20% to 15% for hospitality, accommodation and attractions, and we set out details of that before the Budget.
Meanwhile, Parliament needs full details of the Government’s proposed U-turn on what exactly the rates will be and who will be paying what. Businesses need to know what they are facing; they need to be aware of the kinds of changes that are coming down the track. I have to say that the responses on Tuesday to the Question before your Lordships’ House were completely inadequate.
If there is to be a recovery in our economy, it will come from a turnaround in consumer confidence. For that confidence to materialise, we need vibrant and successful high streets where people go to buy things and enjoy flourishing hospitality. There is a big danger that that will not be available and that we are moving in the wrong direction. There is much to be done, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to this debate.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I join in the general congratulations and welcome to the four maiden speakers. I enjoyed all their speeches very much and I wish them all the very best. I also thank my noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest for bringing this debate to the House and for her most eloquent introduction. I also wish her well with her new pub venture.
The Government have been in power now for almost two years and, frankly, it has been nothing short of a disaster for our retail and hospitality sectors. I applaud the efforts of noble Lords opposite to tease out some of the illusory positives, but the facts speak for themselves. I shall start with the £40 billion tax rate in this Government’s first budget, which included the disastrous jobs tax. This measure has frozen hiring across the sector and has led to unemployment going up every single month under their watch. UKHospitality has reported that 90,000 jobs have been lost in hospitality since the jobs tax was introduced—90,000 jobs that would exist if the Government had listened to His Majesty’s Official Opposition about the costs of their policies.
The House will be pleased to know that I am going to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and not relitigate the entire Employment Rights Act, but I say gently to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that there are hundreds of thousands of lower-paid workers who lack all security because they have lost their jobs. That is a consequence of the Government’s policies.
The scale of the damage extends far beyond hospitality. Overall, official figures from HMRC show that the 2024 Budget has led to more than 250,000 jobs lost, and unemployment is now reaching pre-pandemic levels. That is a catastrophic failure of economic policy that was entirely predictable and preventable.
On retail specifically, the numbers are equally alarming. According to analysis by the British Retail Consortium, the changes to national insurance rates and thresholds have added close to £2.5 billion in employment costs to retailers. In retail, they say it is now 10% more expensive to hire a full-time worker and 13% for a part-time worker. As has been observed across the House, many of us got our first start in the world of work in part-time retail work. I certainly did when I worked for Sainsbury’s while I was still at school. Think about what those numbers mean for young people seeking their first position, for students looking for part-time work and for those trying to get back into employment. The ladder of opportunity that was offered to all of us is being denied to them.
If our small businesses thought that the November 2025 Budget would offer some respite, they were sorely mistaken because instead of relief, they received yet another hammer blow. Britain’s high streets now risk being crushed by what the Federation of Small Businesses rightly called a “tax timebomb”.
I turn to the business rates that are affecting shops, cafés, pubs and hospitality across the board. Specifically on pubs, I too worked in a pub, it was one of my first jobs, and I say to my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere that I very quickly learned lessons there, including which regulars to serve and which to swerve. Analysis from UKHospitality shows that the average pub faces a 15% rise in business rates next year. That will increase to £7,000 more by 2028-2029 and £12,900 over the next three years. These are average numbers. Hotels, as has been noted by a number of speakers, are hit even harder, with bills rising by £28,900 next year and £111,300 by 2028-29, totalling £205,200 extra over the next three years. It is estimated that, without urgent action, 540 pubs will close this year.
It is inevitable that not only our pubs but our breweries are struggling. In 2025, there were around 100 fewer breweries operating in the UK than the year before, which is a stark sign of the pressures that the sector faces. The Society of Independent Brewers has warned that some independent breweries have seen their rateable values rise by as much as 300%, alongside new and rising costs that many simply cannot absorb.
During a Question yesterday, a noble Lord and union baron opposite suggested that brewers were making record profits. Where are they? This sort of attack on bosses is so 20th century, it is, frankly, embarrassing. I say again to noble Lords opposite: please look at the facts.
These pressures are being felt by heritage and rural businesses as well. Data from Historic Houses, as my noble friend Lord Harlech explained, shows that changes to business property relief and agricultural property relief are having a severe impact. Some 54% of heritage business owners say they will be unable to develop or diversify, while 41% report that they will have to make redundancies or freeze hiring altogether.
