Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we start today’s business, I want to note that today is Holocaust Memorial Day. I know that the whole House will agree with me about the importance of remembering the 6 million Jewish people murdered during the Holocaust, alongside the millions of other people killed as a result of Nazi persecution, as well as those killed in more recent genocides—Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur. Members will have an opportunity to make further contributions during the debate on Thursday. For now, I know that colleagues will want to join me in thanking the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust for its important work.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
Innovation is a key driver of long-term economic growth, higher productivity and improved living standards. That is why this Government are investing more in R&D and why we are committed to maintaining the generosity of R&D tax reliefs. We remain open to new and innovative debt instruments and we review options regularly, but clearly new instruments need to meet a range of criteria, including value for money.
Chris Coghlan
In the 1940s, refugees fled the Nazis and built the atomic bomb; they pioneered a method of public research and development that has powered US economic dominance ever since. The EU Security Action for Europe defence bond fund offers us a similarly transformative opportunity: £20 billion invested in defence R&D could expand our economy by £100 billion. Will we join our Canadian and European allies, end our economic stagnation, and together defend the—
Mr Speaker
Order. I can see that you want to round up your question, but this is more of a statement. You are telling the history, which is important, but I hope there is a question coming now, as there are a lot of other Members to get in.
Lucy Rigby
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his question. Indeed, he and I have discussed this issue previously. We are due to meet to discuss it later this month, and I am very much looking forward to that discussion.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Mersey Care NHS foundation trust has plans for a world-leading mental health research and development facility at Maghull health park in my constituency. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how the Treasury might support investing in such an important research and development project, not least as it is fundamental to the Government’s plans for improving healthcare?
Lucy Rigby
My hon. Friend raises an important point. This Government are investing an extra £29 billion in our national health service. I would be happy to meet him to discuss it further.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
Elaine Stewart (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
I am very sorry to see your leg in such a way, Mr Speaker.
We are committed to driving growth everywhere. The Budget ensured that Scottish public services are fairly funded, with an extra £820 million for the Scottish Government through the Barnett formula, on top of a record settlement in June this year. We are also investing in transport for city regions, and investing £5 billion in deprived neighbourhoods through the Pride in Place programme, with some of that money going to Scotland.
Kirsteen Sullivan
I welcome the fantastic news that Edinburgh and south-east Scotland will receive £37.8 million from the new local growth fund, supporting infrastructure, business support and skills development. However, I consistently hear from businesses that they struggle to recruit people with the skill sets needed to grow their operations and fuel economic growth. Can the Chancellor set out how this investment will reach beyond the cities to tackle the acute skills shortages in my constituency of Bathgate and Linlithgow?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for her commitment to her constituency. It is right that the money is allocated through the regional economic partnerships in Scotland, and I have absolutely no doubt that my hon. Friend will make the case for her local area. The regional economic partnerships have already worked together to deliver the integrated regional employability and skills programme in Edinburgh and south-east Scotland, including helping people in her Bathgate and Linlithgow constituency.
Emma Foody
Ministers will be all too aware of my campaign to unlock improvement at Moor Farm roundabout, which is currently holding back growth across the north-east and causing misery to local people on a daily basis. The Government have rightly taken steps to ensure that my region gets its fair share of investment through changes to the Green Book and place-based business cases, but will the Chancellor meet me ahead of the road investment strategy to ensure that we finally get this long overdue investment in a critical piece of north-east infrastructure?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend has been a tireless campaigner for the Moor Farm roundabout, which holds back both commuters and businesses, and therefore both growth and prosperity. I will continue to work with her on this. I know that the roundabout is now being properly considered for inclusion in the road investment strategy and I would be happy to meet her to discuss that further.
Elaine Stewart
The Ayrshire growth deal, which was allocated £103 million of UK Government funds, has the potential to make a real difference to our economic prospects. Despite its clear potential, though, delivery on the ground remains far too slow in turning around real progress. What action can the UK Government take to drive momentum, sharpen the strategic direction of the deal and ensure that Ayrshire finally sees the benefits of this investment?
Rachel Reeves
This Labour Government are investing more than £250 million in economic development and regeneration in Ayrshire, including but not limited to the Ayrshire growth deal. My hon. Friend is a great champion of Ayrshire, and I look forward to working with her and my good friend Anas Sarwar in the months and years ahead to deliver for the people of Ayrshire and those right across Scotland.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
According to a report this morning from the Jobs Foundation, the energy sector in north-east Scotland is on a cliff edge, with Robert Gordon University estimating that 400 jobs will be lost every two weeks. Given the importance of that sector not just to Aberdeen or Edinburgh West but to the Scottish and UK economies, will the Chancellor think about providing the regional development support that the Scottish Government are failing to provide?
Rachel Reeves
At the Budget, we published our North sea oil and gas plan and provided certainty by announcing that the energy profits levy introduced by the previous Government will end at the end of this Parliament. At the same time, we are supporting the transition to new jobs in new industries right across Scotland, including in Aberdeenshire, because the opportunities to transition to jobs in clean energy are very real, and we need to ensure that those jobs come to Scotland.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I know the Chancellor would say that the Northern Ireland budget was an exceptionally good one, but would she agree that there are extreme circumstances pertaining to three areas in particular—policing, education and health—at the moment? Will she at least get into discussions with the First and Deputy First Ministers in Northern Ireland to see what can be done to alleviate the problems that are coming towards us?
Rachel Reeves
My right hon. Friends the Northern Ireland Secretary and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury are in discussions with the Northern Ireland Executive on some of the additional pressures they are facing. We are working through those plans and will have more to say shortly.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Regional funding must not come at the expense of local authority funding and all devolved funding must recognise the realities in the places where funding is needed, yet under the so-called fair funding review, in just three years Herefordshire council will see a reduction in UK Government fundings to 78% of current levels. The Government have also removed the remoteness adjustment for anything except social care, but rurality does of course matter for bin collections, school transport and many other aspects. Will the Chancellor look again at the fair funding review, which is unfair for so many places, like Herefordshire, and ensure that remoteness is properly adjusted for in the calculation?
Rachel Reeves
My understanding is that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is still consulting on this matter, so the hon. Lady and other colleagues will have a chance to feed into that process. In the spending review, we put an extra £600 million into supporting local authorities after the years of austerity under the Conservative Government. While the previous Conservative Prime Minister said he would take money away from poorer areas and give it to Tunbridge Wells, we are investing more fairly in the areas that need it most.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
There are a number of questions on this topic, and I am sure there will be more this afternoon when I make a statement to the House on a package of support in relation to business rates, with a particular focus on pubs. As previously announced, we are introducing a support package worth £4.3 billion to support rate payers who are seeing increases in their business rates.
Richard Foord
Joanna Watson runs the Elizabeth hotel and the Kingswood hotel in Sidmouth. She is essentially facing a 20% rise in her business rate costs. Joanna’s bills do not reflect what she earns; they stay high all year round, even though there are months like these in winter when income completely collapses. The Government legislated for a 20p reduction in the business rates multiplier for hospitality, and that created an expectation that it would be used. The Minister said that he will make a statement this afternoon, but will he also consider the plight of hotels such as those in Sidmouth?
Dan Tomlinson
We have considered the challenges that hospitality businesses and businesses on our high streets have been facing. That is why we put in place £4.3 billion of support at the Budget. We recognise that there are concerns as to how hotels are valued for business rates, and that will be one of the items I talk about in the statement later.
Paula Barker
I wish your leg a speedy recovery, Mr Speaker.
I recently visited the wonderful Aura salon in my constituency and spoke to the owners Victoria and Janet, who have owned the business for 24 years and are the hub of their local community. They have invested in and trained numerous young hair stylists but now their business rates and VAT are crippling them, meaning that they can no longer take on apprentices. Victoria and Janet told me that the VAT rate that they pay is unbalanced compared with other sectors that claim back VAT. Will the Minister please advise what can be done to help salons like Aura and others that are part of the Save our Salons campaign, and are there any plans for an affordable apprenticeship scheme in the hairdressing sector?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she is doing to champion salons and the beauty industry in her constituency and elsewhere. She will know that VAT is a broad-based tax; in fact, it is our third largest revenue raiser, raising £180 billion last year. That is vital revenue that pays for our public services. There are lots of issues in relation to VAT, including the differential treatment depending on how salons decide to set themselves up and pay their employees. Those are important issues, and we will consider tax changes in the usual way in the run-up to future Budgets.
Sir John Whittingdale
I recently visited the Ship Inn in Burnham-on-Crouch, which has a few hotel rooms, as well as Peaberries, a tea shop on the high street. Both are looking at existential threats as a result of business rates. Can the Minister say whether the package that he will announce later will benefit them as well?
Dan Tomlinson
I do not think that Mr Speaker would like me to pre-empt the announcements that will be made later, but the right hon. Member has given me the opportunity to reiterate that at the Budget we implemented for the first time differential rates of tax—differential multipliers—meaning that the largest businesses now pay 33% more than the smallest high street businesses. That is a big differential that was not there before but which now exists because of the big reforms that we made at the Budget.
Olly Glover
In my Oxfordshire constituency, pubs including the Fox Inn in Denchworth, the White Hart in Harwell and the Fox and Hounds in Uffington are vital to their village communities, yet they face significant business rate increases from April. Given that the chief executive of the Valuation Office Agency told the Treasury Committee that, ahead of the Budget, the VOA warned that over 5,000 pubs would see their business rates double, will the Minister tell the House why the Government decided to press on and create such uncertainty for our hospitality sector in the Budget?
Dan Tomlinson
The Government will have more to say a bit later today when it comes to pubs and the support that the Government can provide for them. We knew that the revaluations would be implemented from 1 April, and that is precisely why we came forward with a significant package of support for all businesses across the economy. We introduced significant reforms to lower the multipliers for businesses like the pubs that the hon. Member mentioned.
Abtisam Mohamed
Sheffield Central businesses continue to face disproportionately higher pressures, with ever-increasing running costs stacking up and a drop in footfall. Businesses like the Gamers Guide Café and the Dove and Rainbow pub tell me that they need much more to survive the dip in foot traffic, so will the Minister set out how he is reducing pressures on high street cafés and pubs, and will he consider targeted relief to ensure viability for hospitality businesses?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for her representations on behalf of businesses and constituents in Sheffield. One of the important things to note about the business rates system is that there are many smaller businesses on our high streets that pay no business rates at all. One in three businesses continue to benefit from small business rate relief and an additional 85,000 benefit from reduced bills as that tapers. At the Budget we announced an additional two years of small business rate relief for those businesses that expand into a second property. This will be helpful for small and independent businesses, and will support them to grow.
Marie Goldman
Chelmsford has a vibrant night-time economy. Just last Sunday, I spent the evening at a fabulous local music venue called Hot Box, right in the heart of my constituency. Venues such as Hot Box represent important cultural and social spaces for smaller cities like mine, but many are at risk due to recent Government changes to the business rates system. New analysis puts the average increase in the hospitality business rates bill in Chelmsford at nearly £23,000 over three years. For many, that is impossible to absorb. Another family-run business in Chelmsford that has been going for 25 years will see its monthly rates more than double from April. It says that it will simply have to close its doors if that goes ahead, resulting in 40 people losing their jobs. Will the Government implement the 20p discount that they have already legislated for and let all businesses in retail, leisure and hospitality get the support that they need?
Dan Tomlinson
I have got the idea, Mr Speaker!
The key thing to note here is that there is a significant difference between the change in the rateable value and the change in the business rates. This year, we have stepped in to cap the increases for bills at £800 for those coming into the system for the first time. For most high street businesses, the increase will be 15%, while the very largest will see increases of 30%. Those are the steps we have taken. When the Liberal Democrats were in government, they chose to increase VAT on businesses up and down the country.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
I wish you a speedy recovery, Mr Speaker.
Will the Minister say something about music recording studios, such as the Church Studios, where Annie Lennox recorded “Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)”? Could he give me a sweet dream this evening and tell me that my music recording studio is going to be fine?
Dan Tomlinson
I am very fond of my constituency neighbour, who has the privilege of sharing a part of Barnet with me. There will be news this afternoon—I am just trying to find my words, Mr Speaker.
Dan Tomlinson
I hope the microphone picked that up.
We will make further announcements this afternoon specifically focused on pubs, but I understand that there are businesses across the economy that will have seen increases in their rateable values since the pandemic. That is precisely why we have stepped in with our support package.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)
Here’s another one: what assessment has the Minister made of the impact on really small independent high street bookshops? This is the National Year of Reading; we want them to stay open, not closed.
Dan Tomlinson
Many really small bookshops up and down the country will not pay any business rates at all because they will be in receipt of small business rate relief. Of course, there will be some that will have seen either their rateable value increase, or—because of the Government’s decision to slowly wind down the temporary pandemic support—an increase in their bills. We are capping those increases in this year and in subsequent years so that transition can be manageable for those businesses. Of course we want to support bookshops on our high streets; they are incredibly important, along with all the other high street retailers up and down the country.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Chancellor promised hospitality firms that she would lower their taxes, but her business rate raid is hammering every town, village, city and high street. This is not just an attack on pubs; hotels, cafés, music venues and many more are being hit. It is two months since the Budget caused huge worry for these businesses, and we await details of this latest U-turn, but the key question is: does the Chancellor get it? Does she get that it is not just pubs but hospitality, leisure and retail businesses that need support because of her terrible choices?
Dan Tomlinson
Conservative Members do not get it, because when they were in government, they set out plans to remove the temporary pandemic rates relief overnight in 2025. That would have seen an increase of 300% in business rate bills overnight for businesses on the high street. We have taken a different, fairer and more proportional approach, phasing out the pandemic relief over a slower time period and extending it into this year.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I wish you a speedy recovery.
We know that pubs have been badly hit by these business rates changes, but businesses right across retail, hospitality and leisure have made investment and hiring decisions based on the expectation raised by this Government that they would get a full 20p discount on their business rate multiplier. Those businesses—music venues, restaurants, soft play centres and hotels—are the high street shops that communities most love. Do Ministers accept that anything less than the full 20p discount for retail, hospitality and leisure will leave the three-to-five-year business plans of those high street businesses in total disarray?
Dan Tomlinson
We announced a 5p reduction in the multiplier on top of the 7p or thereabouts reduction that was taking place as a result of the revaluation more broadly. That is a £900 million transfer of underlying rates liability away from the smallest high street businesses towards the online giants and the largest properties. When the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives had the chance, they kept the tax rates the same. We have introduced significant reform, and we started the work of that reform at the Budget. Of course we will continue our conversations in the months ahead.
Daisy Cooper
Businesses up and down the country know that the Government raised their expectations and then dashed them. This whole sorry saga has been an absolute shambles. The question remains: why were Ministers so blindsided, when the VOA has confirmed that it was providing data drops over a period of 12 months? Will Ministers use the opportunity in 90 minutes’ time to answer all the questions that Opposition MPs have asked and to explain what they knew and when?
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
The Government provide a wide range of loan support for SMEs through the British Business Bank. This includes the start up loans programme and the growth guarantee scheme, the latter of which recently supported over 4,000 businesses and over 65,000 jobs right across the country.
Jo White
I recently met Matthew Pendleton, who owns Apawtiser, a high-quality dog treat company. The company grew legs because processed dog food had made his pet dog violently ill. Matthew now needs the finances so that he can continue to expand, employ more staff and get Apawtiser on the national pet food map. I want to see businesses such as these succeed in my area, and Matthew’s small ask is: will the Government step in with the offer of an underwritten loan?
Lucy Rigby
My hon. Friend is a tireless champion of businesses in Bassetlaw, and I wish her a happy birthday for yesterday. In the recent spending review, the Government extended the growth guarantee scheme, enabling £5 billion-worth of loans over the next four years. This will support businesses like the one she mentioned, and I would be more than happy to meet her to talk about how her constituent might access that support.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
First-of-a-kind technologies such as DRIFT Energy in Bath face serious investment challenges and difficulties in accessing grant funding from any Government Department. DRIFT is a groundbreaking renewable energy innovator that could rapidly scale and contribute to the UK’s energy independence. What are the Government doing to ensure that first-in-kind technologies in particular receive the support that they need here in the UK, rather than being forced to go abroad?
Lucy Rigby
The hon. Member may well know that, at the spending review, we increased the financial capacity of the British Business Bank to £25.6 billion. There are a number of ways in which the British Business Bank will support companies like the one she referred to.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
As well as the British Business Bank, the National Wealth Fund plays a crucial part in investing taxpayers’ money. I welcome the Government’s response to the Select Committee’s report on that issue. Will the Minister indicate when the National Wealth Fund will have the ability to borrow from private markets in order to increase its independence, secure funding for infrastructure, and get the taxpayer off the hook?
Lucy Rigby
It is absolutely right that we have increased the amount of funding going into the National Wealth Fund. On my hon. Friend’s specific question, my understanding is that we have not set a date, but I am more than happy to write to her with further information—to the extent that it exists.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Has the Minister assessed what proportion of British Business Bank grant funding goes to the smallest of businesses? One in four people in my constituency works for themselves or for very small businesses. To what extent is she working to ensure that smaller businesses—those employing 10 people or fewer, which are the very bedrock of our economy in the lakes and dales in Cumbria—know about the availability of those loans and are talked through the difficult process of applying for and receiving them, so that we can invest in rural communities like mine?
Lucy Rigby
On the Government’s policies vis-à-vis businesses as a whole, we support the sort of businesses the hon. Member refers to in a whole range of ways. On businesses in his area, 80% of the recent deployment of the growth guarantee scheme was outside London.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
Rising living standards are the ultimate goal of economic policy, and living standards are now rising following the unprecedented fall during the last Parliament. The latest data shows that the average person’s real disposable income is £800 higher than in the final year of the previous Parliament.
Luke Murphy
As the Minister says, the previous Parliament was the worst on record for living standards, so my constituents—for many of whom the cost of living is the No.1 issue—welcome the action taken to freeze rail fares, which will save them £350 on average, and to take £150 off their energy bills, as well as today’s groundbreaking commitment to cap ground rent, which we will hear about later. Will he confirm that the Government will continue to strain every sinew, clear every obstacle and use the power of government to cut the cost of living and raise living standards for my constituents over the course of this Parliament?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend is a powerful campaigner on this issue; week after week, he consistently raises the issue of living standards for people in Basingstoke. He is right to highlight the key role of energy bills in that. The Budget took levies off energy bills to save families £150 on average next year, as part of wider measures to directly cut inflation by 0.4 percentage points, further supporting living standards by making it easier for banks to cut mortgage rates and giving businesses the confidence to invest. Energy bills cut, ground rents cut—change promised, change delivered.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
What assessment has the Minister made of the recent trends in household living standards across the United Kingdom, including through discussions with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland? What steps has his Department taken, in conjunction with regional Administrations, to ensure that the Northern Ireland Executive can support households facing rising costs? I know that the Minister gives lots of answers, so will he give us an answer on this one, please?
Torsten Bell
We will always give the hon. Member an answer—and I mean always, at every single one of these sessions. Government Ministers, particularly at the Northern Ireland Office, spend a lot of time speaking to Ministers in Northern Ireland. He is absolutely right to say that the cost of living crisis affects not just one part but all parts of the United Kingdom. To take just one example, the six interest rate cuts since the general election have already made a big difference to those in Northern Ireland whose mortgage renewal is coming up.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
Persistently high inflation and fears that things will get tougher for their children are top issues for the British public, but the Office for Budget Responsibility’s assessment of Labour’s plans was that:
“Growth in real household disposable income per person is projected to fall… to around ¼ per cent a year… well below the last decade’s average”.
Minister, why is the sum of all this Government’s economic policies condemning the British public to such a despairing prospect?
Torsten Bell
Mr Speaker, that is called leading with your chin. Members on the Conservative Benches were in power in the last Parliament, which saw living standards fall by 2.9%. Living standards have already risen under this Government by 1.5%, because we are turning around their mess day after day after day.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
Investment in our railways is a crucial part of our plan to unlock economic growth in every nation and region of the UK. Earlier this month, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced our plans for Northern Powerhouse Rail. That transformational programme is backed by up to £45 billion of investment in the long term, which will be key in unlocking economic potential across the north.
Dave Robertson
People across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages are delighted that this Government have funded the midlands rail hub project, meaning a doubling of the number of trains from Lichfield to Birmingham every hour. Ministers could go even further, though, by investigating the reopening of the Derby-Burton-Lichfield line, including a stop in Alrewas for the National Memorial Arboretum. Despite warm words from my predecessor, no business case exists for that. Can the Minister confirm that this Labour Government are not done with investing in transport in the midlands, and will he look again at the Derby-Burton-Lichfield line?
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the value of the midlands rail hub, which we invested in at the spending review. We are determined to invest more in transport in the midlands. Indeed, at the spending review the Government committed to investing £4.4 billion there through transport for city regions funding. My hon. Friend is a great advocate for services that will benefit his constituents, and I will ask the Rail Minister to respond about the specifics of the line that he raises.
Alice Macdonald
I welcome the investment the Government have made in rail, including East West Rail, but there are still several projects that would hugely benefit passengers and the local economy in the east. Those include upgrading the Trowse swing bridge near Norwich and, of course, Ely and Haughley junctions. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury meet me and other colleagues from the east of England to discuss how we can advance those key infrastructure projects for the region?
James Murray
East West Rail is a transformational project that will unlock economic growth and housing. Just yesterday, I was glad to host a representative from East West Rail at an infrastructure roundtable at the Treasury with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. My hon. Friend is another powerful advocate for her local area, and I will happily discuss this matter with the Rail Minister and get back to her.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Last week I met Lawrence Bowman, the chief executive of South Western Railway. I am keen to make sure that all the Government’s changes take positive effect in Salisbury and south Wiltshire, so that tracks, signal and stock can be improved. Will the Minister make sure that there is a suitable reference board along the commuting line into Waterloo, so that when Lawrence Bowman’s business plan is delivered, there will not be any delays when he has to interact with local authorities—a concern that he raised with me last week?
James Murray
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising the concerns of the services used by his constituents. I can assure him that I will look into those and get back to him.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
The Tarka line in North Devon has seen a massive increase in footfall. However, the line is often closed because of the lack of infrastructure upkeep. Will the Minister meet me to discuss various funding opportunities? It is a rural line that is vital for students to get into Exeter and for people’s job opportunities—I know that the Government are all about job growth.
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we are all about job growth. I fear I will be quite busy after this set of questions with taking up projects in different constituencies, but that is absolutely right, because we all want to make sure that we have better investment—particularly in transport and infrastructure—for our constituents. I assure him that I will look into the matter and get back in touch with him.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
Energy bills are too high, and Britain is too dependent on the rollercoaster of gas prices. That is why the autumn Budget reduced the cost of levies on energy bills to save households £150 on average from April this year.
Sally Jameson
I am pleased that the Government are sticking to their pledge on reducing energy bills, as the Minister rightly points out, with an average of £150 coming off annual bills this April. Does he agree that that is a good start, but that we must continue to work across Departments to ensure that we make further progress on the cost of living in this Parliament?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: people need to see inflation come down, and that is what the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Bank of England forecast to happen. As she said, from April our plans for energy bills will save households £150 on average, which is something she has campaigned for over the past 18 months. I am pleased energy companies have confirmed that those savings will be passed on to those with fixed tariffs. She asks that we go further, and I should add that we have extended the £150 warm home discount to a further 2.7 million of the poorest households.
Anna Dixon
I warmly welcome the Chancellor’s announcement in the Budget on scrapping the energy company obligation scheme, which will bring down energy bills by £150 on average and support some 5,000 households living in fuel poverty in my constituency of Shipley. The disastrous Tory-designed scheme, ECO4, cost £1 billion per year, yet 98% of the external wall cavity installations were faulty. What further action are the Minister and Chancellor taking to reduce energy bills and ensure that energy companies put people over profit?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Conservatives did not just leave Britain dependent on the rollercoaster of gas prices; they left families paying almost £2 billion on their bills for their failed energy efficiency ECO scheme. The Chair of the Public Accounts Committee described the scheme’s failings as the “worst” he had ever seen. That fuel poverty scheme cost 97% of those in fuel poverty more than it saved them, and it damaged thousands of homes. We are scrapping the ECO scheme, and cutting families’ bills.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
A new report by the Prosperity Institute is highly critical of the Government’s net zero policies and their adverse impact on the broader economy, and my constituents’ fuel bills continue to soar because of the Government’s reluctance to use more traditional sources of fuel. Will the Minister commit to raising that with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, because such ideologically driven polices are having an adverse impact on the bills of my constituents?
Torsten Bell
Energy bills are too high because the Tory party left us dependent on the rollercoaster of gas prices. Wholesale gas prices today remain more than double what they were at the start of 2020. If Conservative Members think that is some kind of advert for staying on gas forever, they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
We have already heard this morning that businesses are suffering harm from business rates and national insurance contributions going up, but on top of that, according to the Office for National Statistics, the energy bills of non-energy intensive industries such as hospitality and retail have increased under this Government by up to 10% in the last year. The Conservative are proposing our cheap power plan, which would save small businesses up to £5,000 a year on their energy bills. What is the Minister doing to help small businesses with their energy bills?