The FSB has urged Ministers to make full use of the relief available for small businesses and allow a 20 pence reduction in the multiplier used to calculate bills—rather than reducing it by just 5 pence—which would bring the discount back into line with the previous level. Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, I will ask the same question of the Minister: will the Government commit to do this?
No doubt the Minister will talk a little about the £4.3 billion of relief measures and tapers that were aired on Tuesday during that Question that I have already referred to. But that is the economic equivalent, surely, of giving with one hand but taking with the other, but just not quite yet. Are the Government really saying that these businesses will be in a better place to play in a couple of years’ time? If they are, they need to explain why they think that, especially after the implementation of further legislation such as the Employment Rights Act.
For weeks, we have watched the familiar post-Budget ritual unfold: a series of Treasury leaks on business rates, first relief for everyone and then relief only for pubs. As my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe rightly observed, one might have hoped that after the chaos ahead of the 2025 Budget, the Treasury and Chancellor would have learned that governing by leak creates uncertainty and undermines confidence. But, sadly, it appears that old habits die hard. Businesses need decisions, not briefings. They need certainty, not speculation.
In addition to all these costs, businesses across the UK face electricity prices that are among the highest in Europe and around four times higher than in the United States. These costs are undermining competitiveness, stifling investment and, ultimately, suppressing economic growth. The reason for these persistently high prices lies in the ideological approach to our energy policy, particularly the ever-growing subsidies layered across the system to support renewables, with the burden passed directly on to businesses. As an aside, it is worth noting that, in December 2025, 16% of hospitality businesses reported that energy prices were their top concern. This is very real, and these high prices are a direct consequence of government choices.
As my noble friend Lord Borwick noted, beyond economic pressures, retail crime is now a daily reality for too many small businesses. The Association of Convenience Stores reported over 57,000 incidents of violence against convenience store workers last year, forcing retailers to spend more than £250 million on security just to keep staff safe. Shop theft and violence persist because enforcement has failed and repeat offenders face too few consequences. That is why it is so disappointing that the Government rejected a Conservative amendment to the Sentencing Bill that would have ensured that repeat offenders usually go to prison rather than receive suspended sentences. Why did the Government reject this amendment? The Official Opposition, industry groups, the Federation of Small Businesses and UKHospitality have warned the Government, but they have so far refused to listen.
Our high streets are having a very hard time; some might say that they are dying. Our pubs are closing at an accelerating rate, jobs are disappearing, unemployment is rising every single month and small business owners, who took the risk to start their ventures, are being forced to scale back or shut down entirely. That is not just poor policy; it is a comprehensive assault on the very fabric of our communities and the livelihoods of millions of hard-working people. The Government must act, and they must act now.
To conclude, I will ask the Minister a few more questions. First, when will the Government publish the details of their turn on business rates, and will they ensure that pubs, retail and the wider hospitality sector all receive business rates relief? That would go some way towards answering my noble friend Lord Smith of Hindhead’s question on clubs. A recent report from Sky News suggested that the Government have warned the hospitality sector that publicly criticising government policy could affect the availability of concessions or support. Is that true? Can the Minister shed some light on this report? Representatives from the Valuation Office Agency told the Treasury Select Committee that policy teams across the Treasury and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government had access to data enabling judgments to be made about business rate multipliers and reliefs. Given this evidence, can the Government confirm that Ministers had the relevant information on the impact of business rates when these decisions were taken? If so, why has the Treasury suggested otherwise?
I remind the Minister of a couple of other questions that were asked, to which I would particularly like answers. My noble friend Lady Verma asked a very good question on how many hospitality businesses the Minister thinks will still be operating this time next year. My noble friend Lord Young of Acton asked a very important question about Section 21 of the Employment Rights Act, and I would be grateful if the Minister can give us his thoughts on that. With that, I close my remarks.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, it is my privilege to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Government. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest, for securing this debate. I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful, informed and passionate contributions on a subject of real importance to our economy and to communities across the United Kingdom. I will endeavour to answer all questions. If I do not, I will go through Hansard and write to all noble Lords, and I will place a copy of the letter in the Library.
I congratulate my noble friends Lady Dacres of Lewisham, Lord Forbes of Newcastle, Lord John of Southwark and Lady Shah on their excellent maiden speeches. They bring a vast amount of knowledge and insight in local government, regeneration, science, computing, law, education, arts and culture. I look forward to working with them and listening to their contributions in this House going forward.