Torsten Bell
What this Government are doing is getting on with building the energy infrastructure that this country needs, and we are not going back to the 11% inflation seen under the Conservative party. This Government are supporting small businesses, because the hon. Gentleman is right on one thing, which is that high energy bills are not in the interests of British industry. That is why we are getting on with fixing the energy system that we inherited.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
This Government are determined to get back all the money that was lost through covid fraud and corruption. That is why I appointed the covid corruption commissioner when I became Chancellor, and we have already brought in £400 million that the previous Government gave up on.
Lillian Jones
This Government have recouped £400 million in covid fraud and error, with HMRC recovering a massive £1.3 billion, as well as aggressively pursuing the firm linked to Baroness Mone, PPE Medpro. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Government’s relentless recovery action demonstrates that it is only under Labour that this money is recovered from fraudsters to do what it should do, which is to fund our public services?
Rachel Reeves
Sadly, I cannot comment on any individual cases, but I am absolutely determined to get that money back, because that money belongs in our schools, hospitals and public services, not in the pockets of Tory friends and donors.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
It is definitely right to say that the FTSE 100 performed strongly in 2025, during which it rose faster than key benchmarks, the United States and the European stock markets, and hit 10,000 points as we entered the new year. The UK is one of the world’s leading global financial hubs, and this Government are committed to the sector’s enduring leadership.
Alison Taylor
Does the Minister agree that cutting paperwork and speeding access to capital will provide a valuable boost to companies looking to list their shares on the London Stock Exchange? Is she hearing that from the companies that she is meeting, because that is what I have been hearing while I have been out engaging with businesses in Scotland?
Lucy Rigby
I can confirm that I am indeed hearing that. Last week’s introduction of the new prospectus rules will mean faster execution, reduced complexity and a simplified route to capital raising. Together with the three-year UK listing relief announced at the Budget, these initiatives will make the UK the most attractive destination for companies to start, scale, list and stay.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Just one pure technology company is now listed on the FTSE 100 and Budget measures, such as cutting venture capital trust tax relief, discourage companies from listing on the UK exchanges. Why are the Government driving away growth and investment?
Lucy Rigby
The entrepreneurship package in the Budget was incredibly important. The aim of that package, which includes the UK listing relief—the three-year stamp duty holiday that I referred to in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor)—is designed to make the UK the best place to start, scale and list a company.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
The Chancellor has been very proud that the FTSE 100 has passed through the 10,000-point barrier, citing that as an endorsement of her policies. Does she not realise that that still leaves FTSE 100 on lower valuations than comparable markets and that, in any event, over 80% of the earnings of the FTSE 100 are generated outside the UK? Is it not clear that the FTSE 100 performance is despite this Government’s policies, not because of them?
Lucy Rigby
I could not disagree more with the shadow Minister. He is constantly talking this country down. The package of reforms that this Government are making to our capital markets are strengthening those markets, and they are beginning to bear fruit.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
While the Bank of England has overall responsibility for returning inflation to target, this Government are taking the action that we can: £150 off energy bills from April this year, freezing prescription charges for the second year in a row, and freezing rail fares for the first time in 30 years. As a result, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast that inflation will be 0.4 percentage points lower in 2026-27 than it otherwise would have been.
Lincoln Jopp
On Friday, I visited Primark in Staines, in my Spelthorne constituency, where the team, led by Luke, is doing a fantastic job in creating a vibrant retail experience. However, the British Retail Consortium has said that the Chancellor’s jobs tax is pushing up prices and raising the cost of living, and that the Employment Rights Bill will also be inflationary. When did the Chancellor stop listening to business?
Rachel Reeves
I was at Primark just ahead of the Budget, where we announced that we were going to take action on low-value imports. That was welcomed by Primark and many other retailers who are undercut by foreign importers that do not pay customs duty on what they bring into the country. Far from working against business, we are working in conjunction with business to grow our economy. Our economy exceeded expectations for growth last year, and I am confident that it will do the same this year too.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
The Conservatives may want to talk down Britain, but Bournemouth is building again, with a £350 million expansion at J. P. Morgan Chase following the Chancellor’s visit, a £100 million expansion planned by AFC Bournemouth, a £50 million airport upgrade, £26 million invested in Bournemouth and Poole College, £500 million provided for the Royal Bournemouth hospital development, and new land at Wessex Fields to build key worker housing and medical research facilities. Will the Chancellor continue to prioritise stability, bringing down costs, and the free trade that we need in our world, so that we can continue to protect and expand these investments into Bournemouth?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He did not mention the beautiful Bournemouth pier, which we visited together in August and where we enjoyed a very nice ice cream, but he did mention J.P. Morgan, which has announced record investment in its Bournemouth campus. It is employing a shedload of apprentices on that campus, helping it to grow its business, and after this year’s Budget, J. P. Morgan has announced a new building in Canary Wharf. [Interruption.] Maybe Opposition Front Benchers do not like apprentices, but this Government do, which is why we are backing them.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
This Government have a plan to grow the economy and reduce the cost of living, and it is the right plan for Britain. We are cutting the cost of living and the national debt and creating the conditions for growth in all parts of our country. We have had six cuts in interest rates since the general election, reducing typical mortgage costs by £1,200 a year, and have secured record levels of inward investment and trade deals with countries around the world. The FTSE has hit record highs, and while other countries are increasing barriers to trade, I was in Davos talking to allies about how to reduce them. Our economic plan is the right one to build a stronger and more secure Britain, and I am focused on delivering it.
Paula Barker
While I am looking forward to the statement a little later from the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, I would like to push him, if I may. I recently visited one of my local pubs, the Masonic Arms on Lark Lane—which is a fantastic venue—and met Guy and Amelia. Currently, the overall sector picks up 2.8% of UK business rates nationally, but has only 0.5% of the turnover of UK businesses. This is clearly not a fair tax for pubs; it is the result of a uniquely skewed business rates system that actively penalises many pubs. What long-term steps can the Minister take to help pubs like the Masonic Arms and the wider hospitality sector?
Rachel Reeves
As my hon. Friend knows, we have permanently reduced the multiplier for business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure, but my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary will set out the support for pubs in more detail later today. We are determined not only to support pubs, which are the lifeblood of so many communities, but also to support the whole of our retail, hospitality and leisure sector. We are putting more money in people’s pockets by cutting energy bills and train fares and getting people back to work, so that they have more money to spend on the things they love, not just on the essentials.
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
Mr Speaker, I begin by associating Conservative Members with the Chancellor’s comments about your leg—we wish it well.
We are waiting with interest to hear the details of the latest U-turn on business rates this afternoon, but if the briefing is to be believed, it will be far too little, too late. The Chancellor simply does not understand the desperate situation so many of our pubs are in. Many pubs are asking why the Chancellor chose to spend billions more on the benefits bill instead of providing proper, permanent business rates support.
Rachel Reeves
Under the previous Government—when the right hon. Gentleman was in government—7,000 pubs closed. We have permanently lowered the tax rate that retail, hospitality and leisure businesses pay. When I became Chancellor of the Exchequer, we faced a situation in which all of the covid support was going to disappear overnight. We have put £4.3 billion of taxpayers’ money into supporting our retail and hospitality sector, including pubs, but we recognise the distinct problems that pubs face. That is why, unlike the previous Conservative Government, we are setting out more support.
Sir Mel Stride
They just do not get it. Of course, it is not just pubs; the whole high street—shops, restaurants and hotels—is seeing massive increases in business rates, some well over 100%. Where is the help for those businesses?
Rachel Reeves
Some of the numbers that are bandied around by the right hon. Gentleman do not reflect the reality, because they do not reflect the £4.3 billion of transitional support that we have put in to taper those increases in business rates. I do not think anyone in this House seriously believes that temporary support during the pandemic should continue infinitely. That would not be the right thing, and it would not be affordable for other taxpayers. That is why we are gradually tapering the support, with a £4.3 billion support package in the Budget and some more targeted support for pubs later today. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he could have taken action when he was in government. Instead, there was a cliff edge, with no support for pubs or any other sector of the economy.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
As my hon. Friend sets out, there are significant challenges in adult social care, and we have already made available an extra £4.6 billion, including funding to start to implement the fair pay agreement. As she will probably be aware, Baroness Louise Casey is leading an independent commission to build consensus on reform. Its first phase will report this year, with a focus on how to make the most of existing resources.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Rachel Reeves
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not be in Davos, but I think it is important that the Chancellor is there banging the drum for Britain and bringing investment here. While I was in Davos, we secured new investment and worked with our allies on securing new trade deals for Britain. While the Opposition like to talk our country down, we are getting on and delivering a lower cost of living and higher economic growth.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to the House’s attention. I cannot comment on individual cases of covid fraud and tax, but that person would not be the first member of Reform who took a fraudulent covid loan—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) is here just in time. I am not sure whether he is still the shadow, shadow, shadow Chancellor or not.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
When the Liberal Democrats had the chance, what did they do? They put up VAT on hospitality businesses. Now they are coming up with ideas, without the plans to pay for them. They want to increase borrowing over and over again, rather than ensure that we support businesses in a fair and sustainable way over the years to come.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
Rachel Reeves
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, and that is why I announced—on the basis of many representations from colleagues, including her—a comprehensive set of measures at the Budget to crack down on illegal high street activity. We want our high streets to thrive, but we must crack down on these illegal businesses selling counterfeit goods and often harbouring more dangerous criminal activity. That is why we put money into that area in the Budget.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
James Murray
Let me start by thanking the emergency services in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency for all their work to ensure that people are kept safe, and to respond to the challenges that people face as a result of flooding. We are determined to support public services across the board, and the decisions taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in past Budgets and in the spending review mean that we have sustainable funding for our public services in all parts of the country.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
James Murray
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is warmly welcoming people who spent 14 years undermining public services, who wrecked the economy, who botched Brexit, and who were booted out by the British people in 2024—and Reform’s latest recruit was so bad that she managed to get sacked by Liz Truss.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
That is an important question, because too many people have been let down by the scheme that was introduced by the Conservatives. I am sure that the hon. Lady noted the Energy Secretary’s announcement last week about the £15 billion warm homes plan, which will ensure that work to upgrade the quality of British homes continues in the years ahead for all households, but particularly for low-income households. She will also be aware that ongoing remediation work will take place as part of that scheme.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
James Murray
This Government are backing investment in Teesside to create the good jobs that my hon. Friend’s constituents deserve. I know that Teesside is very well placed to lead for our country across a range of sectors. For example, £4 billion is going into the UK’s first carbon capture, usage and storage cluster in Teesside, including the world’s first at-scale gas power station with CCUS.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Ten years ago, this place introduced legislation preventing banks from applying tax deductions after paying compensation for wrongdoing. Now lenders are set to pay out billions of pounds in connection with the motor finance scandal, but they will be able to reduce their tax bills because most of those companies have channelled their money via subsidiaries. Does the Minister agree that that is not in keeping with the spirit of the law, and will the Government do something about it?
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
The hon. Member has referred to the motor finance redress situation. As the House would expect, we are monitoring that very closely, and we want to see the issues resolved in an efficient way that provides certainty for consumers and for firms. As the hon. Member knows, seeking to change the rules on corporation tax would mean deviating from our commitment to certainty and predictability in the tax system, as set out in our corporate tax road map.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I wish you a speedy recovery, Mr Speaker.
I welcome the economic steps that the Chancellor has taken against Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and I encourage her to go further, but does she agree that the British public can have confidence in our sanctions regime only if those in political leadership across all parties, including the shadow Attorney General, do not have ongoing involvement in advising Russian oligarchs?
Rachel Reeves
Like many, I was staggered by reports that senior counsel appointed by Mr Abramovich in relation to proceedings in Jersey include the shadow Attorney General. I cannot speak for the Opposition—I had many years of doing that—but our focus remains ensuring that there is no further delay in proceeds from the sale of Chelsea football club reaching humanitarian causes in Ukraine. If Mr Abramovich fails to act quickly, this Government are fully prepared to pursue legal action to release the funds. We know whose side we are on: we are on the side of the Ukrainian people, and of Britain’s national interests.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
More than 80% of households in Bromley and Biggin Hill have at least one car or van—a figure significantly higher than the average in Greater London—so the decision to remove the 5p fuel duty reduction hits them particularly hard. This is the latest in a slew of measures against motorists, including increased congestion charges and the ultra low emission zone charge, which is really hitting them in the pocket. Why does the Labour party continue to use motorists as a cash cow?
Dan Tomlinson
We have extended the temporary 5p fuel duty cut until the end of August 2026, and rates will then gradually return to early 2022 levels. The planned increase in line with inflation will also not take place. That will save the average driver £49 next year, compared with previous plans.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
While pubs may have a large lobby, we know that independents power our local economy. I have looked through the spreadsheets showing the business rates for our independent businesses after the relief has been applied. Businesses in my city will see an increase of up to 93% in their business rates. What engagement has the Minister had with small independents to ensure that they are safeguarded through the relief that he is about to announce?
Dan Tomlinson
It is important to note that there is a 40% relief in the system for smaller and independent businesses. It will be phased out over the coming years; we have put in transitional relief protection. As the Chancellor said earlier, that is reasonable. Members from across the House will agree that it would not be right to have temporary pandemic support still in place at the end of the decade.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)
I will not challenge you to a corridor race today, Mr Speaker, but good luck with your leg.
I wrote to the Chancellor on 8 January, with the support of 7,000 small businesses from across the spectrum—not just pubs. They are concerned about not only rate re-evaluations, and the vicious tax rises that they have had to suffer, but the cost of the Employment Rights Act 2025. When can the 7,001 of us expect a reply?
Dan Tomlinson
I regularly reply to letters and parliamentary questions from the hon. Member and those on both sides of the House.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
There are many small and medium-sized enterprises in advanced manufacturing supply chains in my bit of the Black Country. Does the Chancellor agree that successfully implementing our industrial strategy is vital to securing the growth, through small businesses, that we need to get British industry back on track?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she does to champion small businesses, and all businesses in the Black Country, but particularly those in her constituency. Advanced manufacturing is one of our industrial strategy sectors in which we have huge strengths as a country. We are determined to support such businesses in growing and fulfilling their potential.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
What does the Minister say to childminders in Melton and Syston who are concerned about potentially increased administrative burdens and cash-flow pressures, as a result of changes under Making Tax Digital for businesses with a turnover of at least £50,000? It is scrapping the blanket 10% wear and tear allowance, and replacing it with a requirement for line-by-line item accounting, with childminders having to pay up front and claim back later.
Dan Tomlinson
This is an important issue that is of concern to childminders. I have replied to correspondence on this topic from the right hon. Member, I think, and from others in this place. I would be happy to talk to Members about it. I think the change is proportionate and reasonable, and we have engaged closely with the sector to make sure that the burden will be proportionate for those who are affected by it.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
Thanks to the policies of the Labour Treasury team, Sandwell will receive £1.5 million to smarten up our towns. Does the Chancellor agree that local people should have a say in how that funding is spent, and will she encourage people in Rowley, West Bromwich and Oldbury to fill in my survey about how we spend this Government cash?
Rachel Reeves
I very much encourage people in my hon. Friend’s constituency to fill in her survey. The Pride in Place money, which we are allocating across some of the most deprived parts of the country, will make a huge difference in regenerating areas left behind by the previous Government. I encourage everyone in all our communities to get involved, and to shape those plans, because those plans can only be improved by direct contact with the people who stand to benefit from them most.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Link has doubled down on its decision not to grant Totnes a banking hub, despite the Prime Minister telling Members at Prime Minister’s questions that every community that wants one should have one. Will the Chancellor agree to review the criteria for banking hubs, so that people have access to face-to-face banking services, not just access to cash, when the last bank turns its back on its customers and leaves town?
Lucy Rigby
The Government of course recognise the importance of in-person banking services and access to cash, as the hon. Member and I have discussed. As she knows, in-person services are provided through traditional bank branches, banking hubs, post offices and other means, and I will continue to monitor the situation. As she knows, I have listened very carefully to her concerns, and I am happy to do so again.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Earlier this month, the House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee published a report on private markets, highlighting the potential risks to economic stability, and the Bank of England has also undertaken a stress test of the ecosystem. What actions is the Minister considering taking with regulators to strengthen transparency and oversight of private markets, so that we can mitigate any systemic risks?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend is right that the rise in private markets has brought benefits, including to growth and financial stability—we have discussed that many times in the context of pensions—but it does come with new risks. The Treasury and regulators have increased their focus on those risks in the non-bank sector in recent years and, as I am sure he is aware, have played a leading role in the response to emerging non-banks’ risks internationally. In particular, the Government emphasised in the November remit letter to the Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee that the committee should continue to consider risks in private markets. We are considering the House of Lords Committee’s recommendations, and will respond in due course.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
At the weekend, Storm Ingrid caused the sea wall at Dawlish to collapse in two new places, and we wait to see the damage caused by Storm Chandra today. Both storms are once again exposing the vulnerability of the main rail line to Devon and Cornwall, which is vital for the local economy. Given the reported lack of a Treasury emergency reserve, can the Chancellor guarantee contingency funding for any urgent and unplanned resilience work required and not covered by a fiscal event?
James Murray
I thank the hon. Lady for raising the situation in her constituency. All Departments across Government have had their budgets set, and they include a contingency for covering known pressures. One of the ways that we have managed spending settlements differently from the previous Government is that all Departments must recognise that unexpected pressures will come along. They need to prepare for that, and should have robust plans for responding when such things occur.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Southshore in my constituency has the highest concentration of deprived communities and the most deprived ward in the country. We have developed a local people’s plan for work to regenerate the area. Will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor meet me to discuss this plan, so that we can regenerate the most deprived area in this country?
Rachel Reeves
We were pleased to be able to allocate Pride in Place funding to my hon. Friend’s constituency, in recognition of its levels of deprivation. That comes alongside policies such as getting rid of the cruel two-child benefit cap, which the previous Government introduced, and investing record amounts in social housing. This Government are delivering for the people of Blackpool. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Constituents of mine have restored the Alyth hotel. It has gone from near dereliction to being an outstanding venue for dining and drinking, and a hotel. However, they are smothered by the compound burden of VAT rates, wage costs, duty increases, employer national insurance contributions, energy costs and the squeeze on spending. That is why there were 8,000 fewer jobs in hospitality in December than in November, and 20,000 fewer than in September. Will the Chancellor consider reducing VAT on hospitality to the 7% it is in Germany, the 9% it is in Ireland, or the 10% it is in Spain and Italy?
Rachel Reeves
I suggest that the people of Scotland ask who was in charge in Scotland for the last two decades, kick them out at the next election, and give Labour a chance.
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the statement on commonhold and leasehold reform, I once again note, for the second day in a row, my disappointment about briefings to the media before important announcements are brought to the House. As the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee recently stated,
“making the most important statements in the first instance to Parliament means doing so before they are made to the media and not at the first available opportunity thereafter”.
Those are the Government’s rules in their own ministerial code, and they must do better. I am defending Back Benchers on both sides of the House. They have been elected here to hear it. Hearing it on Sky News and the BBC is not the way we do business. If there are issues of market sensitivity, or indeed any other sensitivities, Ministers are welcome to seek advice through my office or the Clerks on how the best balance of these sensitivities might legitimate the need to update me before the media. We have to work together on this. The message is clear. I am not in charge of the code; the Prime Minister is. He needs to take the code more seriously.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
My Department always strives to ensure that the House is updated at the earliest possible opportunity. I note and appreciate fully the points you have made, Mr Speaker, and will ensure that they are passed on to my ministerial colleagues.
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill. We made a clear and unambiguous commitment in our manifesto to act where previous Governments had failed and finally bring the feudal leasehold system to an end. We did so on the basis of a firm conviction that it is only by extinguishing fully the historical iniquities on which the present leasehold system rests that we can ensure that the dream of home ownership is made real for millions of households across the country.
Today, the Government have published and laid the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee. This ambitious piece of legislation will modernise property law, deliver a fair and efficient modern housing market and, most importantly, transform the experience of home ownership for millions of leaseholders across the country.
The draft Bill includes the following key provisions: a new legal framework for commonhold to reform and reinvigorate this radical improvement on leasehold ownership; a statutory restriction on new leasehold flats to ensure that, in future, commonhold is the default tenure; a new process for converting to commonhold from leasehold to make conversion easier, so that more homeowners can enjoy this improved form of ownership; the abolition of leasehold forfeiture and its replacement with a fairer system of lease enforcement; the repeal of draconian powers relating to rent charges on freehold estates; and the capping of ground rent for older leases at £250 a year, changing to a peppercorn after 40 years.
Let me expand briefly on each of these core measures, beginning with commonhold. Commonhold is a modern home ownership structure that is widely used around the world. It is not merely an alternative to leasehold ownership, but a radical improvement on it. At the heart of the commonhold model is a simple principle: the people who should own buildings and who should exercise control over their management, shared facilities and related costs are not third-party landlords, but the people who live in the flats within them and who have a direct stake in their upkeep. Commonhold ensure that the interests of homeowners are preserved in perpetuity. It transfers decision making to them so that homeowners have a greater say over how their home is managed and the bills they pay, as well as the flexibility to respond to the changing needs of their building and its residents.
For a variety of reasons, commonhold failed to establish itself following its introduction in 2004. As a result, there are fewer than 20 commonhold developments in existence today and the 2002 legal framework is hopelessly outdated. The provisions in the draft Bill build on the publication of our commonhold White Paper in March last year, which confirmed the detail of our commonhold reform programme, and responded to the Law Commission’s thorough and expert review of commonhold law. The result is legislation that will reinvigorate commonhold through the introduction of a comprehensive new legal framework that will enable commonhold to be used in the widest possible range of settings.
To ensure that commonhold becomes the default tenure, as our manifesto promised, the draft Bill also includes provisions to ban the use of leasehold for new flats. Once enacted, this will ensure that, other than in exceptional circumstances, all flats are provided as commonhold. The provisions will work in tandem with the ban on the use of leasehold for new houses contained in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024.
Alongside the publication of the draft Bill today, we are publishing a “Moving to commonhold” consultation, seeking input from industry and consumers on precisely how we implement the new ban. The feedback we receive will ensure that we can proceed with a smooth transition to commonhold for new developments, while at the same time protecting the supply of new homes and determining whether there is a case for any justified exemptions.
The draft Bill also includes measures to make it easier for existing leaseholders to convert their buildings to commonhold. The existing law already sets out a process for conversion, but it is one that requires consent from everyone with an interest in the block. This sets an unacceptably high bar and means that commonhold is not achievable if even a single unit owner, lender or the existing freeholder objects. The draft Bill will introduce a new process for conversion, one that brings conversion into line with wider enfranchisement processes and will make conversion possible if at least 50% of qualifying leaseholders agree.
The previous Government’s Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act does provide leaseholders with important rights and protections, but on the Labour Benches we have always maintained that it was a distinctly unambitious piece of legislation that left untouched serious problems, including the disproportionate and draconian threat of forfeiture as a means of ensuring compliance with a lease agreement. For too long, outdated forfeiture laws have allowed landlords to threaten people with losing their home and hard-earned equity over small debts of as little as £350, or any amount if left unpaid for three years. The draft Bill contains provisions to abolish forfeiture and replace it with a modern, proportionate lease enforcement system that addresses breaches fairly, with appropriate safeguards and judicial oversight.
Mr Speaker, you will know that before Christmas we launched two comprehensive consultations, seeking views on how best to implement new consumer protections for homeowners on freehold estates and the ways in which we might reduce the prevalence of privately managed estates over the coming years. To further enhance protections for homeowners on freehold estates, the draft Bill will also repeal enforcement powers that apply to estate rent charges on them. These powers, often difficult to find in deeds and poorly understood by buyers, can lead to rent charge owners taking possession of, or granting a lease over, a freehold home as a result of small sums outstanding. That is not just unfair; it creates real barriers to home ownership and property sales. We will remove these wholly disproportionate and outdated remedies for enforcing rent charges by repealing sections 121 and 122 of the Law of Property Act 1925, including estate rent charges.
The Government are acutely aware that the cost of living remains a pressing concern for leaseholders across England and Wales, and that those who remain subject to unfair and unreasonable practices need urgent relief. That is why last summer we consulted jointly with the Welsh Government on strengthening leaseholder protections over charges and services. That consultation included proposals to reform the section 20 major works procedure, increase transparency over service charges, and enhance access to redress through the relevant provisions in the Act. We thank all those who responded to the consultation and will set out details of how we intend to implement the measures in question as soon as possible. However, the Government are determined to go further to alleviate the cost of living pressures facing leaseholders. In our manifesto, we promised to tackle unregulated and unaffordable ground rent charges. The draft Bill honours that commitment.
As the House will know, historically, ground rents, which often entail no service being provided whatsoever, were of low or nominal value. However, over the past two decades a practice has developed of freeholders including high and escalating ground rent clauses in leases. Such clauses are causing leaseholders considerable financial strain and some are unable to sell or remortgage their properties as a result. The draft Bill will cap ground rents at £250 a year initially, changing to a peppercorn after 40 years. This will provide immediate financial relief for leaseholders with high and harmful ground rents, while the longer-term change to a peppercorn cap will eliminate the two-tier market between new and older leases, delivering a fair and efficient modern housing market.
The reforms will necessarily have effects on existing contractual arrangements and investments—something that the Government do not undertake lightly. However, the Government have a clear mandate to tackle unregulated and unaffordable ground rent charges, and our approach has been designed to strike a fair balance between the interests of leaseholders, freeholders and investors, maintaining the reputation of the UK as a safe place to invest.
Finally, as I have made clear to the House on previous occasions, the last Government’s Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act contains a number of specific but serious flaws that prevent certain provisions from operating as intended and that need to be rectified via primary legislation. While not included in the draft Bill, our intention is to rectify those flaws in primary legislation. Among other things, that will allow us to commence the 2024 Act’s enfranchisement provisions, making it cheaper and easier for leaseholders to extend their lease or buy their freehold.
To conclude, the publication of the draft Bill today is an historic moment. It marks the beginning of the end for the feudal leasehold system that has tainted the dream of home ownership for so many. I look forward to working closely with the Select Committee as it performs its invaluable role of scrutinising carefully this draft legislation, and I encourage hon. Members across the House to engage with it and the accompanying consultation on banning new leasehold flats. I commend the statement to the House.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his remarks and for advance sight of his statement. Progress on leasehold reform is to be welcomed. Labour promised that when it stood for election 18 months ago, so it is about time it got on with it, as the previous Conservative Government had started to do.
The previous Conservative Government began the process of fundamental reforms to the existing system of leaseholds by making it easier to extend a lease or to buy a freehold, increasing the standard lease extension time to 990 years, and giving leaseholders greater transparency over their service charges. His Majesty’s Opposition remain committed to giving leaseholders a fair deal, want householders to have security for the future and will continue to hold the Government to account on that.
The Government made big promises to leaseholders at the last election. Do they believe that the Bill is the summit of their ambitions? What about the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024? What are their plans to implement secondary legislation? There are opportunities to improve leaseholder situations that are available to the Government now. Why have they not implemented those changes? Surely, if they were serious about reform for leaseholders, they would have picked up the 2024 Act and run with it, rather than doing nothing until now. The Minister just said:
“I have made clear to the House on previous occasions, the last Government’s Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act contains a number of specific but serious flaws that prevent certain provisions from operating as intended and that need to be rectified via primary legislation.”
He went on to say:
“While not included in the draft Bill, our intention is to rectify those flaws in primary legislation.”
Perhaps he could tell us what those flaws are. If the Government have already identified them, why are the corrections not included in the forthcoming Bill? Surely now would be the time to rectify them. So if not now, when?
I would be remiss not to comment on one of the central principles of housing reform: there actually needs to be some housing in order to reform it. The Labour Mayor of London is delivering the lowest house building in London since 2009, while Labour’s national housing delivery is nowhere near where it needs to be to meet its 1.5 million homes target. What is Labour doing to ensure that there are strong incentives to build more? Where is the second planning Bill that the Government briefed out to the media that they will need to introduce because of their failure to get the planning reform right first time? The Conservative party is pro-development, which is why we have announced both a plan to review the London plan to improve on Labour’s failings in London and to ensure that national development is done on a brownfield-first approach.
Now, it is true that ground rent is an additional cost to leaseholders, but it is reported that the Chancellor is against capping ground rents because she believes it will deter pension fund investors. What does the Minister have to say to that?
The Government are claiming that these measures will reduce people’s bills, which would of course be welcome, but if leaseholder ground rent bills are simply replaced by soaring council tax bills, with some local councils now facing more than 30% rises in council tax due the Government’s grossly unfair funding review, how will people be better off? In inner London, which has a high proportion of leasehold flats, residents in councils such as Wandsworth, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea are facing the double whammy of staggering rises in council tax and a council tax surcharge on top. Are the Government in fact claiming to cut a cost on one hand, while knowingly replacing it with even more costs on the other?
I would be grateful if the Minister answered those points in his reply. We will scrutinise the Government’s forthcoming commonhold and leasehold reform Bill, and we will hold the Government to account on their promises on leasehold reform and housing. We look forward to studying the details, and to the debates that will follow.
Matthew Pennycook
I note the initial positive tone from the shadow Minister in welcoming the draft Bill. I am slightly reluctant, on what is usually a matter of cross-party consensus, to be too critical of him, but it is a bit rich to criticise this Government, given that the previous Government cherry-picked reform in a way that was at odds with the Law Commission’s recommendation to treat all three of its reports as a holistic package, and left us with an Act that we will have to make a series of changes through primary legislation to fix so that we can implement the remaining provisions. I will, therefore, not take any strictures on ambition from the shadow Minister when it comes to leasehold reform.
I say plainly to the shadow Minister that we have switched on a number of the 2024 Act’s provisions already. On coming into office, we immediately enacted a series of provisions on rent charge arrears, building safety legal costs, and the work of professional insolvency practitioners. On 31 October we enacted further building safety measures; on 31 January we switched on the two-year qualifying exemptions for leaseholders; in March we switched on the right-to-manage provisions; and we are working at pace to take forward the rest of the significant package of secondary legislation that was required. However, some parts of those provisions require us to make fixes to the Bill—sadly, something that the previous Government left us with.
The shadow Minister mentioned housing supply, but again, I am loath to take lessons from a party that torpedoed housing supply in the last Parliament by making a series of anti-supply changes to the national planning policy framework, including the abolition of mandatory housing targets. The shadow Minister’s criticism could be taken a little more seriously if his colleagues did not come to me week in, week out, objecting to housing applications, telling me how our reforms will make it more permissive in their local constituencies.
We are getting on and taking forward the reforms to the leasehold system that are already on the statute book. Through this Bill, we are bringing forward the wider reforms necessary to bring that system to an end, which will be to the lasting benefit of millions of leaseholders across the country.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I pay tribute to the Minister for his hard work in getting us to this stage. There were a few occasions when he saw me and went the other way, because he knew what I was going to ask him, but we would not be here without his tireless work. I also highlight what the Minister said about this being a cross-party issue, and pay tribute to the former Member for Worthing West, Sir Peter Bottomley, for his work chairing the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform.
For far too long, many leaseholders up and down the country have been caught up in this medieval system, leaving them with soaring rents and unreasonable fees—people who bought their homes in good faith and have seen a nightmare transpire. It is right that the Government are finally bringing in a change that will help millions of people up and down the country. The Minister has agreed to support the Committee’s inquiry with the necessary evidence. Can he also confirm that he will support us by providing the Government’s response to the 2023 ground rent consultation in the coming days, so that we can get a better understanding on how that underpins the Government’s decision to cap ground rents at £250?
There were some things that we were expecting to see in the draft Bill—yes, I have read it—that are not there, including the Law Commission’s unimplemented recommendations on enfranchisement and the right to manage, and Lord Best’s recommendations on managing agents. Lord Best has called for a regulator with teeth for proper enforcement; can the Minister clarify what work the Government are doing to ensure that this will be in the final version of the Bill, or if it will be addressed elsewhere? The Minister also outlined a rough timeline for implementation. Can we get more clarity on when we expect to see that, so that those leaseholders around the country who have been waiting for a long time will finally get the help that they desperately need?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, for those fair and pertinent questions. I will answer each of them in turn. We published a whole series of documents at 7 am, including a copy of the draft Bill. That also included a policy document setting out our rationale for the £250 per year ground rent cap, but we will make available to the Committee other information, evidence and documentation as needed and at the earliest possible opportunity.
As for the other recommendations made in the three reports from the Law Commission, the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 implemented a significant number of the Law Commission’s enfranchisement recommendations, a small number of its right-to-manage recommendations, and none of its recommendations on commonhold. We cannot do everything in this Bill; hon. Members who have had a chance to look will have seen that is has a large number of clauses already. But we are committed to enacting those remaining recommendations relating to leasehold enfranchisement and other things over the course of the Parliament.
On implementation, different provisions will come into effect at different times. For example, we aim to switch on the rent charge provisions I described soon after Royal Assent. Other measures will require secondary legislation. We expect the ground rent cap to be in place in 2028. We will work with the Committee to ensure that it can do the fullest and most robust job possible when it comes to giving the Bill the enhanced scrutiny it deserves.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats welcome the introduction of a commonhold framework, the abolition of leasehold for newbuild flats, and the end of forfeiture—all these are positive steps in the right direction. Our manifesto has been calling for an end to unfair residential leaseholds since Lloyd George called it “blackmail” in his 1909 People’s Budget. But while I welcome those measures, we should be going much further.
The Housing Secretary this morning called ground rents “money for nothing” and a “scam”, so why should leaseholders continue to pay £250 for nothing? The Government’s proposals need to go further. For freeholders trapped in the fleece-hold of unscrupulous property management companies, the blackmail of the great property rip-off is set to continue. There is nothing that will cap those charges in these proposals. Since residential leaseholds will still be with us for some time, millions of leaseholders need better protection from landlord costs being passed on to them. They need the capping of excessive service charges, like £400 to change a lightbulb and £4,000 to mow the grass. Help is also needed for those trapped in unsafe and defective buildings, hundreds of thousands of which are excluded from the building safety regime.
Will the Minister take forward Liberal Democrat proposals and immediately abolish residential leasehold charges, set ground rents at a peppercorn now, and regulate property and estate-management companies as recommended in the Best report, capping unreasonable service and estate management charges?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesman for those questions. He often mentions Lloyd George, and I share his passion for Lloyd George’s radicalism on property law and other measures. I will address the specific points that he raised. During the passage of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, I was clear that my instinctive preference when it comes to ground rents was for a peppercorn cap, fully eliminating ground rents. The changes that we are making ensure that, after 40 years, that change occurs.
Having considered all the analysis and advice available to me as a Minister, including the evidence gathered in response to the previous Administration’s 2023 consultation, I believe that we have set out the right policy. It is clear that an immediate peppercorn cap would carry significant risks, including some that might impact on leaseholders. The Government also recognise that there is a significant difference between regulating the creation of new leases, and intervening to affect existing contracts and investments.
On the functioning of the cap itself, I want to make clear that it is a maximum cash cap. If someone’s lease is below £250 and does not include escalating clauses, their ground rent will not rise to £250. If someone’s ground rent is over £250, at the point that the measures are brought into force they will see an immediate reduction. That will benefit millions of leaseholders across the country. It is a huge cost-of-living intervention, and I hope the House can get behind it as the most just and proportionate way of addressing unregulated and unaffordable ground rent terms.
The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) will know that we ran a consultation last year on how we can standardise service charges and increase their transparency to ensure that leaseholders can better challenge the reasonableness of service charges at tribunal. However, we do not intend to bring forward a cap, not least because doing so could harm leaseholders, particularly those in enfranchised buildings, who may need to raise sums beyond the cap to carry out essential maintenance works on their buildings.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for this extremely welcome statement. I know how much work he has put into this. We know, however, that vested interests have repeatedly resorted to lawfare to block such measures, and may do so again; we have already seen the scaremongering begin, with outrageous claims that these changes will impact on lifesaving building safety work. Can my hon. Friend reassure me that the Government will not waver in the face of such threats, but stand firm and ensure that the will of this Parliament prevails? I take exception to objections from those on the Opposition Benches, who did nothing on rent caps in their time in Parliament.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my right hon. Friend for her kind words. She was an incredible champion of the reform agenda for this legislation when she served as Secretary of State. She raises the matter of vested interests. I hope that the House—and you, Mr Speaker—will take from the Government’s robust defence to the legal challenge brought against the 2024 Act by a group of claimants who are owners of freehold and other arising interests of dwellings that we will robustly defend the legislation. The High Court, incidentally, comprehensively dismissed that challenge, allowing us in due course to take forward the relevant provisions. I simply say to my right hon. Friend—who embodies this herself, so she is well aware—that taking on vested interests that are opposed to change that will bring about improvements in the lives of working people is what Labour Governments do.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
As a leaseholder, I understand the issues that leaseholders face, and I look forward to carrying out pre-legislative scrutiny on the HCLG Committee. The conveyancing process also needs to be looked at, as I am not sure that solicitors and managing agents point out considerations such as historical service charges, whether the property has a sinking fund and how much service charges have gone up. Will the Minister assure me and my constituents that that part of the process of buying a leasehold property will also be looked at within this legislation?
Matthew Pennycook
I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman and his service on the Select Committee. He has a lot of expertise in this area. I would say two things in response. First, we published two consultations on the home buying and selling process to try to modernise that process, and we are looking at some of those issues as part of that. Secondly, on service charges, one reason we had to hold quite a complicated and technical consultation on the implementation of the 2024 Act’s service charge provisions is precisely the complexity and the number of factors to deal with. We received incredibly useful feedback in response to that consultation, and that will shape how we take those measures forward. I want to be clear, though, that we are talking about how and not whether we take those measures forward; I want to see them brought forward at the earliest possible opportunity, because we absolutely know the impact that high and rising service charges are having on leaseholders across the country.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
People in Stockport and Greater Manchester have suffered for many years with poor service and unfair treatment by managing agents. Does the commitment by the Government to protect leaseholders mark a break from years of weak regulation by the coalition and then Conservative Governments?
Matthew Pennycook
We did see a considerable amount of deregulation under the coalition Government and their successors. I will give the previous Government credit, as I have done before, for bringing forward the 2024 Act; it does include some limited relief for leaseholders and some new rights and protections. However, we need to take it forward and finish the job, as I made clear in opposition that Labour would. As I said, we are consulting on changes to increase protections over service charges—incidentally, that same consultation included a number of proposals recommended by Lord Best in his 2019 report, “Regulation of Property Agents”, including the introduction of mandatory qualifications for managing agents. We are clear, though, that that consultation and the measures within it are not the final step in the regulation of managing agents, and we will continue to reflect on the various other recommendations made in Lord Best’s report.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Unlike the Chair of our Select Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), I have not read the full draft legislation published at 7 o’clock this morning. I can confirm that she did indeed feel a bit unloved whenever she saw the Minister running away from her. On the statement, I think the Minister referred, in a previous answer, to ground rents and the transition from £250 to a peppercorn being effective in 2028. At the point that it becomes effective, will he look to backdate it or will tenants have to continue to pay their bills up until the legislation becomes effective?
Matthew Pennycook
The House can, of course, help us to speed up the progress of the Bill; 2028 is only a rough estimate based on the time it will take for the Bill, once it has passed its draft phase and scrutiny from the Select Committee, to be introduced in its final form and to get through both Houses. We will then also have to switch on the necessary secondary legislation. Up until that point, people will continue to pay their existing ground rents, but, as I say, the cap will apply once we bring those measures into force. For lots and lots of leaseholders around the country—I am sure the hon. Gentleman has many in his constituency—who are paying onerous, high ground rent terms way above £250, that will be an immediate financial relief that will be hugely beneficial to them.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Since I was first elected in 2010, I have seen the misery caused for constituents in Great Park, Moorfields and Grove Park, who suffer high ground rents, hikes in service charges, threats of forfeiture and a total lack of accountability of the maintenance companies. I therefore strongly welcome today’s announcements and truly thank the Minister for listening to calls for change. However, many will still find themselves living in existing leasehold houses and will remain trapped in this old, unfair and very frustrating system. They are asking me what the Government will do next to support them. Could the Minister explain that?
Matthew Pennycook
I am more than happy to have a separate conversation with my hon. Friend about the specific conditions pertaining to leasehold houses. She will know, of course, that the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022 made a number of changes in that area. In general, we want to arrive at a situation, once our reform agenda is enacted, where existing leaseholders can choose to remain in leasehold ownership but can take advantage of the new rights and protections made available to them, including a cheaper and easier enfranchisement process if they want to extend their lease or buy their freehold, or convert to commonhold. That is why it is so important that the Bill contains an easier mechanism to convert to commonhold, which, as I said in the statement, we are clear is not only an alternative to leasehold ownership but a radical improvement on it.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
I welcome the introduction of this draft Bill and, as a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, I look forward to scrutinising it. I wonder whether the Minister will make available to the Committee evidence around the peppercorn rent and the 40-year requirement. I suspect is to do with investor confidence, but could that time period be brought forward? My overarching feeling, which I know will be reflected in my inbox when I get back to my office, is that people across the country would have expected to see within the draft Bill action on service charges; we are consistently contacted about managing agents not performing their duties and charging too much for it. The Bill was meant to be presented at the back end of last year and I know that the Government concluded a consultation in September. We want service charges to be addressed as soon as possible. Will we be able to get an additional clause on this issue into this legislation?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I gently say that I want to get everybody in, but I cannot do so if people are going to make longer contributions? I know there is a 40-year clause in the legislation hon. Members are discussing—I don’t want us to hit that today!
Matthew Pennycook
It is clear that this draft Bill cannot do absolutely everything, and it is the Government’s considered opinion that we do not need provisions on service charges in this Bill—not least because, for the reasons I have set out, we do not intend to implement a service charge cap—and that the provisions in the 2024 Act will do the job. Help is on the way, though, and I want to ensure that those provisions are switched on at the earliest possible opportunity.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the magnificent job he has done with this legislation, as well as the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), who has pushed him and bothered him all the way down the corridors for months on end!
It is now eight years since the previous Committee looked at this matter and recommended radical reform of leasehold. One of the challenges in my constituency—still—concerns individual householders who try to buy their freehold and find that the freeholders will not even respond to their requests, and then push them through complicated and expensive procedures before they can get their entitlements. Can the Minister give us an assurance that that procedure will now be simplified and cheapened?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words on my role in developing the draft Bill. I can say to him very plainly: yes. If he looks at the consultation on service charge protections that we released last summer, he will see proposals that specifically address non-litigation costs and other measures. However, as I said, it is our intention to ensure that in the enfranchisement process, it is not only cheaper but easier for leaseholders to make use of their new rights and protections if they intend to buy their freehold or extend their lease.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I am pleased that the Government have finally published their plans to reform the leasehold system, and I look forward to scrutinising those plans on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. In my constituency, we have a range of issues with property management companies, whether it be the mismanagement of the Clock Tower in Maybury or the proposed 30% increase in the service charge at Brookwood Farm, and all are unacceptable. Please will the Minister explain why he is not using the draft Bill to end the wild west of unregulated property companies?
Matthew Pennycook
We launched two comprehensive consultations before Christmas, in respect of how we switch on the consumer protections set out in the 2024 Act for those living on freehold estates and, more widely, on how we end the prevalence of private management arrangements of the kind that I think the hon. Member is referring to. The draft Bill does not have to do everything, but relief is on the way through the new consumer protections for those living on freehold estates who suffer from management companies levying unfair charges.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on resisting the calls from those who have exploited leaseholders for far too long and on capping ground rent. I welcome the assurance that we are moving from the outdated feudal system of leasehold to a proper commonhold future to give the full rights of ownership to leaseholders, but my hon. Friend will know that those who have taken money for no service or for poor service will resist this with all their might. A loophole may still exist for enfranchisement when developers put up a new building with a proportion of commercial property in its base, so can my hon. Friend address that, specifically in order to stop them using such a loophole?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend and I both served on the Public Bill Committee when the Bill that is now the 2024 Act was going through the House, and we discussed many of these issues then; I can assure him that we have given consideration to all of them. He is right that we are now on a path to a commonhold future. As I have said, this is a radical improvement on leasehold home ownership. In general, while we will obviously ensure that leaseholders who wish to remain under leasehold ownership benefit from new rights and protections, it is the Government’s intention to try to persuade as many leaseholders as possible to convert to commonhold and to enjoy the benefits that it provides.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and for all his support with the issues we have had at Park25 in Redhill; I very much appreciate that he has taken residents’ concerns seriously. Which of the changes will be most beneficial for my Park25 residents, and has the Minister given any more thought to my suggestion of mandatory adoption of communal land by local authorities?
Matthew Pennycook
I must say, without getting into the detail of the circumstances of the hon. Lady’s constituents, it is hard to know which of the measures will benefit them most. If they are subject to high ground rent charges, the cap on introduction will benefit them hugely on its introduction. If they have suffered from the threat of forfeiture, which is a draconian and disproportionate means of enforcing lease terms, they will benefit in myriad ways from the legislation.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his statement and thank him for it. Like thousands of long-suffering leaseholders across Southampton Itchen, I warmly welcome this announcement. Residents of the Sapphire Court development have already been paying ground rent that is higher than the cap, and there is a plan to double it, but thanks to the action of this Labour Government that will not happen. How soon will Southampton’s leaseholders will get the rights, protections and securities that they have been waiting a long time for and that they deserve?
Matthew Pennycook
As I have said, it is the Government’s intention to ensure that the draft Bill, and the final product that eventually comes forward after scrutiny by the Select Committee, is made law as soon as possible so that leaseholders can benefit from the new provisions. In general terms, no one will pay more than the ground rent cap that we are introducing, but millions of people will pay less. Approximately 770,000 to 900,000 leaseholders with ground rents over £250 will see savings in this Parliament, and others will see savings in greater amounts in Parliaments to come.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I welcome the news of the capping of ground rents for existing contracts, and I thank the Minister for the time he gave me last year, but he will recognise that many city centre developments require ongoing investment from pension funds, so could he say a little more about how his announcement will not spook the City and how he will ensure that there continues to be a flow of investment into our high streets?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the right hon. Member for his fair and reasonable question. The Government consider the intervention on ground rents that we are making through this draft Bill to be a justified and proportionate approach to the specific problems that leaseholders face as a result of high and harmful ground rents. We are introducing the reforms to deliver on specific commitments in our manifesto and in the context of a significant number of wider reforms to the leasehold market. We have carefully weighed the different options to meet our manifesto commitment on ground rents and we have taken investors’ concerns into account when developing the policy, which we believe strikes a fair balance between leaseholders, freeholders and those invested in ground rents. We recognise that the reforms will have a significant impact on freeholders and investors, but we consider this a justified and proportionate response.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I should first declare that I am a leaseholder. I welcome very warmly the Minister’s statement, particularly the measure on commonhold, which is something that we Co-op MPs have been campaigning on for a long time. We also welcome that the cap on ground rents is in sight. There are issues in my constituency relating to the fact that a lot of my leaseholders are shared owners. Could the Minister tell us now—or write to me with the details—how shared ownership might be impacted by the changes? Could he also reassure us, given the complexities, that there will be some Government support, such as an advice hub or something to point people in the right direction, when it comes to how people will move from where they are to commonhold?
Matthew Pennycook
I am more than happy to write to my hon. Friend about the issue of shared ownership specifically. She will know that through our £39 billion social and affordable homes programme, we are making improvements to shared ownership as a tenure model. More widely, I can assure her that the provisions in the draft Bill will benefit leaseholders in her constituency in the way that she makes clear. I am happy to have a further conversation with her about how the reforms will benefit her constituents and what advice leaseholders can draw on, including the Government-backed Leasehold Advisory Service.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I thank the Minister for announcing this Bill to Parliament, and I broadly welcome the provisions within it, particularly the proposal on conversion from leasehold to commonhold—I think that is excellent. By my count, there are about 4.8 million leaseholders in England. Do the Government envisage driving this process so that people are empowered and encouraged to make that conversion, and when does the Minister think that we will get rid of the last leasehold in England?
Matthew Pennycook
I think that leaseholds will exist for some time to come. Indeed, people in various buildings may not, for whatever reason, wish to convert to commonhold, but it is absolutely our intention to make it easier to do so and to encourage as many leasehold homeowners as possible to make the change, because it is a radical improvement on leasehold ownership, not just an alternative to it.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
Residents in Chelsea and Fulham have experienced years of poor service and unfair treatment from managing agents, so I know how pleased they will be by this Government’s determination to do the right thing by leaseholders after years of, sadly, weak regulation under the Conservatives. May I take this opportunity to tell my hon. Friend how much residents in Chelsea and Fulham are looking forward to the further steps on service charges and managing agents that he has outlined? More, please.
Matthew Pennycook
We are absolutely committed to strengthening regulation of managing agents. Some proposals on charges were set out in the consultation on protections for leaseholders, which we released last summer, but there is more to come.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Hundreds of thousands of freeholders up and down the country who are locked in financial arrangements with unaccountable estate management firms will be very frustrated by this statement, because it focuses solely on leasehold. Will the Minister very clearly set out the next steps to tackle this enormous travesty, which involves fleecehold and estate management companies?
Matthew Pennycook
I must correct the hon. Gentleman: it does not solely deal with leasehold, as I made clear in the statement. The draft Bill will repeal sections 121 and 122 of the Law of Property Act 1925, ending the disproportionate remedies that give rent charge owners access to a draconian enforcement regime on freehold estates. As I have said, we are doing more, through the two consultations launched before Christmas in particular, to give new consumer protections to those living on freehold estates. I hope the hon. Gentleman will take part in and respond to that consultation.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The capping of ground rent at £250 will give certainty and relief to leaseholders in Llanelli, who face unpredictable and unjustifiable hikes in ground rent and for whom the reform simply cannot come soon enough. Will the Minister give us a bit more detail on the timetable for the Bill and assure us that he will do everything he possibly can to ensure that the cap is brought in as soon as possible?