I should also declare an interest. When I was much younger, I harboured ambitions of opening a nightclub —we called them discotheques in those days. In truth, however, I spent far more time boogying on the dance floor than on any serious business planning, and that, I fear, was the end of my nightclub venture. It might have been a brilliant idea, because it gave me the opportunity to set up various businesses, and I became a sort of serial entrepreneur before I joined the Front Bench.
More seriously, I have many friends and relatives working in hospitality, tourism and retail, owning restaurants, wine bars and shops. Through them, I see at first hand the pressures these sectors face every single day: rising costs, staffing challenges and the constant need to adapt. That personal experience informs my appreciation of just how demanding, and how important, these businesses are.
This debate resonates particularly with the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, and I pay tribute to her remarkable charity, Team Domenica, and to its inspiring new establishment, the North Star in Brighton. This pub is a powerful testimony—an example of social enterprise in action. It supports young adults with learning disabilities and autism through vocational training in hospitality, while fostering inclusion, confidence and opportunity within the community. That it was delivered despite some well-publicised cautionary advice from one Jeremy Clarkson speaks volumes about the noble Baroness’s determination and vision.
Retail and hospitality are far more than economic sectors. They are part of what might be called the everyday economy. They are woven into daily life, shaping how people work, shop, meet and socialise. They anchor our high streets and town centres, provided first jobs and flexible work to many noble Lords—including me —and offer routes into long-term employment and management for those who wish to build a career within them. They also play a vital role in the character and vitality of our towns, cities, seaside communities and villages.
I note here the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, on Section 21. I do not need to say any more. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, has said everything I needed to say. I was a victim of a bit of banter, but it was nothing more than racist comments; I will just park it there.
A successful high street is rarely just about shops. It is about cafés, pubs, services, culture and places where people feel welcome and connected. Retail and hospitality sit at the heart of that mix. To summarise their impact briefly, in 2024 the retail sector produced something like £115 billion in gross value added, representing 4.4% of UK output, and by September 2025 it supported about 2.8 million jobs. The hospitality sector generated £51.3 billion, about 2% of total economic output, and supported approximately 2.1 million jobs.
While these figures are significant, they tell only part of the story. The true importance of these industries is in their functions as local employers, community centres and catalysts for footfall, investment and civic pride. The Government are clear-eyed about the pressures that retail and hospitality face. In recent years these sectors have weathered an extraordinary series of shocks: the pandemic, supply chain disruption, rising energy costs, inflation, labour shortages and profound changes in consumer behaviour. Government policy cannot remove all these challenges, but it can provide stability, reduce unnecessary burdens and help businesses plan, invest and adapt for the long term.
Several noble Lords mentioned business rates, which rightfully featured prominently in this debate. We recognise that the current system places a disproportionate burden on many high-street businesses, which is why we are continuing its reform in line with our manifesto commitment to protect the high street. From April 2026, we will introduce permanently lower tax rates for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties, benefiting more than 750,000 ratepayers. A higher multiplier will apply to the most valuable properties, affecting around 1% of premises, helping to fund this relief in a fair and sustainable way. In addition, we have announced a £4.3 billion support package over the next three years to protect ratepayers facing bill increases following revaluation. These measures are designed to ease pressure where it is felt most acutely, while ensuring local services remain properly funded.
On top of the support package announced at the Budget, the Chancellor also commissioned work to look at what more can be done to support pubs. Further details will be announced in the coming days. Treasury Ministers have met with a range of stakeholders to discuss business rates before and since the Budget, including the British Beer & Pub Association and UKHospitality. Many noble Lords have spoken with real feeling about the future of pubs.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Minister. In outlining the changes in the rate system, the Minister is talking about the process. Could he perhaps talk about the outcome, which, when conjoined with the reduction and removal of Covid relief, leaves many businesses—indeed, most businesses—paying more, not less, business rates? Will he at least acknowledge that from the Dispatch Box?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. I am coming to the part of my speech that addresses some of the noble Lord’s concerns.