Matthew Pennycook
I agree with my hon. Friend. She, like me, will have constituents who are subject to high, unfair ground rent charges and, in some cases, to escalating ground rent charges, particularly those that are inflation-linked. People across the country see those ground rent charges stack up to significant amounts and they will benefit from the cap once it is implemented. We estimate that the cap on ground rents will take approximately 12 months to introduce after Royal Assent, but that is all subject to parliamentary timings. If, as in the past, there is cross-party support on this issue, we can all work together to ensure that the Bill makes speedy progress.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
Leaseholders in Bristol Central are being ripped off. I am disappointed that the Minister and the Government will not enforce peppercorn ground rents immediately, although a £250 cap is an improvement and the movement towards commonhold is really welcome. However, there are big problems for leaseholders that are still unaddressed. Will the Minister please commit to tackling the soaring insurance premiums that have left homes unmortgageable and leaseholders trapped, unable to sell and move in the wake of the cladding scandal?
Matthew Pennycook
I detected an unusual amount of support in that question from the hon. Lady, which I welcome. On the specific issue of insurance charges, again, there was a consultation on switching on some of the provisions in the 2024 Act that relate to insurance commissions. I am more than happy to write to her to set out further detail, but we need to bring those into force and it remains our commitment to do so at the earliest opportunity.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the statement. Although, as he has pointed out, this cannot all be fixed in one go and there are other levers that he will put in place for leaseholders, will he give some reassurance to leaseholders in Gravesham who have experienced poor service that this is about rebalancing power so that they are protected going forward?
Matthew Pennycook
All manner of provisions in the draft Bill that we are discussing are absolutely about rebalancing leasehold and freehold interests. To take the example of forfeiture, freeholders have often been in an unassailable position of strength vis-à-vis leaseholders. That is what we are trying to address by introducing the Bill. I thank my hon. Friend for her support.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I hesitate to add to the Minister’s in-tray, but he will know that we have existing protections of some sort for leaseholders and freeholders, as right as he is to want to go further. Residents in the Cooden area of my constituency have been sent letters by a company called Asset Invest Ltd demanding thousands of pounds, which it says is to regularise covenant breaches. That, to me, seems unjustified and has some of the hallmarks of the unregulated charges that leaseholders have faced in the past. This is probably an issue that affects MPs across the House. Will the Minister be so kind as to meet me to explore how we might address this issue as well?
Matthew Pennycook
I will happily meet the hon. Gentleman. As I have said, it is our intention as a Government to end the unjust and discriminatory practices from which leaseholders suffer. As I hope I have made clear, over the course of the Parliament we intend to end—finally, once and for all—this iniquitous system. That will take some time; it cannot happen overnight, but that is our intent. Leaseholders across the country, including those in his constituency and mine, will benefit from that.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on freeing so many of my constituents from the historical and, indeed, feudal injustice of the leasehold system. I urge him to ignore the clarion complaints of those freeholders who predicated their business model on the continued exploitation of working people through extortionate ground rents. The Minister is familiar with the predicament of my constituents who are unable to extend their leasehold or buy their freehold because of the actions of the St Mary Magdalene and Holy Jesus Trust. What hope can he offer them?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is right: there will always be vested interests that resist reform of the nature that we are trying to take forward, just as there will always be naysayers out there for whom nothing we do is ever good enough. This package as a whole, as I have said, will end the leasehold system in its entirety and in a single Parliament. That will be a huge achievement for this Government and we will succeed on that basis where other Governments have failed.
I am aware of the specific issue my hon. Friend raises and we have had many discussions about it. The provisions to address it are not in the draft Bill, but my officials and I are giving serious consideration to how and where we will resolve the matter that my hon. Friend has campaigned on for so many years.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I welcome the Bill, but I take this opportunity to urge the Minister to go further and faster on rip-off service charges. That is the thing that is clogging up my inbox—so much so, in fact, that I will hold a service charges forum in Oxford in a few weeks’ time. One group in particular—social housing tenants—is under-protected. The Minister will know that under the 2024 Act, there is more transparency in their service charges, but they do not have anywhere near as strong a hand as others in seeking redress. Will he meet me following the forum so that I can relay to him the issues that my constituents, particularly the social housing tenants, are having?
Matthew Pennycook
I can feel the glare of my private office as I agree to meetings across the House, but I am happy to do so. The matters that the hon. Lady addresses are in the consultation we brought forward last year. It is an incredibly technical consultation on standardising and making more transparent service charges across the country, which are not uniform in any way as things stand. However, as I have said, we want to introduce those protections as soon as possible.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
Today, I think of one of the very first constituents I saw at one of my surgeries, who was trying to sell one of her leasehold properties just to help fund the care of her mother. Will the Minister take this opportunity to reassure my constituent that this Labour Government are on her side and are doing all they can to free her and others from what has become a nightmare?
Matthew Pennycook
I say to my hon. Friend that we are on his constituent’s side. It is because so many leaseholders across the country are suffering from unjust and discriminatory practices that we have to overhaul and ultimately end this feudal system.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Eastbourne’s leaseholders are being ripped off. The current leaseholder landscape has bred an industry of property management companies, such as FirstPort and Eagerstates, that prey on powerless leaseholders by charging eye-watering service charges, making opaque calculations of those charges and bullying residents into submission. In failing to cap service charges, and without the 2024 transparency rules in place, today’s reforms still leave thousands of local leaseholders unprotected. When will the Minister finally crack down on exploitative property management companies?
Matthew Pennycook
I have made it clear to the House that we have already set out proposals to strengthen the regulation of managing agents. Those proposals are not the summit of our ambitions; there is more to come. I say to the hon. Gentleman and generally to the House that managing agents will play an even more important role as we progress towards a commonhold future. We must therefore end the abuse and poor service from unscrupulous managing agents that so many leaseholders face.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his diligent work on this issue. I know that we all appreciate his expertise, as will my constituents in Walthamstow who are leaseholders with Clarion and who, in the last year, have seen their ground rents go up from £200 to £650 and now this year to £857, including an admin fee. What can the Minister say to reassure my constituents that there will not be loopholes in the cap and that we will ensure that all charges are included in the £250 limit?
Matthew Pennycook
It is certainly not our intention to allow any loopholes into the legislation. That is precisely why we have brought forward a draft Bill rather than a final product. Such is the complexity and technical nature of the reform we are enacting that the additional and enhanced scrutiny to be provided by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee will be invaluable.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I welcome the Minister’s announcement and I know that it will bring some joy, particularly with the further announcements he is going to make later in the Parliament, to many of the residents in my part of the west country. May I draw his attention to the housing with care sector? I am talking not about those gated communities that have a caretaker or somebody who cuts the grass, but about charities such as the St Monica Trust that provide some affordable rents and shared ownership but mostly provide leasehold purchase with a guaranteed buy-back and resale. This gives them a way of updating their contracts for residents and maintaining affordability. These organisations are really concerned that there will be an unnuanced ban on new leasehold care-led retirement living apartments. What consideration has the Minister given to the housing with care sector having some protection, and his attention?
Matthew Pennycook
The draft Bill, as published, includes exemptions that mirror the ground rent exemptions for new leases entered into since 30 July 2022, based on that previous Act of Parliament, but we will consider through the pre-legislative scrutiny process whether other exemptions would be appropriate for a small number of leases granted for specialist purposes. I can assure the hon. Member that I have given consideration, and will give further consideration, to the matter she raises.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Since I was elected, so many constituents have raised with me the absolute nightmare of being trapped in leasehold and fleecehold, so I wholeheartedly congratulate the Minister on the action he is announcing today, particularly on capping ground rent, ending leasehold flats and the transition to commonhold. On the transition to commonhold, previous Governments have attempted to make this easier. Will he say a bit more about what the Bill will do to ensure that this Government make the transition happen, rather than failing as previous Governments have done?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For various reasons, commonhold failed to take off after its introduction in 2004 and the legal framework is now hopelessly out of date. That is why we have to reform and reinvigorate commonhold as a tenure. We want to put in place an easier conversion mechanism. We have given a great amount of thought to the Law Commission’s recommendations in this area, and we have tried to strike the right balance to ensure that our approach meets those objectives, but my hon. Friend is more than welcome to contribute to the scrutiny process for the draft Bill outside the Select Committee, and I hope that the does so.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
In my constituency, managing agents are still imposing excessive service charges with very little transparency. Flats in retirement developments often will not sell, even at well below the market value, and families are left paying deceased relatives’ service charges. Restrictive lease terms ban rentals, trapping those families with empty, unsaleable homes. I note the Minister’s commitment to the consultation on service charges, but will he hurry up with the action?
Matthew Pennycook
I can assure the hon. Lady that we are going as fast as we possibly can, but I hope she would not want us to follow the example of the previous Government, who rushed forward legislation that contained serious specific flaws that a future Government—this Government—would have to fix in due course.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Today’s announcement is life-changing for many of my constituents, and this is why we elect Labour Governments. I want to ask the Minister about residents in leasehold complexes, where decisions are often delayed because of absent landlords and Airbnb owners. Will he ensure that when decisions are being made about the transfer to commonhold, those who do not respond do not hold up the decision to make the transfer?
Matthew Pennycook
I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the draft Bill will be life-changing for leaseholders across the country, freeing them from the unjust and discriminatory practices that so many of them face, and from the financial cost of high ground rent terms. I am more than happy to write to her on the specific issue she raises. It is these nuanced points that we want to work through, and that is why we have brought forward a draft Bill for enhanced scrutiny.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I welcome many of the Government’s announcements today. Across Twickenham, I hear regularly from leaseholders who suffer when service charges are jacked up without any notice or transparency, often for spurious maintenance issues. I note that the Minister has said that he does not want to cap service charges and that help will be on the way at some point, but he has refused to put a timeline on that. Why does he not use this Bill as a golden opportunity to bring forward Lord Best’s recommendations on having a property regulator that can look at this area in a nuanced and sensible way?
Matthew Pennycook
We have given serious consideration to how we will take forward Lord Best’s recommendations from his 2019 report and, as I have made clear, we are taking some of them forward already. This Bill introduces reform in a number of specific areas and, as I have said in response to previous questions, it does not need to do everything. There are other pieces of legislation, not least the 2024 Act, that do lots of the work that hon. Members are calling for, but we want to ensure that the whole agenda is a comprehensive one that benefits leaseholders in the way that the hon. Lady and I both want.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the Minister’s work, which I know will bring real relief to many of my constituents. However, leaseholders in the Riverside Exchange development are being blocked from securing their right to manage because of absentee leaseholders. This has left them trapped with eye-watering service charges, which have increased from £1,900 to £5,500. Can the Minister set out how the upcoming legislation will reform and reduce the minimum qualifying threshold for the right to manage, which is currently set at 50%?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend will be aware that there were very few provisions relating to the right to manage in the 2024 Act. We are committed to enacting the remaining Law Commission recommendations relating not only to the right to manage but to leasehold enfranchisement. I am more than happy to write to her to try to get at the specific issues she raises in relation to the building in her constituency.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
I too welcome the Minister’s statement today on leasehold reform, but I must press him and ask him what the Government’s plans are in respect of service and maintenance charges, so that I can provide at least some reassurance to my constituents.
Matthew Pennycook
Hopefully the hon. Gentleman heard my answer to a previous question. We intend to switch on the 2024 Act provisions that standardise service charges and increase transparency around them, so that people can more easily challenge unreasonable charges at tribunal. I will not put a time on that, because I do not have an exact date in mind, but I can assure him and other Members across the House that we are working as fast as possible to bring forward the necessary protections to ensure that leaseholders are protected from high and rising service charges.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I have heard from so many residents across Marton, Guisborough, Skelton, Hemlington Hall and elsewhere about issues with leasehold and fleecehold, so what message does the Minister have for my constituents that he will tackle both of those issues and protect my residents from unfair service charges?
Matthew Pennycook
As I have made clear, there are measures in this draft Bill that will provide enhanced protections for residential freeholders on freehold estates, but we are taking other action, and I refer him—as I have other hon. Members—to the two comprehensive consultations we launched before Christmas, one of which deals exclusively with switching on the consumer protections for those people living on freehold estates.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
My constituents trapped in fleecehold schemes—freeholders on privately managed estates—will still be exposed to escalating, unregulated service charges and have no way of ensuring that the work they are paying for is actually done. The Minister has talked about the consultation and promised that help is on the way, but can he promise protection from this exploitation for my constituents in this Parliament?
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome this statement and congratulate the Minister. Does he agree that strengthening and simplifying the route to commonhold will shift power away from distant freeholders and back to residents, and that for leaseholders in Birmingham Edgbaston, this will mean control over service charges, repairs and management for the first time?
Matthew Pennycook
Absolutely. Commonhold is a purpose-built tenure designed specifically for people to own and manage a shared building without a third-party landlord and without a ground rent. We want to see its uptake grow significantly over this Parliament, and that is what the measures in this draft Bill are designed to provide for.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his statement. It is indeed a joy to have some good news in the Chamber for everyone out there, and we welcome that. Thank you for that, Minister, and for the Government’s proposals. The Government have an interest in Northern Ireland, and while homeowners in Northern Ireland have the ability to buy out leaseholds under the Ground Rents Act (Northern Ireland) 2001, that Act does not provide for a cap on ground rent in its calculations. Will the Minister undertake to discuss these proposals with the devolved regions to enable a blanket costing to apply UK-wide at this time of austerity?
Matthew Pennycook
I always thank the hon. Member for his constructive contributions. As he knows, England and Wales can learn lots from Northern Ireland, but, as ever—particularly in relation to our reforms to housing and planning, as well as to leasehold—there are many things that Northern Ireland can learn from our reforms. I can give him the undertaking that the devolved Administrations will be kept up to date with what we are doing.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I am delighted that we are moving forward on capping ground rents and abolishing the feudal leasehold system. I have been supporting hundreds of residents across Exeter in fighting terrible practices by management companies, and I know that these measures will put money back into people’s pockets. Does the Minister agree that the age of the exploitative leasehold system—and the ripping off of residents—is finally over, and that it is thanks to a Labour Government?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are calling time on the abusive practices of unscrupulous property agents and on the leasehold system as a whole. That is down to a Labour Government finishing the job that the previous Government were unable to complete.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. It would be helpful if Members asked very short questions so that I can get them all in.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement; the measures will radically improve the system. He will be aware that over 170,000 houses in my constituency have had their freeholds purchased by Andrew Milne, who is now demanding that residents pay sums sometimes exceeding £25,000 to buy out the freeholds, and is threatening forfeiture and High Court action if they do not pay up. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to ending forfeiture, but will he set out what additional steps that Government are taking to regulate rogue freeholders?
Matthew Pennycook
I will be careful in what I say in respect of that particular case, but a meeting with my hon. Friend and other Sheffield MPs was postponed because this legislation was being brought forward. I will ensure that that meeting goes back in the diary as soon as possible.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
Today’s news is welcome for leaseholders in my constituency, whose ground rents—often of £400 or £500—escalate throughout their leases. The measures will save them thousands of pounds throughout their leases. In my time as an MP, I have been shocked by the behaviour of managing agents. There is strong support in this place and the other place for Lord Best’s recommendation for a proper regulator of managing agents. Will the Minister outline what steps will be taken, and what the timeline is, for action on managing agents?
Matthew Pennycook
We are clear that we need to strengthen the regulation of managing agents. I appreciate the strength of feeling, across the House, on the matter. As I have made clear, we will continue to reflect on the various recommendations made in Lord Best’s 2019 report, and I am more than happy to engage with my hon. Friend on his private Member’s Bill, which I know deals with some of these matters.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, which demonstrates how Labour stands up for people against vested interests—my constituents will thank him for it. On the ongoing problems with unadopted estates, which I have been raising with him since before my election, I would be extremely grateful if he agreed to visit my constituency to see the difficulties that homeowners face.
Matthew Pennycook
I think that I have already committed to ensuring that a visit to her constituency is on the very long list of requests that I have received, but I will bear her request in mind.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
I commend the Minister for bringing forward these brilliant measures to protect leaseholders. Constituents across Hampton own the freehold to their homes but pay several levels of service charge—first, to managing agents such as FirstPort, which is supposed to be responsible for unadopted roads, and secondly, to Hampton Estates, which covers lots of the public open space, parks and drainage. As part of our reforms, how will the Government ensure that multi-level service charges like those are addressed, particularly in areas for which they were never supposed to be adopted?
Matthew Pennycook
Again, I refer my hon. Friend to the two comprehensive consultations that we launched before Christmas. We need to establish the new regulatory framework to provide consumer protections for residential freeholders on freehold estates. We are also consulting on how to reduce the prevalence of such private management arrangements, which are at the core of so many of the unjust practices that residential freeholders face.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I have heard too many horror stories from leaseholders in Bournemouth West. One constituent, Jeremy Green, described feeling like a second-class citizen subject to the total autocratic control of his freeholder landlord and its managing agent. Will the Minister assure me that this Labour Government are getting on with reform and giving leaseholders the protections and dignity that they deserve?
Matthew Pennycook
Given their experience of the leasehold system, it is completely understandable that Jeremy and other leaseholders across the country feel that the dream of home ownership has fallen so short. That is why we have to end the system in its entirety. This draft Bill goes a long way towards ensuring that we do just that.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
This package of measures will transform the lives of thousands of my constituents. On fleecehold, residents in Forge Wood are paying thousands of pounds for services that other constituents receive for free. Can the Minister confirm that he will act as quickly as possible following the end of the consultation?
Matthew Pennycook
We want to act as quickly as possible, particularly to bring in the new consumer protections provided for by the 2024 Act.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the statement and the progress that it represents, and I put on record my thanks to the National Leasehold Campaign, which has spent many years campaigning tirelessly on behalf of existing leaseholders, who have been trapped in an unfair and archaic system. For the benefit of Warrington South leaseholders who are trying to understand the 40-year peppercorn cap, will the Minister explain how the 40-year cap was arrived at and whether there is any scope for the transition to be brought forward so that relief is felt sooner?
Matthew Pennycook
I echo my hon. Friend’s remarks about the NLC. I also thank others, such as the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, Sir Peter Bottomley, who has now left this place, and other champions, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who has stood up for leaseholders so vocally over many years. The rationale for the ground rent approach that we have chosen is set out in a policy paper that we published this morning. The Select Committee will be able to scrutinise the draft Bill and provide suggestions—that is the whole point of the pre-legislative scrutiny process.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I welcome the statement and the Minister’s great work. Leaseholders and freeholders across my constituency, in places like Greenhithe, Ebbsfleet and Stone, will hugely welcome the cap on ground rents and the rest of the detail on the draft Bill. May I impress on the Minister the need for us to go further on supporting those who live on unadopted or freehold estates, and to address poor practices by managing agents?
Matthew Pennycook
I am acutely aware of the strength of feeling on freehold estates. It cannot be an either/or when it comes to ensuring that residential freeholders and leaseholders get the rights and protections that they need. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are taking concerted action on both fronts.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
This is an historic day for leaseholders, many of whom were let down by a lack of action from the previous Government, which left them on the hook for exploitative levels of ground rent. One 90-year-old constituent of mine was hit with a 9,000% increase in his ground rent—that cannot be right. I am really glad that the Minister has shown such leadership to ensure that we put that right today. I know he agree that we need to go further on unadopted estates, too, so will he meet me to ensure that we bring those protections forward as swiftly and effectively as possible?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend has been an incredible champion for residential freeholders and leaseholders in his constituency. It is precisely because of ground rent increases of that scale that we are imposing, via this draft Bill, a maximum cash cap. I am more than happy to meet him to discuss the draft Bill and related matters.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
I declare that I am a leaseholder. Correspondence from leaseholders in my constituency, which makes up a lot of my inbox, mentions poor service, rising charges and homes that they can no longer remortgage or sell, causing financial difficulty. They will very much welcome today’s announcement, but will the Minister reassure them that the Government will rise to all the challenges that they face, swing the balance of power back towards homeowners, and tackle the real problem of service charges, through which leaseholders are being fleeced for poor-quality services that are often not even delivered?
Matthew Pennycook
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. His constituency is just over the river from mine, and is, in many ways, very similar. Day in, day out he will receive, as I do, complaints about service charge increases and onerous ground rent terms. That is precisely why we are taking action, in this Bill and elsewhere, to provide the kind of relief that he seeks for leaseholders. As I said, over the course of this Parliament we will end the system for good.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
Since my election I have worked to support leaseholders across my constituency, meeting residents at Maple Court, Budenberg and St James Court. When I surveyed local leaseholders on what they needed from the Government, the most common response was a reduction of the unfair charges that they face. Does today’s announcement not show that we finally have a Government who are listening to leaseholders and putting money back in their pockets?
Matthew Pennycook
That is absolutely right. In this area and so many others, the cost of living and addressing the affordability crisis faced by so many families across the country is the Government’s driving mission. For leaseholders, the reforms in the draft Bill will be transformative, particularly on ground rents, and will also introduce other protections.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his genuinely groundbreaking statement. It feels like a little while ago that he visited Ipswich to talk to local people about the building safety crisis and leasehold. He was a shadow Minister and I was a parliamentary candidate at the time. Now we are capping ground rents, making it easier to move to commonhold, and scrapping leasehold for all new builds. Is this a case of a Labour Government keeping their promises and making a real change for many people up and down the country?
Matthew Pennycook
That is absolutely right, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we have given consideration to building safety remediation in the design of this legislation. I should make it clear that freeholders’ obligations to ensure that their buildings are safe are not related, for example, to the right to collect ground rents. Many buildings already operate a peppercorn ground rent, and they are subject to the same legal obligations as other buildings. We do not want to see the impact that some in the country may be concerned about.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
My constituents in Hartlepool are facing outrageous estate management charges, including a 49% increase in the administration fee by management company Sela just this year on the Marine Point and Longbranch Homes estates, as well as ongoing charges by Praxis on the Wynyard Mews estate. We have heard that time and again from Members today. When will we switch on the protections of the 2024 Act, and give the powers necessary for homeowners to challenge unfair charges, hold estate management companies to account and prevent families from being unfairly burdened?
Matthew Pennycook
I simply say to my hon. Friend: as soon as possible. Through these new consumer protections, we are bringing into force a regulatory framework that takes some time to get right, but I want those protections in place as soon as possible, so that we can provide protection to his constituents and others across the country who are suffering from the set-up that he describes.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Yet again, we have the wonders of hindsight from the Conservative party. In the immortal words of Beverley Knight, “‘Shoulda woulda coulda’ means I’m out of time”, and the Tories certainly were. I thank my constituents, including Rob from Heath Hayes and Daniel and Rebecca from Brereton, who have written to me to stress the need for these reforms. Like them, I very much welcome the draft Bill. Given that these proposals will not only reform a feudal system but cap ground rents at £250, does the Minister agree that this is another way in which this Government are putting money back into the pockets of families struggling with the cost of living?
Matthew Pennycook
I do not want to be too critical of the Conservative Government, because they did bring forward the 2024 Act, and they did move the dial when it comes to the public conversation about things like ground rents. But ultimately, they did not finish the job, and it will fall to a Labour Government to do so.
Business Rates
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
This Government want the best for Britain’s high streets. We know how central they are to the strength and vibrancy of our villages, towns and cities. We know how hard small business owners work, and we know how badly they were let down by the previous Government; shops were shuttered, council funding was cut, and business rates were left totally unreformed. We will not let decline continue, and we are already taking steps to arrest it.
We are protecting high street businesses from upward-only rent review clauses, and we are introducing a strong new community right to buy to help communities safeguard valued community assets, such as pubs and shops on their high streets. We are pushing ahead with high street rental auctions, which are helping to bring long-term empty shops back into use. Where premises have been vacant for too long, councils can auction the right to rent them; they can offer one to five-year leases to new businesses and community groups, helping to create more vibrant high streets. We also launched the winter of action to combat retail crime, a nationwide crackdown on crime and antisocial behaviour to protect shoppers and retail workers.
As well as that, we are investing in local communities through the £5 billion Pride in Place programme announced last September, and we are investing to support growth, including through the new local growth fund. Around one in three businesses continue to benefit from small business rates relief and do not pay any business rates at all, and 85,000 benefit from reduced business rates as this relief tapers. At the Budget, we extended the small business rates relief second property grace period for another two years, which is a really important change; it means that businesses expanding into a second property will retain the support as they grow.
We know that there is more to do. Before I turn to today’s announcements, I want to run through the three main components of the changes to business rates that are taking place in April for all businesses, and to explain the steps that the Government took at the Budget last year on business rates. The first change is the underlying, significant reforms to the system that the Chancellor set out as part of our commitment to transform business rates in England over this Parliament. We have implemented permanently lower multipliers for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties; the multiplier will fall by around 12p or 25% on 1 April. Some of this is a result of the overall reduction in multipliers between revaluation periods, but the further 5p reduction announced by the Chancellor is, on its own, worth nearly £1 billion for the 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure businesses that are the lifeblood of our high streets.
We are paying for this support for the high street through higher rates on the top 1% most expensive properties. That includes many large distribution warehouses, such as those used by online retail giants. Let us be crystal clear: before our reforms, a mid-sized high street business faced the same multiplier or tax rate as a warehouse used by an online giant—that was the system we were left with. Now, the mid-sized high street business will pay around 38p in the pound, and the large warehouse will pay around 51p in the pound. That is 33% more. This is a sizeable reform, and it is here for good.
The second component of business rates announced at the Budget was the revaluation. All non-domestic properties are revalued independently every three years for business rates purposes. New valuations will come into effect in April. I thank the independent valuers in the Valuation Office Agency who carry out the work. The Government did not take the easy approach of kicking the post-covid revaluation into the long grass. Instead, we introduced a significant transitional support package, because we knew that some sectors were seeing large increases in their rateable values after the pandemic. We are capping bill increases in each of the next three years for those with the largest rises, and we are spending a total of £4.3 billion on that and other interventions.
The Government recognise that the rateable value of hotels has increased significantly since the pandemic, so our caps on increases are particularly important for them, but it is right that we look at this further. We will therefore review the way that hotels are valued, to ensure that it accurately reflects the market for this sector.
The third important context is the tapering away of the temporary pandemic relief for high street businesses. The previous Government went into the election with plans to withdraw that relief overnight in 2025. That would have been a harsh and sharp removal of support, pushing up bills for independent high street businesses overnight by 300%. That is reckless and irresponsible. Instead, we have taken a different approach. We extended the retail, hospitality and leisure relief this year—it is set at 40%—and we are unwinding it over the coming years. The jumping-off point for any business currently receiving a 40% discount is their current bill, not their bill without relief.
The Budget decisions led to the following outcomes. First, for over half of ratepayers, bills will be flat or will fall next year. Secondly, of the properties whose bills will increase from 1 April, most will see their increases capped at 15% or less, or at £800 for the smallest. Thirdly, bills will adjust to new valuations, but because of our caps, this will happen gradually, and high street businesses will benefit from permanently reduced multipliers for the long term. That is a fair and reasonable approach. As set out at the Budget, in total we are spending over £4 billion in the next three years to limit the scale of bill increases for those who are either losing reliefs or seeing their rateable values increase.
In the coming financial year, because of our interventions, the business rates system will raise the same amount of revenue as it was forecast to raise in spring 2025, before the Budget—not billions and billions more, as Opposition Members seek to claim. The forecast is more or less the same. That is the shape of the policy that we set out in the Budget. I hope you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I wanted to set that out in full, because business rates are rather complicated.
This Government want to go further to support pubs. Pubs are the cornerstone of so many communities, and they are essential to the social and cultural life of so many places across the country. I have heard clearly from Government Members just how important pubs are. I thank colleagues who have engaged constructively and privately with me on this issue in recent weeks. Whether they represent constituencies in coastal or rural communities, towns or cities, their representations have been invaluable. Their constituents should know that most of the politics that they see in the papers is not what matters; it is the conversations and the advocacy of MPs in the corridors of this place that can make the difference. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) has been a relentless advocate for businesses in his constituency, as have my hon. Friends the Members for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), and for Redditch (Chris Bloore). I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for her engagement on this issue, in her role as chair of the all-party group on pubs.
For too long, under the Conservatives, pubs have not had the support they needed. Opposition Members claim to care about pubs, but where were they when the number of pubs fell by 7,000 between 2010 and 2024? They were in government, and they let the number of pubs in our communities fall by a fifth. The Conservatives also allowed the revaluation to go ahead with a business rates methodology for pubs that no longer has the support of the sector. Before the Budget, every pub sector body was broadly signed up to the methodology used for valuing pubs, and lent its support to the principles set out in the Valuation Office Agency’s guide. Since the Budget, the same sector bodies have withdrawn their support. The Government acknowledge their concerns and will therefore carry out a review of the pub valuation methodology. The review will report in time to be implemented at the next revaluation.
While that review is ongoing, and given the challenges that pubs faced over the long term under the previous Government, we are stepping in to provide support for pubs in the next three years. Today, I confirm that, from April, every pub in England will get 15% off its new business rates bill, on top of the support announced in the Budget. Pubs’ bills will then be frozen in real terms for a further two years. That support is worth £1,650 to the average pub next year. It will mean that around three quarters of pubs will see their bills either fall or stay the same next year. This decision—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I say very gently to the Minister that it was always open to him to ask for extra time, but we cannot find any record of him having done so. He has already got to 10 minutes, and he seems to have three more pages, so I will allow the Opposition spokespersons more time as well. This is an important statement, and I think that the hon. Member wants to finish, but it is very unfair to exceed the time by what I reckon will be 50%.
Dan Tomlinson
Let me apologise profusely for not letting you know in advance, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the first time I have done one of these statements, and I will not make the same mistake again. I am glad that the same courtesy will be afforded to the shadow Chancellor, and I look forward to hearing a full 15 minutes of remarks from him. I am sure that they will be entertaining for us all. [Interruption.] I will make progress now, and we will hear more from the shadow Chancellor.
This decision will mean that the amount of business rates paid by the pub sector as a whole will be lower in 2028-29 than it is today. This is Independent Venue Week, so it is particularly appropriate that our package will apply also to music venues. Many live music venues are valued as pubs, and many pubs are grassroots live music venues. It would not be right to seek to draw the line in a way that includes some and not others, and I thank MPs who have made constructive representations on this issue in recent weeks. In the meantime, we are pressing ahead with wider regulatory reforms, building on the new licensing policy framework in the Budget, and we are working with the sector to ensure that local authorities are using that to ease licensing decisions on the ground. As part of our ongoing licensing reforms, for home nation games in the later stages of the men’s football world cup this summer, pubs and other licensed venues will be able to open until 1 am or 2 am, depending on when the game starts. We will legislate to increase the number of temporary events notices for pubs and other hospitality venues, whether to help them screen world cup games, or for other community and cultural events.
This Government are committed to helping pubs build sustainable business models over the long term. In the spring we will consult on further loosening planning rules to benefit pubs, helping them to add new guest rooms or expand their main room without planning applications. We will also continue to engage with the sector to ensure that other retail leisure and hospitality premises have planning flexibility—
Mr Speaker
Order. This is not acceptable. I have to be quite honest, because the other Front Benchers need time to respond. When a statement is meant to take 10 minutes, that is meant to be 10 minutes. If Ministers tell me otherwise in advance, I am willing to work with them, but they cannot just carry on speaking. Minister, I take it that you are now coming to the last page of the statement, not the middle pages—[Interruption.] No, I want you to bring it to an end, and quickly.
Dan Tomlinson
May I apologise, Mr Speaker, for not letting you know in advance that the statement would be running over 10 minutes?
Mr Speaker
Can I just ask, gently, have you not been advised that this is meant to be 10 minutes? Departments have people who are meant to advise Ministers on how long they have got. How on earth have you got a speech that is longer? It could be 20 minutes. It is unfair to the Members present, and there is other business. Please, this House should be shown the respect it deserves, and unfortunately we are not getting it. I am here to protect Members, not allow Ministers to take advantage.
Dan Tomlinson
Mr Speaker, I will wrap up very quickly, and I apologise again.
This Government also understand that things are not easy out there. Today’s announcement is about additional support for pubs, but we understand that this is a tough time for other businesses on the high street. We have already taken significant steps to acknowledge that and support businesses, including £4.3 billion of business rates support in the Budget. Over the past decade, consumers have changed their habits and are increasingly working from home and shopping online, and these trends continue to make it harder for high street businesses. I am therefore announcing today that later this year the Government will bring forward a high streets strategy to reinvigorate our communities. We will work with businesses and representative bodies to bring that strategy together. It will be a cross-Government strategy, and we will be looking at what more the Government can do to support our high streets.
To conclude, this Government have already started the work of reforming our business rates system, and any potential changes to business rates will be considered at the Budget in the usual way. Labour Members have the right economic plan for Britain and will back our high streets and our pubs every step of the way.
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
Mr Speaker, I think the mood of the House is that 10 minutes from the hon. Gentleman is more than enough, although I am grateful to him for having given me advance sight of his statement.
Mr Speaker
You can have some extra time, if you need it, and the same applies to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sir Mel Stride
That is much appreciated, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker, was that it? After all this time, and weeks of telling our local pubs that help was on the way, this is all they get—a temporary sticking plaster that will only delay the pain for a few, while thousands of businesses despair as their bills skyrocket. The Labour party manifesto promised to completely replace the business rates system. Labour Members said that they would create a system that levels the playing field for our high streets and supports entrepreneurship and investment. Well, we are waiting.
So far, what we have seen is the exact opposite of what our local businesses were promised, with business rates soaring across the board. Despite the temporary relief announced today, pubs will still end up, in time, with bills more than 70% higher than they are today. The Federation of Small Businesses has calculated that the business rates of a typical medium-sized shop or restaurant with a rateable value of around £50,000 will increase by 71% over the coming years. For hotels, it will be over 100%.
Ministers expect those businesses to be grateful for some temporary relief, tweaks to multipliers and changes to licensing, but the Conservatives have been clear: support must be permanent. We have to cut business rates for our high streets to give certainty to local businesses. Measures must be far wider than those that the Government have announced today, applying not just to pubs but to the whole of the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, which bring life to our high streets and town centres. We would not just introduce temporary reductions in rates, but completely abolish business rates for thousands of pubs, shops and restaurants across our country.
These huge tax rises introduced by this Government are a choice, but it does not have to be this way. The Government have chosen to increase spending by vast amounts, including on the benefits bill, with a benefits giveaway of over £3 billion at the Budget to abolish the two-child cap. These choices are why bills are going up, businesses are going under, jobs are being lost and our high streets are being hollowed out.
Let us not forget that this is not an isolated issue. Businesses are having to shoulder not just business rates rises, but a long list of other burdens that are being piled on by a Government who simply do not understand how businesses work. Many of those facing the highest increases in their business rates were among the worst impacted by the Chancellor’s jobs tax. They have already seen their business rates go up by as much as 140% last year, and they face yet more costs and red tape from the Government’s employment rights legislation. Analysis by UKHospitality suggests that, on average, as many as six hospitality venues could close every single day this year. That is a tragedy for our high streets and our communities. It is also a tragedy for our young people, many of whom look for their first job in the local pub or coffee shop, and who will find those jobs simply do not exist any more.
I ask the Minister, where is the help for the wider retail, hospitality and leisure sectors? Does what has been announced today include gastropubs, pubs with hotel rooms, bars, nightclubs and private clubs? Why are the Government happy to stand by and watch while businesses close and jobs are lost? When will the guidance be published for businesses, so that they know whether they will be eligible for this further relief and what their bills will be over the coming year? Why did Ministers not come forward with this relief for pubs at the time of the Budget, when they knew the level of increases that many businesses were facing? No new information has been provided between the Budget being announced and this statement. Can the Minister confirm that because this relief was not accounted for at the Budget, today’s announcements will need to be paid for through yet more borrowing?
The Government have proved today that either they do not understand the damage that they are doing or they do not care. Today’s announcement is far too little, far too late.
Mr Speaker
I appreciate that, but when Madam Deputy Speaker is in the Chair, I expect her to be given the same respect, so that when she says that time is up, you do accept that ruling. She felt that you were not stopping in time. I do not want to get into it now, but I will be speaking to the Chief Whip later.
Dan Tomlinson
It is just not credible for the shadow Chancellor to say that he would scrap business rates. What did the Conservatives do over the 14 years that they were in power? They kept business rates in place, they did not reform the system and, year after year, they introduced temporary reliefs that did not work or last. Some 7,000 pubs closed under their watch, in communities up and down the country, and they expect this House to believe that they were just getting around to it. Well, we do not believe that and we will not stand for it. Instead, this Labour Government will get on with the work of ensuring that we can get our public finances in order, getting borrowing down and continuing to support businesses, as far as we reasonably can, with our £4.3 billion of support.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the guidance. That guidance will be published today—I hope it has been published already, but if not it will come very soon. Bills will be landing in the inboxes and on the doormats of businesses across the country in the coming weeks, and will reflect the changes that have been announced today. Yes, this will be scored in the usual way at the Budget. He talks about borrowing, but his plans to scrap business rates entirely, funded by made-up savings in other parts of public spending, would mean an increase in borrowing of £30 billion or so, which we could not afford.
The Labour Government have set out significant plans today to support pubs and those businesses that are the heart of our high streets that have been affected by the particular way that they are valued. As I said in my statement, pub business rates valuations are not the same as those for the rest of hospitality: pubs are valued on their takings, whereas other hospitality businesses are valued on their bricks and mortar. Industry bodies have highlighted concerns about how the costs are accounted for in this methodology. The Government want to look at that more closely, which is why we are launching the review and have come forward with this significant package of support for pubs today.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the support for music venues as well as pubs in my constituency. I also welcome the Minister’s engagement and willingness to speak to the Select Committee and to be questioned by us. I am sure, Mr Speaker, you would agree that it would increase the Minister’s favour in your eyes were he to do that with dispatch and not leave it for too many weeks, so I thank the Minister for his engagement on that.
On the wider issues of business rates, changes have been announced, but will the Minister outline the timeframe within which we will see a significant change? It was a Labour manifesto commitment to change business rates, but it will take time because of the valuation procedure. Does he propose to change that wholesale, and in what timeframe? Businesses of all types, including pubs, need certainty most of all, so that they know the trajectory in good time and can plan.
Dan Tomlinson
The review of the methodology for pubs that we have announced today will be conducted as rapidly as possible, and I hope that it will conclude this year. We also want to look closely at the methodology used to value hotels, which is similar but not quite the same as that used for pubs. I am sure we will get into that in Committee in due course. We want to ensure that those reviews about the changes to the methodology conclude in good time for the next revaluation, which is set to come into operation in 2029. My hon. Friend asks about the Government’s ambition to rebalance the system. As I outlined, last year’s Budget introduced a significant rebalancing, with the largest businesses having a tax rate multiplier that is 33% higher than that of typical businesses on the high street. I look forward to continuing to engage with hon. Members and businesses on business rates in the run up to the Budget in the usual way.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
If the Government are serious about saving the high street, then these measures can only be the start. Since the Government’s first Budget, we Liberal Democrats have been warning that high streets were at risk if the Government did not make the various changes that they have made over the past 18 months.
A number of questions arise from today’s statement. There are 11 pubs in my constituency, not all of which could be described as large, that have a rateable value of more than £100,000 because of the ridiculous valuation system, and they will still see their rates bills go up. There will be such pubs across the country, but is it correct that they will get only half of the percentage relief? Pubs can already have 50 temporary event notices a year, so extending that is simply a soundbite solution without a problem.
I am glad that the Government are looking at hotels, but what is the timeframe? The Samuel Ryder hotel in my constituency tells me that its bill is going up by 157% in the first year alone, and it will not be the only such hotel. Will the new formula for hotels be in place in April, or will they be left in limbo?
The statement still offers nothing for the rest of the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors—the restaurants, soft play centres and high street shops that made business, investment and hiring decisions based on the expectation of the full 20p discount. I welcome the announcement of a high street strategy, which we Liberal Democrats will engage constructively with, but will the Minister start now by heeding our calls to direct the Competition and Markets Authority to look at the energy market, which is blocking hospitality businesses and other sectors from getting the best energy deals? Will he also look at our fully funded proposal to slash VAT until April 2027, to give our high streets a boost?
Over the past few weeks and months, getting answers and data from the Government has been like getting blood from a stone. Just 90 minutes ago, I asked the Minister if he would tell us what he knew and when; he said he would, but he has not.
Finally, on the methodology for pubs, the use of fair maintainable trade—turnover—has long had its day, but may I urge the Minister to allow for parliamentary scrutiny? None of the current legislation relating to pubs or business rates allows for any scrutiny in this House or the other place. I asked the Government about the valuation methodology back in July 2024; it was one of my first written questions after the general election, but it has taken 18 months for the Government to listen. Will they please allow this House to scrutinise their plans so that we can get a long-term fix to save our pubs?
Dan Tomlinson
The 15% reduction will apply to all pubs. As the hon. Member knows, there are different caps for pubs depending on their size, but if bills had been frozen, no bill would have fallen next year. Instead, because we have decided to apply the 15% reduction, around 75% of pubs will see their bills either stay the same or fall. I acknowledge what she says about the very largest pubs, but we will still significantly reduce the increase that they would have expected this year. Their bills will then be frozen in full in years two and three of the period before the revaluation review—I am glad that the hon. Member is able to welcome that review. Its results will be implemented for future revaluations.
The hon. Member mentioned temporary event notices. We are trying to implement the recommendations of the licensing review, which was carried out in conjunction with pubs and other businesses in the sector, so although she may think that changes such as these do not touch the sides or make a difference, pubs themselves told us that—in addition to ensuring that we could support them in the right way fiscally—such changes would be welcome. I hope that pubs that are able to make use of them will do so.
The hon. Member also asked about the 20p multiplier. She is right that we legislated for a reduction of up to 20p, but we have to see these things in the balance. The decision to reduce the multiplier by 5p came with a £900 million price tag; reducing it by the full 20p would cost significantly more. Taken in the round, our package of support has a lower tax rate within the system—a lower multiplier—but also steps in with caps to support businesses if they are experiencing increases in their values or having to adjust to the slow unwinding of the pandemic relief.
The hon. Member asked about VAT. All I will say—she will expect this—is that when the Liberal Democrats had the chance in government, they put VAT up; now, they seem to be calling for it to go down.
Finally, on the question of what I knew and when, as the VOA set out, Ministers were provided with details of the increases in the valuations. However, at that time, we did not foresee—I did not foresee—that after the changes in the rateable values that were published at the Budget, pubs and their representative bodies would want to withdraw their support for the independently and previously agreed methodology. Given that and the Government’s judgment that there are issues, to which the hon. Member has referred, we thought it was right to pause, review the methodology and ensure that it is fit for the future for pubs and hotels.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We will run this statement to about 3.15 pm, so we can all help each other. Jim Dickson is going to be a good example.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. The pubs in my constituency, from the Growler Stop and Ivy Leaf in Dartford to the Bull in Stone and the Spring River in Ebbsfleet, are the heart of our community. Does the Minister agree that it is crucial that we find ways to protect them as places for people to come together and build communities, and that the package he has announced today—with its 15% reduction on the revalued bill and protection for the next three years—makes a big contribution to that goal?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and for his engagement on this matter on behalf of the businesses in his constituency. We are making a significant intervention for pubs because we understand the concerns that have been raised about the methodology. As we have heard from my hon. Friend, pubs play a central role in his community in Dartford, as they do elsewhere, and they are important to the health, life and vibrancy of high streets, towns and villages in constituencies across the country.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Putting up a sticker saying “No Labour MPs welcome here” is obviously a successful strategy if you want to get a change from the Treasury. However, what we have ended up with will lead to real complications on our high streets, because a pub that is helped by today’s announcement will be next door to a restaurant that serves alcohol and occasionally has music, which in turn will be next door to a music venue. Businesses on the high street will now be treated in a range of different ways, so why has the Minister chosen to single out pubs and music venues?
Dan Tomlinson
There is a significant overlap between the pub sector and live music venues. Many pubs serve as grassroots live music venues, with the result that they are often valued in a similar way for business rates purposes. We did not think it would be right to draw the line so tightly that some music venues, which happened to be valued as pubs, received the relief and others did not. We think this is a fair and reasonable way forward that reflects the reality on the ground.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for this statement—it is welcome news, and many of the pubs in my constituency will welcome it. I received an email from the general manager of the Hampton by Hilton London Waterloo, who outlined that its business rates bill would increase by £296,000 next year and rise to £399,000 by year four. They want additional support, not just for the hospitality sector but for hotels. As the Minister knows, hotels contribute a lot to the local economy—they employ local people, their supply chain is local, and they house many of the people who come to visit our pubs, restaurants and other venues. Many of the hotels in my constituency house many MPs as well. Would the Minister be happy to visit one of those hotels along the south bank and have a discussion with its staff?
Dan Tomlinson
As a London MP, I do not get the joy of staying in a hotel in my hon. Friend’s constituency—instead, I get the joy of the Northern line on the route home. She asks an important question about hotels, which are valued in a different way from some other sectors. Their methodology is well established, but as with pubs, specific concerns have been raised, and the Government think it is right to review how hotels are valued for business rates purposes to ensure their valuations accurately reflect the market for those sectors. I intend to engage with hotel businesses and their representative groups on this important issue. Any future changes to business rates for hotels or other businesses will be considered in the usual way as part of the usual Budget processes.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Can I respectfully remind the Minister that when Jonathan Russell from the Valuation Office Agency came before the Select Committee, he was very clear that the impact of the rate rises was made known to the Treasury before the Budget? The VOA provided data drops over 12 months, which did not detail the rates for individual properties, but provided a clear overview at a central level and revealed that 5,000 pubs would see their rates double. It is just not credible for the Minister to say that the Treasury did not know what was going to happen, is it? It had a very clear view of the impact of the changes that it was imposing.
Dan Tomlinson
We were aware of the changes to rateable values that were going to be published at the Budget, which is why we came forward with a significant package of support to help businesses adjust to their new values. For example, yesterday, Waterstones came out to express its support for our changes to business rates, because the lower multipliers that we have put into the system will support its business. Businesses across the country are benefiting from those lower multipliers. As I have said, more than half are seeing their bills either flat or falling. We have also put in place significant transitional relief support, with caps this year, next year and the year after. That is because we were aware of the effect of the changes to valuation, although I was not aware of what would happen subsequently with the pubs and their views. I have engaged with them on the methodology, and because of that we are launching this review. We think it is right to look carefully at that methodology.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
Last Friday, I met Laura at the Malt in Aston-on-Trent. She started as a pot washer, went to university, worked the whole way through and is now a tenanted landlady. She shared the amount of hours she works, and she will welcome the review of the business rates methodology, not least because she feels that she works all the hours God sends and she was due to have to pay a lot more. Will the Treasury look at a couple of key bits of feedback that she gave me? One is about prices for alcohol in supermarkets. She could have longer licensing hours, but she cannot compete with people staying at home drinking. The other was about a cardboard tax. She has to pay for packaging for brewery deliveries, but she also has to pay local councils to pick up the packaging, so she would welcome something where the breweries reuse existing crates.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for her engagement on behalf of the businesses in her constituency. She raises some interesting issues on tax, regulation and licensing when it comes to pubs and hospitality. I do not want to pre-empt the work of the high street strategy, which will be a cross-Government effort with the Home Office, the Department for Business and Trade, the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Treasury working together, but we want to hear about these things from businesses on the ground. I look forward to engaging with Members of Parliament from all parties as we work on the strategy in the coming months.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
This is a baby step in the right direction, but the hospitality, tourism and retail industry in Torbay continues to trade in a hostile environment. One leisure provider in Paignton shared with me that they have a £44,000 gas bill. Will the Minister share what the Government are doing to tackle these high energy prices that many suffer from?
Dan Tomlinson
That is a very good question, and it allows us to reflect on the fact that back in 2009, Nick Clegg, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, said that we did not need to invest in nuclear power, because it would not come online until the mid-2020s. We are in the mid-2020s now, and we would have benefited from long-term investments in clean and green power, driving down energy bills for consumers and for businesses across the country. We are now taking the long-term steps needed to invest in our energy security and bring bills down. That is incredibly important, and I hope that the steps we have taken on business rates and tax can be welcomed and that businesses in the hon. Member’s constituency and across the country can engage through the various sector bodies with the high street strategy that I have announced.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
I am sure that pubs and venues, such as the Alhambra in Morecambe, will welcome today’s announcement. The Minister might be aware of my letter to the Chancellor on the wider hospitality sector. On the high street, we know that consumer demand has changed, so businesses must change, too. Will the Minister tell me how the strategy will work with businesses and their representatives, such as the Morecambe business improvement district or Sedbergh economic partnership, to pivot businesses to meet the new market reality?
Dan Tomlinson
We are keen to hear from businesses, large and small, about what more the Government can do to support high streets. We want to engage on lots of issues affecting high streets, including planning, licensing and crime, and the direct investment that we can make in our communities. There is a lot to do, because we had 14 years under the Conservatives where our high streets were in decay and shops were shutting. We had 7,000 pubs closing and businesses struggling across the country. We know that there is work to do, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and other Members on it.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
After all the briefing in the newspapers, we were all hopeful of something more significant, but we have a somewhat flaccid statement from the Minister. The statement not only totally ignores the fact that some pubs are having to deal with a threefold increase in business rates, but it does nothing to help high street retailers. Will the Minister be coming back to the House to make another U-turn to help our high street retailers?