Many noble Lords have obviously spoken with real passion about the future of pubs, including me, and understandably so. Pub closures are always painful, and each one represents the loss of a place where people meet, talk and feel part of something local. Around 2,000 pubs in England and Wales have closed permanently over the last five years. That is a matter of genuine concern, although it reflects a long-term trend that pre-dates recent changes to national insurance, the minimum wage or business rates. Much of this reflects changes in how people live and socialise. People are drinking less often, particularly young adults, including my 19 year-old daughter, with a growing interest in low and no-alcohol options. The pandemic accelerated shifts towards home-based socialising, remote working and more food and experience-led venues.
Costs do matter, and the Government continue to provide targeted support, including specific help for community pubs. The future of pubs depends not only on managing costs but on being supported to adapt to changing habits and expectations. Our approach reflects that reality. Following the establishment of the Licensing Taskforce last April, we published the National Licensing Policy Framework in November. This was co-created with industry councils and various trade associations.
The Government work closely with the Hospitality Sector Council to improve the productivity and reliance of hospitality businesses by co-creating solutions to issues impacting business performance. Likewise, the Retail Sector Council is also undertaking to support growth, working very closely with government on sustainability and the circular economy. High streets, international trading and cybercrime are the main areas of focus. It sets out a vision for a simpler, more consistent and pro-growth regime that reduces bureaucracy, supports investment and promotes cultural and community life. We will build on this work through further planning reforms to help hospitality and high-street businesses grow and adapt.
Alongside regulatory reform, we are also providing targeted support. The Government have introduced a £1.5 million hospitality support scheme, including £440,000 to help rural pubs diversify as community hubs delivered with Pub is The Hub. This initiative is only the start. The Government are committed to supporting pubs and further announcements will be made very soon. This has already unlocked more than 40 previously stalled projects, generating jobs and new services. Industry research suggests that every £1 invested generates more than £8 in social value, as my noble friend Lord Rook said.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, made a point about drink-driving. One in six road safety casualties involves drink-driving. I can share with the noble Baroness that the Government are consulting on lowering the limit, which is currently the highest in Europe. In 2014 an academic study showed no impact from the reduction of the limit in Scotland.
It is also right to recall the scale of support provided to hospitality and leisure during the pandemic. These sectors were, rightfully, among the largest beneficiaries of emergency intervention, including furlough, business rates relief, grants, VAT reductions, government-backed loans and measures such as Eat Out to Help Out. That support helped many businesses survive an unprecedented shock.
Since then many parts of the sector have seen a recovery in output and revenues, though I readily accept that this experience is not uniform and that pressures remain acute for some businesses. Emergency support was, by its nature, time-limited and designed to help businesses through an extraordinary period rather than to replace the need for long-term sustainability. The Government will continue to engage constructively and to support growth through skills, investment and proportionate regulation, as businesses move forward on a sustainable footing.
Labour and skills are central to the success of these sectors. I recognise the concerns expressed about changes to the national minimum wage and the national living wage—but I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, that we are not the highest. Countries with higher minimum wages include Luxembourg, Australia and the Netherlands. Working people have borne the brunt of the cost of living crisis, and it is right that pay reflects living costs, productivity and wider economic conditions. In setting wage rates, the Government rely on the independent expertise of the Low Pay Commission, which my noble friend Lord Hannett mentioned, balancing fairness for workers with the need for businesses to grow and employ.
Concerns have also been raised about the Employment Rights Act. I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, who was the Minister who took that Act through this House. My department consults daily with businesses in all sectors and trade associations on implementing the Act. There will be further consultation on parts of the Act, and further announcements will be made in due course.
Economic growth is our foremost priority, but growth cannot be built on insecure or unpredictable work. By strengthening employment protections we are improving stability for workers and employers alike, and supporting a modern, productive economy. These reforms sit alongside our wider commitments to skills development, tackling economic inactivity, accelerating construction and delivering a modern industrial strategy. Together they form part of our long-term plan for national renewal.
I want to address directly the concerns raised in this debate, including by noble Lords who take a different view from that of the Government. I recognise that the pressures that many businesses face, particularly smaller operators, are immediate and personal. Policy choices, even when carefully designed, can feel very different on the ground, and that is why the scrutiny of this House matters. I welcome that scrutiny. Where noble Lords have raised concerns about costs, regulation or the cumulative impact of change, I want to be clear that the Government are listening.