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
The support package for pubs is welcome news. The Whitegate Inn in Chadderton saw its value increase from £194,000 to £330,000, and the Halfway House in Royton went from £20,000 to £57,000. The Minister knows that the pressures being felt by pubs are felt by the whole of hospitality. For instance, the Egyptian Room food hall in Oldham will jump from £142,000 to £175,000. It is all part of the same ecosystem. The Government could and should have included that wider package in the announcement today, but I urge the Treasury, even at the second attempt, to get it right and have a wider support package for the whole of hospitality.
Dan Tomlinson
We have implemented a wider support package for businesses across the country as a result of the changes to valuations coming in from 1 April, which unwind the valuations that were last looked at during the pandemic. Some 56% of properties will see their bills fall or stay the same in April. The easy thing to do would have been to kick the revaluation into the long grass and bury our head in the sand, but we wanted to make sure that businesses, particularly those that have seen their valuations fall, got the benefit of having up-to-date values post pandemic. Then, because we were aware of the changes coming down the track, we stepped in with £4.3 billion of support. It means that our net revenue from business rates this year will be broadly the same as was forecast before the Budget.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
My constituency has a diverse and varied hospitality sector that supports lots of different communities, including those who do not go to pubs, such as parents of young children, people who do not drink, faith groups and—dare I say—people who do not want to watch the football. They have different needs. They want to go to cafés and to soft play centres. Why are the Government focusing this relief just on pubs? Can they not come up with a package that provides better business rates relief for those businesses that will still be struggling with the rates hike?
Dan Tomlinson
The hon. Member may not wish to watch the football, and that is fine—that is her decision—but she will be interested to know that we are consulting on whether we can extend the power over longer licensing hours to other events. She will have to let me know if there are other events that she would like to go and watch in a pub, and that can be part of the consultation.
I have already answered the specific question that the hon. Member raises in a way, but I am happy to repeat myself. It is the case that pubs are valued differently than other sectors on the high street. It is also the case that they have suffered in the past 14 years, with 7,000 pubs closing and significant pressures. More broadly, we have put in a package of support, as I have outlined already.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I know that many of the businesses in the Walthamstow beer mile that are also music venues, as well as our brilliant Rose and Crown pub and the Wood Street Bear, will welcome what the Minister has said today, and rightly so, because pubs are important. I must take issue, however, with his metric that pubs are somehow the only cornerstone of community life in this country. I join colleagues in asking for further support for the hospitality industry, in particular those small independent venues, such as cafés, community centres and soft play centres. I am sure he does not want to be the Minister responsible for sending toddlers into pubs because the other places that their parents might take them to during the day have closed down. That would not be in anybody’s interest. May I make a plea for him to revisit his exclusion of these smaller, independent chains from the hospitality relief that he is talking about?
Dan Tomlinson
I would not want to be the Minister who caused that to happen. My hon. Friend has made a very good point, and, as the parent of a young child, I can say how much I value soft play, even though it is rather exhausting at times.
I have set out the specific reasons why we have taken this approach to pubs and live music venues, and I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomes that for the businesses in her constituency. More broadly, the Government did come forward with £4.3 billion of support, most of which is coming this year, and we will of course continue to engage with businesses and with parliamentarians on this important issue in the run-up to future Budgets.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I am not sure whether the Minister has volunteered yet for “Strictly Come Dancing”. Today, from the Government of U-turns, we have seen a half turn or a reverse turn or a pivot, as it is known in ballroom dancing circles.
The Minister will recall that I invited him to join me on a pub crawl in Shropshire. So far he has not responded, and perhaps he should not respond, because for many pubs in Shropshire his statement was too little, too late, and they have already decided to close their doors. The independent pub chains have to make investment decisions, and they have put those off. As for the wider business review, may I appeal to the Minister—on behalf of the leisure sector, the retail sector and the hospitality sector—for the timetable to be brought forward from 2029 so that people can plan for their business futures?
Dan Tomlinson
The hon. Gentleman has asked about timing. We have announced this decision today in time for new bills to be issued from 1 April that reflect the changes the Government have proposed, because we have listened and because we have carried out that engagement in recent weeks. I am not sure that I will take the hon. Gentleman up on his offer of a pub crawl just yet, but I hope he will be able to welcome the support we have provided for the pubs that he raised with me in questions earlier this year.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his positive engagement and his willingness to listen. It has made a big difference. His announcement will be a big relief to pubs throughout my constituency, and it shows that the Government are on their side. However, he has rightly recognised the need for more fundamental reform, so I welcome the announcement of the pub and hotel valuation methodology reviews and the high street strategy. Does he agree that this is an opportunity to think further about how the business rates system, and indeed the tax system as a whole, could be used to actively incentivise entrepreneurs to start and grow businesses and create jobs in the places where our communities need them most?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for his persistent and powerful engagement on these matters. He is an expert on all things high street and business rates, as I have come to know. Let me point him to the transforming business rates work that the Government have been publishing and advancing. One possibility that we are considering carefully and talking to businesses about is changing the business rates system from a slab system to a slice system. At present, if a business goes over an individual threshold, the new tax rate will then apply to the whole value of its property. Reform is always tricky, but we want to investigate whether changing to a slice system, whereby the tax rate would not involve those big stepped increases, would support investment by businesses on high streets in Rossendale and Darwen and across the country.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
William Robinson is the managing director of Robinsons Brewery, on my patch. His is the sixth generation running a brewer, a bottler and more than 250 pubs, inns and hotels across the north-west and north Wales, as well as an important bottling plant in Bredbury. William has written to tell me that the present system is destroying confidence, businesses and future investment, and therefore jobs. Does the Minister accept that repeated changes such as moving from the removal of reliefs to this package, including frozen bills and a temporary 15% discount, have created huge uncertainty and anxiety for pubs as they are making important investment and staffing decisions?
Dan Tomlinson
There is a big picture that we need to move to with business rates: making sure that, permanently, we have differential treatment for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses and those with higher value, particularly the large online warehouses that are causing the economic rebalancing that we do not really want to see and that is harming our high streets. The Government set out the reforms in the Budget in respect of the 5p reduction in the multiplier. As I have explained to Members, that is a transfer of nearly £1 billion in tax away from the high street—less tax—towards the larger online giants. I want to continue to engage on all tax matters that affect the high street in the run-up to the next Budget, and decisions will, of course, be made in the usual way.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I welcome the changes that the Minister is introducing for pubs and music venues. Can he assure me that the changes for music venues will apply to Sheffield arena, which currently, under the proposal, is being treated like an Amazon warehouse? Will he also look at an issue I wrote to him about? Handsworth Junior Sporting Club, a small local voluntary sports club in my constituency, is faced with a 60% increase in business rates. Surely that cannot be right. It needs to be looked at again.
Dan Tomlinson
As I have said, some live music venues are valued in a similar way to pubs, and will therefore be included in the relief. We think it fairest to provide the same level of relief to all music venues. The detail will be set out for the business in his constituency and others to see in the guidance, which I hope, if it has not already been published, will be published at some point today.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
It does not say “English Business Rates” up there on the annunciator, so I assume the Minister can confirm that the budget—the departmental expenditure limit—for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will increase with the new money, which will mean Barnett consequentials for the devolved nations. What will the quantum of that be, and when will it be delivered?
Dan Tomlinson
The Barnett consequentials of this decision will be set out in the usual way and through the usual process.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and I give my personal thanks to the Members on both sides of the House who have been advocating very strongly with him, including my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch (Chris Bloore), for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley). I also thank the businesses and, in particular, the pubs in my constituency: the Anchor at Walberswick, the Froize Inn, Deben Inns, and many, many more. I welcome today’s announcement, but we can do more and go further, including in the strategy, to look at lowering VAT for hospitality and lowering the alcohol duty, which could perhaps be offset by a higher alcohol duty in supermarkets.
Dan Tomlinson
This year, we are three years on from the changes in alcohol duty that the last Government implemented. I am not sure whether they adopted the same policy position, but we made it clear that it would be reviewed after three years. As part of that usual process, we will be reviewing the reforms that were made in 2023. If my hon. Friend or other Members want to write to me about changes that they think should be made, I will, of course, be happy to receive that correspondence.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Labour’s response to high street struggles is a strategy later this year to look at
“what more the Government can do to support our high streets.”
Well, I will save them the trouble. They should adopt the Conservatives’ plan, and scrap business rates on those high streets.
Dan Tomlinson
I am not sure what the question was, but the Government have set out a plan that is fair and reasonable and does not engage with the fantasy economics that Opposition Members keep peddling. They still have Liz Truss in their party, and it shows, because instead of having a sensible business rates policy that is affordable and works for the long term, they have made-up spending cuts and pretend that they could afford to abolish a tax altogether. We know that that will not work. We know that they will not deliver it, not least because they had 14 years to make changes of that magnitude and never even bothered.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on music, in Independent Venue Week, I thank the Minister for extending the support to music venues. Will it include multi-use venues such as the City Varieties music hall in my constituency, where I attended the Holocaust memorial event on Sunday, and the Howard Assembly Room? Has the Minister considered the impact on music studios, which are also a core part of our creative industries?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the announcements made today. Because I do not know those specific independent venues, it would not be right for me to comment here, but he is welcome to check the guidance and to encourage the venues to check it online. We have made it clear that our policy intent is for pubs and music venues to be covered by these changes.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Many business representatives who met me after the Budget, including Shaun who runs Lanes hotel, will welcome the decision to review the way in which hotels are valued, but their biggest concern is about staying afloat today. A review will not make a difference to the bills that business owners such as Shaun are facing right now. What help will the Government offer rural hotels that are fighting to stay afloat, and does the Minister recognise the uncertainty that all this flip-flopping is creating for the hospitality sector?
Dan Tomlinson
We have set out a package of support for hotels and all other businesses. It is worth around £2 billion this year and £4 billion over the next three years. If there are hotels in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency that are facing significant increases in their rateable values this year, the increases in their bills will potentially be many multiples lower, because bill increases are capped at either £800 for small businesses or at 15% or 30% for the largest. It is really important that we distinguish—I am not saying that he is not doing so, because I am not sure of the detail—between the change in rateable values and the change in bills. That is important, and it sometimes gets lost in this discussion.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
I welcome the engagement from the Minister and today’s fantastic announcement, and invite him to come and have a pint at the Dolphin in my constituency, where I used to pull pints. Just down the road is William Cowley, a business that has been in my constituency since 1870. It produces the vellum on which much of the history of this nation has been written, including royal weddings, births and deaths; royal patents; freedoms of the city; and many Acts of Parliament. It is worried about its viability going forward, particularly after the revaluation of business rates. Will the Minister agree to meet me to have a discussion about how we can better support heritage businesses going forward?
Dan Tomlinson
One of my favourite things to do is to meet my hon. Friend to discuss a whole range of matters, so I will happily discuss this issue with him too. We have been in correspondence on this business already, so I hope that he passed on the messages from me about the need to check that there is a difference between the increase in the RV—the rateable value—and the increase in business rates bills. I hope to be in one of the fastest-growing cities in the country before long.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
This U-turn delivers some much-needed temporary relief for a lot of pubs, but it does not deliver the permanently lower bills that the Prime Minister promised. It also does nothing at all for the other hospitality firms in our constituencies—the cafés, restaurants, clubs and guest houses that are facing crippling rate rises because of this Government’s choices. Mr Speaker, is it not a sign of the incompetence of this Government that they cannot even get their U-turns right?
Dan Tomlinson
I do not think that was a question for me. It was a question for you, Mr Speaker.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I note that Reform Members have already made it to the pub ahead of the statement, perhaps to celebrate the latest defection from the Conservative party, but I thank the Minister for today’s statement. Since I got elected last year, I have been running a campaign to open up our empty shops in Gloucester and show that we are open for business. May I ask him to expedite the high street strategy to make sure that we are capitalising on the fantastic opportunities in my city to turbocharge regional growth in my area and make sure that everyone can be proud of their high street?
Dan Tomlinson
I really look forward to working with my hon. Friend on important matters such as the high street strategy, and I hope that he has been in conversation with his local authority and businesses about some of the other measures that the Government are introducing and the issues that are important to him. High street rental auctions have real potential to be powerful in forcing shops that are being left vacant back into use. The introduction of the community right to buy should also be an effective change, and I hope that we will be able to see it implemented in his constituency and across the country.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Can the Minister understand, from the point of view of a small independent retailer, that the way that this announcement has been done—with the package coming forward late in the day—has led to a perception of unfairness? I was contacted by one owner, who pointed out that her bills have gone up by over £500 a month. She compares herself with Harrods and Selfridges, whose bills have gone down. Although she is pleased that local pubs and hospitality have got some help, her business sits alongside them and is part of the same community. What does the Minister have to say to that independent retailer, who is part of the backbone of our economy? When is the help coming for her business?
Dan Tomlinson
I do not know the details of that individual business owner and by how much her rateable value has increased, but we have implemented the permanently lower multipliers. They are now 33% lower than the tax rate that is paid by the online giants. That is a big change to the system that this Government have delivered, and which previous Governments ducked time and again. We have implemented our transitional relief caps this year, capping increases at £800 or at 15% or 30% for the largest businesses. We will continue to engage with businesses on what more we can do on a whole range of issues.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Of course this package of support for pubs and music venues is most welcome, and I know it will be welcomed in Hartlepool, but I have been contacted by numerous businesses, including the Marine hotel in Seaton Carew, whose business rates will basically double this year. Hartlepool is a town of entrepreneurs and innovators, but they cannot afford that. Will the Minister look again at the wider support package that we could put in place for hospitality?
Dan Tomlinson
I would be happy to have a further conversation with my hon. Friend about this issue. It is really important that no hotel will see its business rates bill go up by 100% this year. It may be that the Marine hotel has seen a really significant increase in its rateable value, and we will review the methodology because of the large increases. We are aware of those, and we want to work on this issue with the hotel industry. It sounds like the business is probably one of the larger ones, so its increase will be capped at 30%. If it is a smaller business, the increase may be capped at 15%. That is the difference that this Government are making. If it is a business receiving RHL relief, it would have had that relief removed overnight under the previous Government, with a 300% increase in rateable values for businesses in 2025.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
If the Minister were to visit my constituency and come with me to the George Inn in Barton-upon-Humber, we would go inside and he would immediately recognise it as a typical English pub, yet it is also a hotel—the last hotel in the town. Could the Minister reassure the proprietor at the George? Will he receive early relief, or will he have to wait for yet another review?
Dan Tomlinson
The definition of “pubs” that is used for the changes that have been announced today is the same one that was used when the previous Government implemented a relief. I believe that that was in 2017, so it is a long-standing definition. I encourage the hon. Member to find that on the gov.uk website and send it to the relevant business. I do not know the precise details of the pub that he mentions, but we are sticking with the long-standing definition.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
We in Peterborough are fond of a pint, so I thank the Minister and his team for their engagement today and in the months leading up to this decision. We are also proud of our independent beer festival, and we are home to Oakham Ales. Can the Minister reassure us that as he looks at the strategy for the high street and the rules on business rates, he will have due regard to the needs of the community sector—both the pubs that are going into community ownership, and the small businesses and others that provide communities on our high streets?
Dan Tomlinson
That is a really important point. There are many independent pubs up and down the country, as well as bigger chain pubs, and it is right that the support that the Government are bringing forward will support both. Around 75%—definitely above 70%—of independents and chains will receive support this year, ensuring that their bills are either flat or falling. We want to make sure that we are protecting both the independents and the chains.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome the statement. It is a pity that it does not include hotels and restaurants, because the hospitality sector in Northern Ireland is under massive pressure due to taxes and the regulations that have been imposed. The Minister has confirmed that this will be new money and therefore there will be a Barnett consequential. Can he indicate how much that will be? More importantly, can he ensure that the Sinn Féin Finance Minister spends the money for the purpose that was intended, rather than spending it for other purposes, which he has done in the past?
Dan Tomlinson
It is not for me to tell the devolved Administrations how to spend their money, but if the right hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will be happy to write back to him with the details of the consequentials following the decision set out today.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on hospitality and tourism, I thank the Minister for his constant engagement with me since the Budget, because I have been able to raise concerns directly with him from the industry, UKHospitality and others. This statement will be welcome for many pubs in Blackpool, including our small music venues, such as the Bootleg. You may want to visit it sometime, Mr Speaker, and I hope you get well soon. We know that the hospitality sector has been struggling. It is on life support after a decade of neglect from the previous Government, and it needs more support. Will the Minister continue to engage with me, the APPG and UKHospitality on what the high street strategy can do, so that we get it right this time?
Dan Tomlinson
My hon. Friend is a powerful and strong advocate both for the businesses in his constituency and for the hospitality sector more broadly. I thank him for our conversations; I think we spoke before Christmas as well as in recent weeks. I will of course continue to engage with him and the hospitality sector on tax issues, as is typical for a Tax Minister in the run-up to a Budget, but I also want to talk more about the broader support the Government can provide, working across Departments, as part of the high street strategy we have announced today.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
This is another U-turn that does not go far enough, because as a result of the choices made by Labour, energy bills are up, taxes are up and confidence is down. That is corrosive, and it is having a particularly corrosive effect on cafés, restaurants, hotels and small retail outlets. Will the Minister announce broader support for those businesses to alleviate the pressure of business rates or, better still, scrap them once and for all?
Dan Tomlinson
Over and over again, Conservative Members profess to be paragons of fiscal virtue, yet stand up in this place and say they want to cut taxation, which in effect means more and more borrowing. We have in the past seen the problems caused by Conservative Governments who let borrowing run out of control, cause interest rates to surge for families in our constituencies, send our economy to the dogs and harm living standards. We will not stand for that—we will not make the mistakes they made—and we will come forward with proportionate changes that support businesses, but that make sure we can continue to keep our public finances on a sustainable path.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
York is a difficult place in which to trade, and with two thirds of businesses being independents, many will not get the relief the Minister has announced today. I sent through a paper with a spreadsheet of every business in the business improvement district showing that this just is not meeting their needs of those businesses, which will close. Will the Minister look at that detail, and ensure that resilience and support are built in, because York has a very strong retail reputation, but it is about to be challenged unless more help comes its way?
Dan Tomlinson
I am always happy to look at and respond to the correspondence I receive from hon. Members. I am aware of the issue my hon. Friend raises, which she has been consistently raising in this House. We came forward at the Budget with a significant package of support, and many small and independent businesses are small enough not to pay business rates because we have the small business rates relief in place, and we are extending that relief to support businesses that could extend to a second premises.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I declare an interest in that my husband works for an independent wine merchant.
Today’s news will be very welcome for the many pubs in North Shropshire that have been pushed to the brink over recent years by national insurance contributions increases, high energy bills and now business rates. However, this will not help shops or hotels such as the lovely Pen-y-Dyffryn in my constituency, the rateable value of which has nearly quadrupled. Will the Minister outline the timeline for his review of hotels in particular, and what other help can be given to retail and hospitality businesses?
Dan Tomlinson
We want to work with the hotel sector on the review I have announced today. We will make sure it reports in time to be implemented by the Valuation Office Agency by the date of the next revaluation. For hotels at the very far end of the distribution of changes in rateable value—with an increase that large, I believe the one the hon. Member mentioned is—that is precisely why we have implemented the support we have. If it is worth less than £100,000, its increase will be capped at 15% this year; if it is worth more, its increase will be capped at 30%. We are aware that that is still an increase, but it is significantly less than it would have been if we had not stepped in to provide that support.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
It is understandable that covid-era business rates support needs to come to an end, and the 15% cap on increases for most hospitality businesses is a really important protection. I particularly welcome the Government’s acknowledgment of the central role that pubs—such as the Paddock in Chaddesden, the White Swan in Littleover and so many more across Derby—play in our communities. Will the Government continue to listen to and work with pubs, so that we can ensure they have certainty for the long term?
Dan Tomlinson
Yes, we will continue to work with pubs, because we do value them. I want to be clear, however, that we value all of the businesses on the high street. We value our hospitality businesses, our retail businesses and those that work in leisure and soft play, which I believe was mentioned earlier. All the different businesses that provide life and vibrancy on our high streets are important. I have set out the particular challenges of the rateable value methodology for pubs and the big challenges they have faced over the last 14 years, with 7,000 closing, but we want to make sure we continue to do all we can to support high streets in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
Dozens of small businesses across Ceredigion and north Pembrokeshire will have listened to the Minister’s statement with interest. Could he please reassure me that the consequential funding that he has confirmed will go to Welsh Government will be determined and communicated in time—by 1 April—to allow the Welsh Government to allocate additional support to those small businesses?
Dan Tomlinson
I am sure that the consequentials and their implications will be set out as soon as is practically possible.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
As I think you know, Mr Speaker, Exeter and Devon have some of the finest pubs, independent breweries and live music venues in the country. I thank Exeter Brewery and the Exeter Phoenix arts venue for their representations to me on these issues. I am pleased that, on top of the support in the Budget, pubs will get an additional 15% off, and that will apply to music venues as well, which is very welcome. Does the Minister agree with me that the £4.3 billion of support in the Budget, and the support today, stand in stark contrast to the record of 7,000 pubs closing under the previous Government?
Dan Tomlinson
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. What happened in the past is in stark contrast to the reform of our business rates system under our Government. We have set out long-term differences in the multipliers—also known as the tax rates—faced by high-street businesses and those faced by the online giants and the largest businesses. Typical businesses on his high street will have a significantly lower tax rate than that faced by the largest online warehouses. I understand that bills may still increase because of the winding down of pandemic relief and the increase in rateable values, but that underlying reform of the system is there, and it is there for good.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Tom Duxberry has run Marney’s village inn, a brilliant and much-loved local in Weston Green, for 17 years. Its rateable value is set to rise from £20,000 to £50,000—a 175% increase—and he is facing rent rises; inflation on beer, wine products and energy; and customers with less money in their pocket. Did the Government not see his plight right from the get-go, and what more help can they give him with all those pressures?
Dan Tomlinson
Because of the interventions announced today, the total business rates bill for pubs will fall over the coming years. As the hon. Member mentions, we are giving individual pubs a 15% reduction on their new bills, and then a real-terms freeze for the next two years. That is a significant intervention because of the significant challenges that pubs have faced—7,000 pubs have closed—and the issues with their RV methodology.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome this really significant additional support for pubs and music venues, on top of the £4.3 billion given to the wider sector at the Budget. I thank the Minister for all the conversations that he has had with me over the last few weeks, and I also thank Dan and Ness from the Greyhound, who have engaged so positively and constructively with me. It is fair to say that the business rates rebound inherited from the previous Government led to a mixed picture across Ipswich, but the Greyhound was particularly unfortunate. Could the Minister lay out his thinking behind the review of this process?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy on behalf of the pubs and businesses in his constituency. Concerns have been raised about the methodology. We have looked into that in recent weeks, and we think it is right to review it. That review will take place in the coming months. It will definitely report in time for the new revaluation, so that we can have a long-term, sustainable methodology for pubs, making sure that they are valued in the right way for the long term, from 2029 onwards.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
The Minister’s statement will certainly be welcomed by many pub owners who have written to me in recent weeks, anxious about rising costs, but what about the rest of the high street? Small businesses are the heartbeat of Blackburn and the engine of our country. Already battered by online shopping and rising costs, they are being squeezed from every direction. Why are the Government making it harder for Blackburn’s independent shops to survive, instead of delivering the permanent cuts that our town centres need to flourish?
Dan Tomlinson
Around one in three businesses will continue to benefit from small business rates relief, and so will pay nothing at all. As for independent shops that are above the threshold and in the business rates system, many just above the threshold will be on the taper, and others will benefit from the support that was set out at the Budget.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
I welcome support for pubs in Britain’s beer capital of Burton and Uttoxeter. I thank the Minister for his continued engagement with me on this issue; I know that we will continue to speak about measures that could be included in the future, such as draught relief. The Minister will remember that I stressed the importance of hospitality more widely, and of breathing life into our high streets, so I welcome the high-street strategy announcement. How can businesses feed directly into it, so that we hear from those affected?
Dan Tomlinson
My hon. Friend is a proud and strong champion of the businesses in his constituency—the brewers, pubs and all those in the hospitality industry. I am sure that businesses in his patch would do well to feed in via him, as he is such a good representative.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
There are many fine pubs in the South Cotswolds, such as the Old George Inn in South Cerney and the Rattlebone Inn in Sherston. For many of our small rural communities, these are the only freely available spaces where people—faith leaders and football fans alike—can meet, yet many pubs are really struggling. Although I welcome today’s statement, £1,650 per pub is better than a poke in the eye, but not by much. Would the Minister be kind enough to meet me to discuss how his Department could further support the pubs of the South Cotswolds? Given today’s run-ins with the Chair, I suggest the Trouble House near Tetbury as a suitable venue.
Dan Tomlinson
I hope that I will be out of trouble before too long. We will double the hospitality support fund, providing £10 million of funding over the next three years. That fund aims to help more than 1,000 pubs diversify their business model, improve efficiency and productivity in the sector, and support people who are furthest from the labour market in moving into jobs in hospitality.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I welcome the 15% off business rates for pubs in Sunderland. As we are a music city—live music is core to our identity and regeneration—I particularly welcome the steps that the Minister has announced for live music venues, and his engagement with me and the Music Venue Trust. Could he say a little bit about the methodology for music venues? I know that he will look at the pub methodology, but would he consider discussing the future methodology for music venues? We could perhaps do that at a gig at Independent, or over a pint at the Ship Isis afterwards.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for his representations on behalf of businesses in his constituency. The Government are clear that we will look at the pub and hotel methodologies specifically. I would be happy to have a conversation with him about issues for other sectors, but the Government will focus on pubs and hotels. However, I would be happy to meet, to see if I can make it up to his constituency.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Unfortunately, the Sinn Féin Finance Minister in Northern Ireland has not got the memo on the need to support our hospitality sector, and is pressing on with a rates revaluation that will see a hotel in my constituency experience a 267% rate rise. Will the Minister commit to sharing this Government’s hard learning about rates, and will he go further and reduce the VAT rate for hospitality as well?
Dan Tomlinson
The hon. Member is right that each devolved Government have full control over the structure and level of business rates in their part of the country. They set a business rates policy, retain all the revenues generated, and determine how they are spent.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
When we had an urgent question on business rates last week, I raised the issue of grassroots music venues, so I am pleased that the Minister confirmed today that there will be 15% off business rates for pubs and grassroots music venues. As he seeks to build on the permanently lower multipliers and the excess of £4 billion of support in the Budget with his high street strategy, can I encourage him to keep music and cultural venues front and centre of his thinking? The UK music industry generates more than £8 billion for the UK economy, and these venues are a platform for future talent.
Dan Tomlinson
I will continue to keep those important cultural and social assets in mind as we work on our policy for supporting businesses across the country.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The Minister talks about the definition of a pub. In the village of Hurstpierpoint in my constituency, Morley’s Bistro has a very similar product offering to food-led pubs on the same high street. They are competing for the same customers, and they are, ideally, all employing young people and giving them their first job. How does the Minister justify this?
Dan Tomlinson
We are, in the usual way, using long-standing definitions set out in business rates guidance to define pubs, and similar venues to which the relief will apply.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
I thank Gary at the Marcia Inn in Bishopthorpe and Adam at the Wenlock Arms in Wheldrake for meeting me to discuss support for pubs. The Tories created a ticking time bomb on business rates, then walked away, like someone who spilled a pint and left us to mop it up. Does the Minister agree that this Government are determined to back legendary landlords in Britain, like Gary and Adam?
Dan Tomlinson
Very much so. We want to support legendary landlords. I have my own in my constituency, and I look forward to having a pint with them this weekend to discuss the changes that the Government have made.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
When it comes to business rates, the Government have delivered a masterclass in giving with one hand and taking with the other, leaving pubs and hospitality businesses worse off, but businesses cannot be fooled. They are on top of their numbers, even if the Government are not. Will the Government consider again the Liberal Democrat proposal for an emergency 5% cut in VAT for hospitality, and can he give an answer that does not resort to political point scoring?
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Yesterday, I visited the Beach Hut, a fantastic independent indoor play venue in my home village of Norton Canes. The owner, Joanne, told me how passionate she and her staff are, but they face particularly acute pressures; they have a relatively large footprint, and therefore higher business rates, but have to keep fees low for families. Indoor play faces a perfect storm of increasing costs, but it offers so much to children and their parents. As the Minister will be working on the high street strategy, will he meet me, people from Cannock Chase venues, and the Association of Indoor Play to discuss what support could be provided to the sector?
Dan Tomlinson
I would be happy to discuss that matter with my hon. Friend. Indoor play is a really valuable and growing part of our economy, but there are challenges. With more free childcare, it may be that fewer people are going in during the day, and I know that many indoor play centres have seen increases in their rateable values. We set out our proposals on business rates at the Budget to support these businesses with significant caps this year, next year and the year after.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
When I visited The Play Shed in Yate last year, the reduction in retail, hospitality and leisure relief was already costing it £12,000, even before the more recent changes. This package is welcome for pubs and music venues, but what will the Government do to help other leisure businesses in my constituency that are struggling with business rates?
Dan Tomlinson
We have changed the tax rates, the multipliers, within the system so that a typical high street business may now pay 38p in the pound and an online retail giant may pay 51p in the pound on their rateable values. That is a significant underlying reform to the tax system that is here for good.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Business rates are complicated, and this new methodology particularly so. Businesses were always going to be in touch with MPs, and in our democracy we were going to talk it through with the Government to get to a better place. Today’s announcement shows that our democracy works and that representation works. I thank the hospitality sector business owners in Bournemouth East who have constructively engaged with me to get to that better place. We also, in this House, need to put party politics aside and recognise that business owners put their hearts and souls, and their blood, sweat and tears, into building something better. We all need to commit to doing something better on their behalf. Will the Minister continue to engage with me, on behalf of all hospitality, so that we can get the very best deal for them, and not just now but for the future?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement, persistence and advocacy on behalf of the businesses in his constituency. I know that he has had many conversations with businesses in his constituency, and he has been able to feed them directly to me as the Minister with responsibility for tax. I am sure that we will continue to have such conversations in the months and years to come.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
The change in business rates for pubs will be welcomed by the Winchester Arms in Trull in my constituency, but a family hotel contacted me yesterday and the combined impact of Government changes in the Budget will, they expect, as they look to the year ahead, lead to a £250,000 loss next year. Will the Minister meet me, Somerset MPs and hoteliers to discuss how hotels can be helped through the reforms he is proposing?
Dan Tomlinson
Because of the concerns around the methodology to value hotels, today we have announced that we will review that methodology so that, in time for the next revaluation, hotels can have a methodology that more appropriately works for their sector. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that hotels have seen some of the largest increases in their rateable values. Therefore, they will be some of the biggest beneficiaries from the caps we have put into the system this year.
Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the marketing, sale, and supply of electrically assisted pedal cycles that fall outside the class of electrically assisted pedal cycles prescribed under the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983 and of equipment capable of converting a pedal cycle into a such a vehicle; and for connected purposes.
The Bill is without doubt a mouthful, and it may seem technical and dry, but at its core it is about safety, clarity and responsibility. It is about protecting pedestrians, other road users, lawful cyclists, constituents and our communities from vehicles that look like bikes but behave like motorbikes. It is about stopping the sale of illegal e-bikes and the kits that turn ordinary, everyday pedal bikes into illegal monster bikes.
E-bikes, when they conform to the law, are a force for good. They mean cleaner journeys, better public health and less congestion. By law, e-bike motors should have a maximum continuous power output of 250 W and should cut out when the bike reaches 15.5 mph. Going faster than that is perfectly permissible without a motor. Indeed, I am told that for some people it is entirely possible—a fact that I am sure I will see at first hand when the Tour de France travels through my constituency next summer. But those speeds, as those athletes will demonstrate, will be reached without motorised assistance.
The sad reality, as Members know, is that right now, as I speak, there are illegal e-bikes on the streets of our constituencies that are reaching dangerously high speeds. Those e-bikes and the conversion kits used to create them are being sold with batteries capable of reaching speeds far beyond 15.5 mph. A bike seized and tested earlier this month in my constituency of Carlisle found that the bike was capable of 37 mph. Another e-bike seized in my constituency was found to have a battery capable of achieving 56 mph. Nationally, police have seized e-bikes capable of 70 mph.
These are not minor issues. These are illegal vehicles that can, and do, kill. Last year, in Australia, a pedestrian was killed after he was struck by an illegally modified e-bike. Last October, a 60-year-old woman was killed in New York by an e-bike capable of travelling at 30 mph. Last summer, in Greater Manchester, a 70-year-old woman was left in a coma and with life-changing injuries after being hit by an e-bike advertised with a top speed of 47 mph, and in 2024 an 86-year-old man from Lancashire was hit and killed by an illegal e-bike. We cannot continue to let this happen.
These, frankly, are illegal, unregistered, untaxed monster bikes without MOTs. These bikes have become a menace not just on the streets of Carlisle, but in communities across the UK. Their speed and lack of traceability makes them the perfect accomplice in robbery, phone theft and drug dealing. Our local neighbourhood police teams have done a good job of seizing and crushing these illegal machines, but they are fighting a losing battle. Cumbria’s police, fire and crime commissioner, David Allen, who is in the Public Gallery today, believes that the time has come to stop the problem at the source by banning the sale of these illegal e-bikes and the conversion kits that create them. I agree, which is why I am introducing the Bill.
Online marketplaces and overseas suppliers sell high-powered e-bikes and conversion kits with minimal checks, scant safety information and no clear liability. Too often, buyers assume that a product is legal because the website does not say otherwise. We already accept that some dangerous items simply must not be sold to the public. We ban the retail sale of flick knives because they are capable of killing and causing serious injury; we restrict the sale of F4 fireworks to those who are trained to use them safely; and we ban the use, import and supply of asbestos-containing materials, because they can kill. Those bans are about removing from the market products that are known to harm and kill. Monster e-bikes harm and kill.
The Bill is targeted and proportionate. It would continue to allow the sale and enjoyment of legal e-bikes, but it would shut down the sale and marketing of illegal monster bikes and the kits used to create them. It would give regulators and the police powers to seize and destroy non-compliant bikes and conversion kits at the point of sale, and it would create clear offences and penalties for retailers of illegal products. Cutting off the sale and marketing of illegal e-bikes would remove dangerous products before they reach our streets.
The Bill recognises that enforcement must be paired with support. It would give trading standards bodies, the police and other regulators targeted powers to act against sellers and online marketplaces. It would require clear consumer information so that buyers are not misled into thinking that high-powered machines are road legal. It would also help riders who rely on e-bikes for work to continue to access safe, legal e-bikes.
The Bill is a practical, evidence-led measure that is intended to reduce the harm we see in our communities, protect the vulnerable and make our streets safer. As I have set out, it draws on the same logic that led Parliament to ban the sale of other dangerous items. It must be the case that when a product is capable of killing or causing injury, and its sale cannot be reasonably regulated, it simply should not be sold. Let us be clear: lawful, safe e-bikes are part of our future. What the Bill would do it introduce measured, necessary steps to make our streets safer, to protect our constituents, and to stop the sale of monster e-bikes. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Ms Julie Minns, Luke Akehurst, Liam Byrne, Anna Dixon, Tim Farron, Fabian Hamilton, Tom Hayes, Alex McIntyre, Jim Shannon and Bradley Thomas present the Bill.
Ms Julie Minns accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February, and to be printed (Bill 372).
Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill (Allocation of Time)
Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I begin by thanking the Leader of the House, the Chief Whip, their counterparts in the other place, colleagues in my Department and in the NHS, the Bill team and parliamentary counsel, who have moved mountains to prepare this Bill in double-quick time. I once again place on the record my sincere thanks to my counterparts in the Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—as well as the respective Secretaries of State for those nations—for the spirit in which, regardless of party, they have helped us to bring the Bill forward. Last but by no means least, I am enormously grateful to Jackie Baillie, Labour’s deputy leader in Holyrood, for her wise counsel.
The NHS is on the road to recovery, not least because of the herculean efforts and dedication of NHS leaders and frontline staff who, even in the depths of winter, are delivering outstanding episodes of care, hour after hour and day after day. Among the encouraging signs of year-on-year improvement are waiting lists falling at their fastest rate in three years—down more than 300,000 under Labour—and quicker ambulance response times, shorter waits in A&E and speedier cancer diagnoses for more people. December was the busiest month in NHS history for 999 calls, but despite that, and regardless of industrial action and winter pressures, ambulances arrived at heart attack and stroke patients nearly 15 minutes faster compared with last year.
The progress we are seeing is a reminder that nothing positive for the people who use the NHS ever happens without the people who work in our NHS. Our investment and modernisation are starting to restore confidence and renew belief among frontline staff; with that, hope, optimism and ambition are returning too. That is why, outside of the pandemic, staff retention is at its highest in a decade and vacancies are at their lowest since records began in 2017. There is lots done, but, as we know, there is so much more to do.
I will always be honest about the state of our national health service—what is going well and where we need to improve. There is no sugar coating the fact that staff morale is still too low, and the way that some of our NHS workforce is still treated and the conditions in which too many of them still work are nothing short of a national disgrace. Not only is it a stain on our NHS, but it shames us as a country when those who care for us in our hour of need suffer bullying, harassment and racist abuse; have nowhere to rest, go to the toilet or get changed; cannot get a hot meal on a night shift; have limited flexible working options; must book holiday a year in advance; need to log in seven times just to use a PC; spend time form-filling rather than looking after patients; and face basic errors with pay and contracts. Before Christmas, I had a doctor in my constituency advice surgery in tears as she described the way she had been treated by a previous employer. This is no way to treat the people who kept us going when everything else stopped, so we are taking action.
Trusts are now implementing the 10-point plan for resident doctors and my Department, together with NHS England, is developing new staff standards to create better working practices and better conditions.
We have awarded above-inflation pay rises to everyone working in the NHS for this year and last year, which is beginning to recover the pay erosions seen under the last Government. We have begun 2026 with constructive talks with the British Medical Association’s resident doctors committee, as we seek to broker industrial peace. I have also told NHS leaders that they need to step up when it comes to the conditions that their staff face. They cannot expect the Secretary of State to micromanage availability of hot food in their canteen, for example.
However, there are workforce problems that only Government can solve. We have known for years that the treatment of resident doctors is often totally unacceptable and that the very real fears about their futures are wholly justified. Every time I have met a resident doctor, either formally or informally, they have told me without fail how their careers are blocked because there are far too many applicants for training places. Not only do I think that they have a legitimate grievance, but I agree with them.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Secretary of State is essentially talking about postgraduate training. I wonder what thought he has given to new clause 2 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). I have spoken to students who worked really hard all the way through medical school to get the best exam results and perform highly but then ended up in an allocation system that pays no attention whatsoever to that. Merit has been entirely removed from the system. I think it was wrong for us to make that change. Does he have any sympathy for returning to a merit-based system?
Wes Streeting
I certainly do have sympathy with that argument. We have begun to move the system in the right direction in terms of giving applicants greater preference in placements, but it is not lost on me that the system of rotations, placements and jobs means doctors are moved around the country and families are uprooted. The frictional cost of relocating from one place to another is a challenge that resident doctors in particular face. I do not think that an amendment to the Bill is the right vehicle in which to address that issue, but I am sympathetic to the arguments that the hon. Member makes, and I am sure he will make them again during this afternoon’s proceedings. We will take his arguments seriously and look to work together with the BMA and others to act to improve the experience of training, rotations and jobs.
UK graduates used to compete among themselves for foundation and specialty roles. Now they are competing against the world, because of the visa and immigration changes made by the Conservative Government post Brexit. The situation is compounded by the previous Administration’s total lack of workforce planning, which saw more students going to medical school without the number of specialty training places being increased. That is why we see the training bottlenecks that resident doctors face today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Wes Streeting
I will give way to the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern).
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
A constituent of mine is studying medicine at Queen Mary University of London but at a campus in Malta. Students at the Malta campus complete the same General Medical Council-approved curriculum, assessments and licensed exams as London-based students, and graduates hold a UK primary qualification. He was given a formal guarantee that he would be at no disadvantage if he chose to study at the Malta campus. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that graduates like my constituent will be prioritised on the NHS foundation medical training programme?
Wes Streeting
Students studying in Malta will not be prioritised in the Bill, but they will still be able to make applications. Queen Mary University’s Malta website is clear that Queen Mary does not administer the UK foundation programme and cannot control whether or on what basis applicants are accepted into the programme, and no one is guaranteed a post on qualification.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Wes Streeting
I will make some progress because, with respect, I have not yet set out the measures that we are to debate today. Let me take the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin, then I will set out the Government’s rationale and take further interventions.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I wonder if the Secretary of State shares my residents’ utter disbelief that the last Government created a system where thousands of UK medical graduates, educated at the cost of billions to the UK taxpayer, were suddenly forced to compete with overseas students, pushing many abroad for their careers and losing a big talent pool that should be powering our NHS and getting it back on its feet.
Wes Streeting
That is right. I have to say, many of my counterparts around the world cannot fathom how we ended up in this situation in the first place. They certainly do not do as we have been doing, investing so much in their home-grown talent only to then see that talent compete on equal terms with anyone from anywhere else in the world.
Let me set out why we need this Bill. There are workforce problems that only Government can solve. We know that the treatment of resident doctors has been totally unacceptable for years and we see the training bottlenecks that resident doctors face today. In 2019, there were around 12,000 applicants for 9,000 specialty training places. This year, that has soared to nearly 40,000 applicants for 10,000 places, with nearly twice as many overseas-trained applicants as UK-trained ones. As a result, we now have the ridiculous state of affairs where UK medical graduates, whose training British taxpayers fund to the tune of £4 billion a year and who want to carve out a career in their NHS, are either being lost abroad or to the private sector. If we do not deal with that, the scale of the issue and the resentment it causes will just get worse. More taxpayers’ money will be wasted, more British medics will turn their backs on the NHS, and patients and our NHS will ultimately suffer.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State knows that the SNP believes that this is a pragmatic Bill that will have a net-positive outcome for the health service in Scotland. We welcome the Bill and are glad to support it. However, there are specialty fields, such as general practice, which have a high number of international graduates. Because of Government policy, there are significant challenges in supporting the retention of some individuals. For example, the new requirement for settled status is 10 years with some exceptions, whereas training programmes are often only three years long. I am sure that the Secretary of State does not want the UK to be a hostile environment for our vital overseas medical staff. Will he therefore make representations to the Home Office so that it is aware of the anomaly?
Wes Streeting
I will say two things to the hon. Gentleman. This Bill does not in any way detract from the fundamental point that the NHS has always been an overseas recruiter and we have always been fortunate to draw on global talent from around the world who come and give through their service, their taxes and their wider contribution to the national health service and our country. We will continue to welcome that and people will continue to be free to apply. In future, they will apply on terms that are fairer to our own, home-grown talent.
There is nothing in what the Home Secretary proposes that will stop people who come through our universities and have the skills that we need to contribute to our health and care system applying for jobs and settling and making the UK their home. The Bill supports the Home Secretary to reduce an over-reliance on overseas talent and labour, which contributes to levels of net migration that even bleeding-heart liberals like me can see are too high. That is the issue that the Home Secretary seeks to deal with.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is right that we need to deal with this pressing problem and I support the aims of the Bill. However, as he can imagine, as the only current Member of this House with Maltese heritage, I have had representations from all quarters, both in the UK and in Malta, about the impact on Malta of this. Our two countries have a special health relationship, including the affiliation of the UK foundation programme with the Maltese equivalent. I understand that now may not be the time to have Malta in the priority group, but I note that there is a power in clause 4(6) that allows the Secretary of State to amend that in future. Is that something that my right hon. Friend will think about reviewing in future?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is right about the measures in the Bill. He is also right about the importance of our relationship with Malta, which is long-standing and deep, and this Government place enormous value on that. We will, of course, keep the workings of the measures in the Bill under review. He is also right to say that the Bill provides flexibility to the Secretary of State to adjust, as our needs may demand.
Dr Murrison
The Bill is basically a good one, and we all share the intent to encourage home-grown talent to remain in our national health service, so could the Health Secretary explain why he appears to have set his face against British students who for various reasons train at, for example, St George’s in Cyprus or St George’s in Grenada and who then want to come back and practise in our national health service? They want to come back and practise at home. Amendment 9 would deal with that conundrum. Why will he not support it?
Wes Streeting
We set UK medical school places based on future health system needs. We cannot control how many places the overseas campus universities create, whether they are UK-based universities or not. Prioritising those graduates in the way that the right hon. Gentleman suggests would undermine sustainable workforce planning. It would also undermine social mobility and fair access. Those campuses are commercial ventures; they receive no public funding and students are generally self-funded. The nature of prioritisation is that we set priorities, and these are the priorities that this Government are setting out. We must break our over-reliance on international recruitment.
As I have said, I am proud of the fact that the NHS is an international employer, and it is no coincidence that the Empire Windrush landed on these shores in 1948, the very year our NHS was founded. We are lucky that we have people from around the world who come and work in our health and care service. Since Brexit, however, under the last Government, we have begun to see something much more corrosive, with the NHS poaching staff from countries on the World Health Organisation’s red list because their own shortages of medical practitioners are so severe. The continued plundering of doctors from countries that desperately need them while we have an army of talented and willing recruits who cannot get jobs is morally unacceptable. If some Opposition Members want to defend that record and dismiss the morality argument, I would point out that that position is naive on economic grounds. Competition for medical staff has never been fiercer. The World Health Organisation estimates a shortfall of 11 million health workers by 2030. Shoring up our own workforce will limit our exposure to such global pressures without depriving other countries of their own home-grown talent.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent speech and the strong points that he is delivering. I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) about Malta. As a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, I have also been approached by Queen Mary University. It seems to me that we should be approaching this with a sense of fairness, and if students have entered into a GMC-recognised course with the expectation of having priority access for foundation status, we should accept that those who are currently in training still enjoy that, even if we change the rules for people who enter those courses in the future. Is that something that my right hon. Friend will consider?
Wes Streeting
As I have said, the position we have set out is founded on fairness. The basis on which people have applied to these universities has made it clear that the universities cannot guarantee places and that overseas applicants studying at UK universities’ overseas campuses can still apply. There is nothing to prevent those people from applying, but when it comes to prioritisation, we are prioritising UK-trained medical graduates from UK-based universities who have undertaken their training here in the UK. I think that is the right priority to draw.
Wes Streeting
I will take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman. I will come to my right hon. Friend in a moment.
Gregory Stafford
The Secretary of State mentioned the need for more medical staff across the world and, of course, in this country as well. At the general election, he pledged to double the number of medical school places by 2030. Is that still a commitment, and how far has he got with it?
Wes Streeting
With respect, I think the hon. Gentleman has got his chronology slightly wrong. As shadow Health Secretary, I proposed that we should double the number of undergraduate medical school places. That policy was poached by the then Conservative Government, who made modest progress with it. We then came into government, looked at their long-term workforce plan and concluded that it was not a particularly long-term workforce plan, and we are revising it as we speak. The number of medical school places will be determined by future need. We will publish our long-term workforce plan in the not-too-distant future.
Wes Streeting
I will give way to the hon. Lady and then to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds).
Alison Bennett
The Secretary of State rightly notes that there is international competition for healthcare talent. On Friday, I met Dr Osoba, a GP who trains future GPs. She told me how disheartening it is to train future GPs whose intention is to leave the UK. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that British-trained medics stay working in the NHS?
Wes Streeting
The hon. Member puts her finger right on the issue at the heart of the Bill. That is exactly the challenge we want it to address. The Bill is not a panacea—it does not solve all the problems—but reducing competition for specialty places from around four to one to less than two to one, as the Bill will do, will make it far more likely that people who have undertaken their training here in the UK will stay here and contribute to our national health service. Of course, there is much more to do on career structure, pay and conditions, but we will go as fast as we can and as far as the country can afford. We recognise that we need to keep the great people we have invested in, because doing so is in their interest and in our national interest.
Anneliese Dodds
My question relates to exactly that issue. The Secretary of State will be aware, because I have written to his Department about it a number of times, that many disabled medics face a particular challenge. They may have had to take time out of their training because of a medical condition. They are told that they can obtain a certificate of readiness to enter specialty training and go into a training specialism, but the computer says no and NHS England is not sorting this out. Will he please get a personal grip on this and fix it for my constituents?
Wes Streeting
I am certainly aware of my right hon. Friend’s concerns. I can give her that assurance and will report back to her on progress.
Without action to prioritise UK medics, we will also make it tougher than it already is for those from working-class backgrounds like mine to become doctors—or, for that matter, to even consider a career in medicine. The odds are already stacked against them: they are less likely to know doctors, their teachers may be less familiar with how to help students into medical school, they will have fewer opportunities to do work experience, and fewer people in their lives will tell them that they should aim high and reach for the stars. The result is that only 5% of medical school entrants are from lower-income working-class backgrounds. Someone’s background should not be a barrier to becoming a doctor, so our job—especially as a Labour Government committed to social justice—is not just to ensure that a few kids like me beat the odds, but to change the odds for every child in this country so that they can go as far as their talents will take them.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
It is vital that we address this issue to ensure that UK-trained doctors are prioritised for vacancies over international applicants—the Secretary of State is making important points about that. We need those places to be opened up for UK medics immediately, so will he explain why the Bill will not come into force immediately after Royal Assent but instead includes provision for it to come into force
“on such day or days as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint”?
Wes Streeting
It is important that the Bill is workable. A number of factors may well interrupt our ability to move at the pace at which I want to open up those places. One of those factors is the ongoing risk of industrial action. We know that the BMA is balloting for further industrial action at the moment. We respect the process that it is undertaking, and we are not closing the door to discussions while it does so. However, we are clear that that is a further disruption risk. I hope that we will be in a position to open up a new application round very shortly for current applicants, but that will depend on our ability to expedite the passage of the Bill through both Houses, and to ensure that the system is ready to implement it. That is why bringing forward the Bill on this timescale has been particularly important.
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to the Health Secretary; he is being generous with his time. Is he saying that he intends to use this as some sort of lever or bargaining chip in his discussion with the BMA?