We do not claim that the system is perfect, nor that there are no difficult trade-offs. Our task is to strike a balance between supporting growth, protecting workers, maintaining public finances and enabling businesses to plan with confidence. Retail and hospitality succeed when high streets succeed. Through the Pride in Place programme we are investing £5 billion across 339 communities to renew high streets and centres.
The noble Lord, Lord Borwick, who is elegantly suited this afternoon, talked about retail crime, as did the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. The Government are committed to restoring visible and responsive neighbourhood policing, with 3,000 additional officers in neighbourhood policing roles by the spring of 2026 and 13,000 by the end of this Parliament. We are also ensuring that the right powers are in place. In the Crime and Policing Bill, we have brought forward a new offence of assaulting a retail worker, to protect the hard-working and dedicated staff who work in stores. We are removing the legislation that makes shop theft of and below £200 a summary-only offence, sending a clear message that any level of theft is illegal and will be taken seriously. But funding alone is not enough, which is why we remain committed to ongoing engagement with local authorities, trade bodies, businesses and workers, so that policy remains grounded in lived experience.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Monckton and Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about the visitor levy. The precise design and scope of the power for the levy is still under development. The Government have published a consultation, which will run until 18 February 2026, to ensure that the public and businesses can shape the design of this power.
Retail and hospitality are not just engines of economic activity but places of connection, opportunity and shared experience. They matter deeply to communities across the country, and they matter to this Government. Through targeted support, community investment and proportionate reform, we are determined to work with these sectors as they adapt to a changing world. We may not agree on every point, but I hope all noble Lords will recognise our commitment to engagement, stability and long-term renewal. I thank all noble Lords once again for contributing to this important debate. I owe the noble Lord, Lord Fox, an explanation about business rates, so I will write to him.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, can I make a request to the Minister? In the letter that he plans to write to us, can he explain how many consultations across the whole of government are currently being run? It is a huge number, and I would like to know what it is.
Lord Leong (Lab)
Is the noble Lord referring to on employment rights or does he mean across everything?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I obviously do not have the figures here, but I will endeavour to find out and will write to the noble Lord accordingly.
Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, particularly the quartet of maiden speakers.
Briefly, I will run through a few comments. The noble Lord, Lord Hannett, is right, and I agree that history will judge the impact of raising the minimum wage. I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for talking about drink-driving in rural communities. One of our local pubs repurposed an ambulance—they called it the “paralytic unit”—and drove people home, so perhaps there is a business opportunity there for some people. I thank my noble friend Lord Smith of Hindhead for his passionate support of members’ clubs. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forbes of Newcastle, on his maiden speech. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle for telling us about what is happening in Newcastle—I think one of the establishments that closed was called the Pickled Toad, and it is such a shame to lose something with that name.
I also thank my noble friend Lord Borwick for giving us such a vivid description of his birth and for recognising the importance of entrepreneurs. To the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I say that all those issues on town centres and retail are so important. I thank my noble friend Lord Hannan for talking about public spending and the importance of taking ownership of that money.
I particularly single out as a maiden speech that of the noble Baroness, Lady Shah, for expressing what we all think in this House—it is a surreal experience when you join, and I still have not quite got over it myself—and for so bravely sharing her own personal journey and that of her family, with all its sadnesses and challenges.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rook, who, despite being teetotal, still raised his glass of lemonade in celebration of pubs, and my noble friend Lord Harlech for raising the issue of historic houses and the challenges that they face, which are so often forgotten.
The noble Lord, Lord John of Southwark, took us on a journey from Weston-super-Mare to the House of Lords, and recognised the challenges that this sector faces. I appreciated that.
If, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, says, the Labour employment laws increase employment in the hospitality sector, I shall apologise. If she is not right, it will not be people in this House who suffer.
I thank my noble friend Lord Kempsell for recognising that publicans are very often social workers. I have seen that already in our pub. I thank my noble friend Lord Young for raising indirect harassment. That worries me about my cohort of people with learning disabilities who work in pubs; they have absolutely no social filter whatever—I can imagine we will have some very interesting conversations.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for recognising the effect of the national insurance changes and the rates, and for his suggestion of reducing VAT from 20p to 15p, which would make a huge difference to pubs.
I thank the Minister for recognising what needs to happen and giving a shout out to the North Star. I end by saying that you are all welcome to come to Brighton and have a drink.