Wes Streeting
I am clear that this is about whether the system will be ready to implement the measures in the Bill. I must say that I view the Conservatives’ amendment on this issue with a degree of cynicism. Not so long ago, they were accusing me of being too kind to resident doctors when it came to making changes to pay or conditions without something in return. They seem to have completely changed their position. I am sure that that is not remotely cynical and is for entirely noble reasons, but I will wait for the shadow Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), to make his case. Let’s just say that I am not entirely convinced.
The Bill implements the commitment in our 10-year plan for health to put home-grown talent at the front of the queue for medical training posts. Starting this year, it prioritises graduates from UK medical schools and other priority groups over applicants from overseas during the current application round and in all subsequent years. For the UK foundation programme, the Bill requires that places are allocated to UK medical graduates and those in a priority group before they are allocated to other eligible applicants.
For specialty training, the Bill effectively reduces the competition for places from around four to one, where it is today, to less than two to one. That is a really important point for resident doctors to hear, not least because in the debate we had on the Government’s previous offer to the BMA, that point was lost amid some of the broader and, frankly, more contested arguments between the Government and the BMA around pay. It is not just the provision of additional training posts that reduces the competition ratio; it is also the measures in this Bill. I hope that that message is heard clearly by resident doctors as they think about their own futures immediately or in the coming years. For posts starting this year, there must be prioritisation at the offer stage, and for training posts starting from 2027, prioritisation will apply at both the shortlisting and offer stages.
In the 10-year plan, we committed to prioritising international applicants with significant NHS experience for specialty places in recognition of the contribution they have made to our nation’s health. This year, we will use immigration status as a proxy for determining those who are eligible, so that we can introduce prioritisation as soon as possible. From next year, under the terms of the Bill, we will set out in regulations how we are defining significant NHS experience.
Wes Streeting
I give way to my hon. Friend with significant NHS experience.
Dr Opher
I commend the speed with which my right hon. Friend has brought this legislation to Parliament. I have been a GP trainer for 25 years. Fifty per cent of GP trainees are international medical graduates, and there has been some disquiet from them. Will he reassure our international medical graduates that they are welcome and treasured in the health service?
Wes Streeting
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the contribution that international medical graduates make, and I have no doubt that that will continue to be the case for many years to come. I hope it is clear to those going through medical school or aspiring to a career in medicine that, in terms of the future of healthcare in this country, general practice is where it’s at. We are looking to shift the centre of gravity in the NHS out of hospital and into the community, with care closer to people’s homes and, indeed, in people’s homes, with GPs as leaders of a neighbourhood health service. I hope that gives encouragement to GPs serving today about the future of their profession, about which they care enormously. I also hope that that message resonates with people who are thinking about a career in medicine, when they think about what kind of career that might be.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
I recently spoke to a doctor in my constituency who was concerned about resident doctors going abroad to get a training place in their chosen specialty. We in Reform welcome this Bill. Can the Secretary of State make a commitment that we will prioritise our own UK-trained resident doctors ahead of those trained abroad, and will he assure me that the Bill will help UK-trained resident doctors to secure a training post in their chosen specialty?
Wes Streeting
I can give the hon. Member that assurance—that is exactly what the Bill does. Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot, however, resist the enormous temptation to say that while I welcome the support of the hon. Member and her party, I hope that her party’s position will not change now that it has adopted so many of the formerly Conservative culprits who landed us with this system in the first place. Whether it is the former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), or the former Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), I am afraid that Reform looks rather more like the Conservative party that the country rejected at the last election, which I am sure will not be lost on people when they go to the ballot box in May—[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Minister for Care says from a sedentary position, Reform UK are increasingly the teal Tories—it is certainly the most successful recycling project currently taking place in the House of Commons. Anyway, that was totally self-indulgent, and very churlish given that the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) is supporting the Bill, so I will slap myself on the wrist and get back to the serious matters at hand.
As we set out these changes, it is important to note that they will have no impact on doctors working in the armed forces, who will continue to be a priority, and neither does the Bill exclude international talent, as people will still be able to apply for roles and continue to bring new and vital skills to our NHS. The principle here is home-grown talent. It is not about where students are born; it is about where they are trained. What the Bill does is return us to the fair terms on which those home-grown medics competed before Brexit.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s approach to the Bill, and how he has worked across all devolved Administrations. May I seek his assurance that medical students who reside in Northern Ireland, who identify as Irish and who study in an Irish institution in the Republic of Ireland will not be excluded from coming back to work in the national health service in Northern Ireland, where we very much need all the talent we can get?
Wes Streeting
I absolutely give the hon. Member that assurance—the Bill covers medical graduates from the UK and Ireland, for very obvious reasons. I welcome the broad support that the Bill appears to have across the House, because for the changes to benefit applicants in the current round—for posts starting this August—it must achieve Royal Assent by 5 March. Any delay will risk vacancies in August and disrupt planning in NHS trusts, which rely on their new trainees to deliver frontline care. Doctors also need sufficient time to find somewhere to live, sort childcare and arrange other aspects of their lives before their posts start. I am grateful that Parliament has agreed to expedite the Bill’s progress, and confident that we will be able to work at pace with our majority in this House, and with cross-party support in the other place.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I sense that the Secretary of State is about to reach the end of his remarks. We are keen to start the debate, but it would be helpful to get clarity on one thing before we begin. When will we see the workforce plan? It has been delayed a couple of times. We wrote to the Department in November asking for an explanation as to why it has been delayed and when we can expect it. Can the Secretary of State give us some clarity, because that is the context in which the narrow technical measure that we are discussing needs to happen?
Wes Streeting
That is a fair question from the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee. We are taking longer than I would have liked with the workforce plan. I hope it reassures the hon. Member and the House that we have taken more time because that is what the royal colleges, trade unions, and clinical and NHS leaders asked us to do. Their strong urging was to get it right, rather than rush according to a political timetable, which I thought was a fair challenge. It will be published this spring.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
I welcome this legislation. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the fact that the Government have listened to the concerns of resident doctors about training places, and have acted at pace to bring forward the legislation, shows that we as a Government are committed to fixing the problems left behind by the Conservative Government? Does he agree that the BMA should consider that when thinking about going forward with any potential further action?
Wes Streeting
I agree with my hon. Friend. For context, I say to members of the BMA and resident doctors that to bring forward legislation in this way and at this pace is not easy. We have a packed legislative programme. The clock is ticking on getting everything through that we want to get through in the time that we have available, and I am grateful to the business managers in both Houses for facilitating the Bill. Cross-party support is going to be important, particularly in the other place, where we have lots of expertise to draw on, including from Cross-Bench peers.
We have introduced the legislation because fundamentally we agree with the case that the BMA and resident doctors have been making. In our discussions with BMA representatives, immediately prior to the last round of industrial action and since, it has been very clear that when it comes to jobs, we are not that far apart. We recognise the problems and we are working together to address the solution. On pay, there remains a gap between the expectations of the BMA and what the Government can afford. All I ask of resident doctors and their BMA representatives is some understanding and a bit of give and take about the range of pressures on the Government and the national health service, many of which require funding, which is why there are choices and trade-offs.
I hope that the BMA representatives know and have noticed that, regardless of the fact that we remain in dispute on these issues and have had a number of rounds of industrial action, I have not slammed the door in their faces and stopped talking—we have continued with good-natured and constructive talks—and I have not thrown my toys out of the pram either, and said “Right, we will not proceed with this Bill.” We have continued to work to enact solutions that we think are good for resident doctors, and therefore good for patients and good for the NHS. I hope that this will be the spirit in which we can work together.
The goal is to be in a place, particularly with the BMA and resident doctors although this applies to other groups in the workforce too, where we can work together and make progress outside disputes, so that we can gather around tables as partners, rather than as opponents. That will take some gear shifting from where we have been to where we want to be, but I know that both the Government and the BMA have entered the new year in that spirit, so we will continue to make progress.
Having stressed the urgency of the legislation, I want to address the commencement clause included in the Bill, which has already been raised. First and foremost, it is there as a failsafe. We are running to an extremely tight deadline. I do not want to be in a position where a law is enacted and we are unable to implement it in a timely and orderly fashion. Secondly, there is a material consideration about whether it is even possible to proceed if strikes are ongoing, because of the pressure that they put on resources and the disruption that is caused operationally, particularly among the people I require to help me deliver the measures in the Bill. Of course, I am keeping my options open. We are in a good place with the BMA, and we have entered the latest round of talks in good spirit, but we do not yet have an agreement on their disputes and we are waiting for the outcome of their ballot, so I am not going to do anything now that unnecessarily makes it harder to end the strikes.
The Opposition amendment to remove the commencement clause is designed to make industrial action more likely, not less likely. It tries to bind my hands and make this job even more difficult. It looks like political gameplaying, at a time when we are trying to save the NHS, and it looks like party interest before national interest. I hope that the Conservatives will consider whether their amendment is really necessary.
British taxpayers spend £4 billion training medics every year. We treat them poorly, place obstacles in their way and make them fearful for their futures. We are forcing young people, who should be the future of our NHS, to work abroad, in the private sector or to quit the profession entirely. It is time that we protect our investment and our home-grown talent. This Bill will ensure a sustainable workforce, cut our reliance on foreign labour, halve competition for places and give home-grown talent a path to become the next generation of NHS doctors. I commend this Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Stuart Andrew
No, I am most definitely not defecting.
In the spirit of being constructive, I will start by saying that the Opposition support the principle behind the Bill. Doctors trained in Britain and funded by the taxpayer should have a fair, clear and consistent route to progress in our NHS. Britain trains some of the best doctors in the world, yet too many are leaving—not because they want to, but because they cannot access the training places they need. That wastes talent, damages morale, and ultimately affects patient care. However, support in principle is not a blank cheque; the Bill must work in practice, not just look good in a headline. We should also be honest about why we are here. Much of what is in the Bill has been promised by the Government since their election in plans, reviews and ministerial statements, and the fact that it is only being brought forward now suggests that this is catching up, not leading.
The first test is delivery. We cannot solve a shortage by changing the queue. Unless the Government deliver the 4,000 new specialist training places that they have promised, including the 1,000 places that are needed early, the Bill will not fix the bottlenecks; it will simply shift frustration from one group of doctors to another. That is why we are proposing constructive amendments to the Bill that we believe are workable and fair.
The next test is clarity. The real impact of this Bill will be determined by the rules that sit beneath it—who qualifies, how experience is assessed, and how decisions can be challenged. We welcome the focus on foundation training; prioritising UK and Irish graduates for foundation training is sensible, as it strengthens the pipeline and improves workforce planning. However, it will only work if there are enough placements and the system is transparent. That is why amendment 8 would clarify that a UK foundation programme must mean a programme in which the majority of training takes place in the United Kingdom. That is a necessary safeguard against loopholes.
Amendment 9 would ensure that from 2027, British citizens on UK foundation programmes are prioritised in a meaningful way. Prioritisation must apply not only at the final offer stage, but at interview, which is where selection decisions are often made. The amendment addresses many of the points that Labour Members have been raising, so I encourage them to support amendment 9 when we divide on it.
We are also concerned about doctors serving overseas with the armed forces. I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State talk about them, since they certainly should not be penalised because part of their training takes place abroad on service. As such, amendment 10 would expand the definition of a UK medical graduate to include those undertaking placements as part of an armed forces posting outside of the British Isles. I hope the Secretary of State will consider accepting that amendment to give reassurance to our armed forces, which I know is something he cares about. These are practical changes that would improve fairness and operability, and we hope the Government will adopt them.
We also support new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), which would make clear that once priority groups are established, training places should be allocated on merit. That allocation should be based on academic achievement and clinical performance, rather than a lottery or a computer-generated ranking divorced from real performance. Again, I hope the Government will seriously consider the new clause. When the Minister for Secondary Care sums up, will she put on record that merit will remain central to selection?
Another issue that cannot be ignored is the impact on medical schools, especially those that rely on international students. New clause 3 would require an annual report to Parliament on the number of international students at UK medical schools and the financial consequences flowing from the Bill’s provisions. International students pay higher fees and help sustain our universities. If those numbers fall, what funding model would replace them? When she sums up, will the Minister for Secondary Care outline what assessment has been made of the impact on medical school finances? How many international places do the Government expect to fund in future, and on what basis?
The Bill cannot stand in isolation. Workforce planning depends on more than allocating training posts; it requires enough trainers and clinical supervisors, viable rotas that support learning and facilities that make training possible. The revised NHS workforce plan must set out how those needs will be met, and how the extra training places will be staffed and supported. With NHS England set to be abolished in April 2027, we need to hear from the Government who will lead workforce planning and accountability thereafter.
Our approach is straightforward. We will support measures that are fair and practical, that strengthen patient care and that respect staff. We will press the Government where we feel that proposals are rushed, underfunded or left vague. Backing doctors means giving them a route to progress and ensuring that the system is properly planned and properly resourced. I repeat that, in principle, we support the Bill. We want doctors trained in Britain to build their careers in the national health service.
That brings me to enactment. As we have heard, the Government propose that the Bill should take effect when the Secretary of State decides, rather than on the date of Royal Assent. When he said that he wanted to introduce this Bill, and that it would be urgent, I said that we encourage that and support it. However, if this Bill is truly urgent, and if Ministers want it to affect this recruitment round, why would they not commence it immediately? The Secretary of State should not be playing politics with people’s jobs. It is not right for doctors, including those not involved in industrial action, to be treated as bargaining chips, and it is not right for Parliament to be treated in this way to give him the tools that he needs because he did the first set of negotiations so badly. Will the Government support amendment 1, so that the Bill takes effect on Royal Assent? Will they commit to enacting the Bill as quickly as possible?
When does the Secretary of State intend to commence the Bill? If the Minister for Secondary Care cannot give the House a date today, what makes the Bill so urgent that it needs to be pushed through Parliament in a single day? Will the Government proceed with this legislation, even if no agreement is reached with the BMA? If industrial action is paused, will the Government still honour their commitment to prioritise UK medical graduates?
Many doctors took industrial action because they felt that their career progression was blocked. This Bill could play a part in rebuilding that trust, but that will only happen if Ministers deliver, publish the detail and follow through. They must be straight with the House. If this Bill is urgent, it should commence on Royal Assent. If implementation takes time, the Government should publish a timetable and the steps required to deliver it. To do anything else, frankly, would be discourteous to Parliament.
Dr Murrison
I think the Secretary of State has perhaps misunderstood how traumatic the process is for the young medical graduates going through this performance. Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that the sooner this legislation comes into force, the better it is for those young people, some of whom are finding the current situation incredibly difficult? They do not know what the successor scheme will look like, and the delay is adding to that unhappiness.
Stuart Andrew
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. I said right at the outset that we would be constructive, but we have heard from many who are anxious about their future and do not know what will happen. The sooner that we can give them that certainty, the better. That was the premise on which we offered to support the Bill. I am grateful to him for making that point.
I am conscious that others want to speak, so I will end by saying this. Prioritisation without capacity will not fix the workforce crisis. Promises without delivery and headlines without planning will not retain the doctors whom our NHS needs. The Government must fund the extra places, set out the operational detail, and begin this reform without delay, because that was the premise that the Secretary of State identified. When he came to Parliament just a few weeks ago, he said that we needed to get on with this urgently, and that he would encourage business managers to provide the time. Well, if that is the case, let us get on with the job.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Bill. I have long argued that a strong state must be rooted in work, contribution and fairness, and that principle stands behind the Bill. For too long, medical training pathways have drifted away from that principle. Taxpayers invest heavily in medical education, clinical placements and postgraduate training, but we have not been honest about who ultimately benefits from the investment. At a time when the NHS is under immense pressure, that is not sustainable.
The Secretary of State set out the scale of what we are dealing with. The taxpayer invests more than £4 billion every year in medical education, with more than £1 billion invested in undergraduate clinical placements, and more than £3.3 billion invested in postgraduate foundation and specialty training. That is public money, spent so that British patients have the doctors they need. However, since the lifting of visa restrictions in 2020, we have seen a fundamental shift in the way that medical training places are allocated. In the 2025 recruitment cycle, more than 25,000 overseas-trained doctors applied for training posts, and more than 15,000 UK graduates were competing for the same—nearly 13,000—round 1 and round 2 positions. As we heard from the Secretary of State, there are more than 47,000 applicants in 2026. That is a dramatic surge.
The Bill does one straightforward thing. It prioritises UK medical graduates for training posts, both foundation and specialty, where the NHS has already invested heavily. In my constituency, we see this clearly. University Hospitals Birmingham NHS foundation trust is one of the largest NHS trusts in the country. Just under 30% of my constituents work in the health sector. That figure is double the national average. We are home to the University of Birmingham medical school, one of the best in the country. The scale of public investment in training, supervision and infrastructure is enormous, and rightly so. However, the Bill recognises the basic truth that when the taxpayer pays, the public should see the return. Prioritising those who are most likely to work and stay in the NHS is not exclusionary; it is common sense. It is how we rebuild a health service that is resilient, staffed and fair.
Dr Murrison
I entirely agree with the Chair of the Select Committee that we need to keep Brits working in our national health service. Does she agree that we need to add to the priority list British nationals who, for one reason or another, are training in medical schools outside the United Kingdom—in Prague, in Malta, in Cyprus and in the Caribbean? The reasons why they are training in those places are many and varied, but they are British, and their intent is to practise in the national health service. However, they are being deprioritised by this measure.
Preet Kaur Gill
I am not the Chair of the Select Committee, and I think that the Secretary of State set out his position. This is really important. This is about UK taxpayers’ money being invested in training doctors, and we must ensure that UK trainees are able to secure training places once they graduate. That is the issue that we are discussing.
Let me be clear: this is not a criticism of international staff. The NHS would not and could not function without the dedication, skill and compassion of people from around the world, and we should say that plainly and with gratitude. Every day, they hold our system together. However, a mature, confident country can value that contribution while also saying that we cannot replace long-term workforce planning with a permanent reliance on overseas recruitment. That is not fair on British trainees, not fair on source countries, and not fair on the NHS. As we heard from the Secretary of State, the World Health Organisation has estimated that by 2030, there will be an 11 million shortfall in health workers, as every country competes for the same limited workforce. This Government understand that putting British workers first is not something for which we will apologise. It is what the public expect.
The Prime Minister has been clear: a serious Labour Government must align migration, skills and training policy with the national interest. We cannot simply be passive; we must shape our domestic workforce to ensure that the NHS can continue to function. The same principle should apply wherever we are overly dependent on skilled migration because domestic training was neglected for 14 years under the Conservatives. Investing in people in the UK, and expecting that investment to strengthen Britain, is not ideological; it is responsible government.
The powers conferred to the Secretary of State in this Bill are important. The Royal College of Radiologists’ 2024 census found that 83% of cancer centre heads of service in the west midlands were concerned about patient safety as a result of workforce shortfalls. In 2024, only 19% of clinical oncology training places in the west midlands were filled. Will the Secretary of State outline how he intends to use the powers in this Bill and work with the integrated care boards to ensure that access to training matches regional workforce needs and health demands?
Above all, this Bill is about respect—respect for the taxpayer, respect for the NHS workforce, and respect for a health service that must be planned for the long term, not patched up year on year. This is exactly the kind of reform that the public expect from a Labour Government who are serious about work, contribution and the future of our NHS.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I am pleased to welcome this Bill, broadly. It seeks to prioritise graduates from UK and Irish medical schools for foundation and specialty training places. On this point, the Liberal Democrats support the Government, but we have some concerns about how that will be delivered, and about the real-world consequences for our NHS, patients and the doctors who keep our health service going.
Taxpayers invest around £4 billion every year in training young doctors, yet far too many are left competing for too few posts. In 2025, around 12,000 UK-trained doctors competed with 21,000 international doctors for just 9,500 specialty training positions. Many highly skilled young doctors, who were ready to serve in the NHS, were left without a pathway into specialist practice. That is clearly unfair and unsustainable. It is hardly surprising that so many doctors decide to leave the country altogether and seek opportunities elsewhere, where their training and wellbeing are valued. This is a tragedy for them and a tragedy for patients, so prioritisation is right, fair and long overdue.
However, reorganising a queue does not shorten it or make it move any faster. The reality is clear: the NHS has a deep workforce shortage, with crises in some specialties, and this Bill alone cannot solve it. A detailed long-term workforce plan, which ensures that training provides the skill mix that the NHS needs for the future, is required as soon as possible. I look forward to the Minister confirming when that will be delivered.
Shortly before Christmas, the Government committed to 4,000 additional specialty training places in their negotiations with the British Medical Association, including 1,000 that were brought forward, but following the collapse of those negotiations, it remains unclear whether those places will materialise. Patients cannot wait for certainty, and neither can exhausted staff. Will the Minister confirm those places, and go further by addressing other issues that have prevented doctors from working in the NHS, such as restrictive rotas, workplace violence and inflexible working? Dealing with such issues might prevent doctors who have secured specialty training places from moving abroad once their training is completed, ensuring that taxpayers’ money is not wasted, and that doctors with local, relevant experience remain in the NHS.
I turn to the details of the Bill. We have concerns about clause 7(1), which allows Ministers to change eligibility for prioritisation through the negative procedure. That will enable sweeping changes, without proper parliamentary scrutiny, to who can access training places. Given the scale and sensitivity of the NHS workforce pressures, such decisions must not be made behind closed doors, or at the whim of a future Health Secretary with less desirable motives than the current one. That is why the Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments that would require Parliament to approve any future changes through the positive procedure.
We are also troubled by the Government’s decision to apply the new rules part of the way through the 2026 specialty recruitment cycle. The Bill allows for prioritisation at the offer stage for medical specialty training places in 2026. I would like the Minister to clarify in her closing remarks whether this means that international doctors already working in our NHS—who have paid for exams, secured visas and maybe uprooted their life and their family—will suddenly be pushed to the back of the queue, mid-cycle. These doctors keep our hospitals running today. They entered the system in good faith, and it seems unfair to change the rules midway through the process.
I would also be grateful if, in the Minister’s closing remarks, she outlined the expected impact on NHS service provision if people who are deprioritised during the application process decide to leave en masse. Will she give my constituents in North Shropshire reassurance that patient safety and patient outcomes will not be impacted? The Liberal Democrats would prefer implementation to begin in 2027, at the interview stage; that would protect both fairness and patient safety.
Would the Minister elaborate on the impact of the Bill on universities that offer medical degrees elsewhere in the world? I think we have all been contacted by Queen Mary, University of London; the implications for the university may be serious if graduates, who have always been considered UK graduates, undertaking NHS training, and a UK medical qualification registered by the General Medical Council, suddenly have their expectations changed.
As I have mentioned, retention is just as critical as recruitment, but unfortunately it is outside the scope of this limited Bill. In the year to September 2023, 10.7% of NHS staff—about 154,000 people—left their role. Burnout is rife, morale is low and too many staff are working in buildings that are crumbling around them. We have been contacted by GP trainers who are worried that the doctors they are training plan to leave for Australia or Canada as soon as they qualify. The promised workforce plan must address this problem.
International comparisons lay bare the scale of the problem. England has just 3.2 doctors per 1,000 people, which is well below the OECD and EU average of 3.9. We would need 40,000 more doctors to meet that benchmark. Prioritising UK graduates is sensible, but it will not on its own deliver the workforce that patients urgently need. That is why the Liberal Democrats have tabled an amendment requiring a specialty by specialty workforce assessment. Shortages are acute in general practice, radiology, cancer care, mental health and more, and transparency is essential if training places are to be directed at where the need is greatest.
It is neither right nor remotely sustainable that, at a time when patients struggle to see a GP, qualified GPs are unemployed, yet that is happening now, with vacancy freezes and financial pressure creating an NHS in which shortages sit alongside unemployment. The Government’s decision to raise national insurance has only exacerbated the problem, forcing some practices into lay-offs or closure. In my North Shropshire constituency, several GP practices have told me that they cannot take on additional doctors because they are constrained by the outdated physical space in which they operate. The Liberal Democrats would fund 8,000 more GPs, ensuring that every patient could see a GP within seven days, or 24 hours if the need was urgent, because we cannot fix the NHS without fixing the front door.
NHS staff are the backbone of our health service, and they deserve better working conditions and a fair career path. We will continue fighting for an independent pay review body, for safe and modern buildings, for flexible working from day one, and for practical support, such as reduced parking charges, so that staff are not penalised for simply turning up to care for us. We will always stand up for our NHS and the people who make it work. While we support this Bill, we will push to ensure that its implementation strengthens our health service as much as possible.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill. This Bill goes to the very heart of the future of our national health service—the doctors on whom our health service depends. It is about fairness, protecting taxpayers’ money, and building a home-grown NHS workforce that is sustainable in the long term. It is about making sure that those who have trained here have the opportunity to become the next generation of doctors working in our health service.
Every year, it is becoming harder for graduates of UK medical schools to find a place on a foundation or specialty training programme. Since 2019, competition for postgraduate training places has increased by a staggering amount. In 2019, there were about 12,000 applicants for 9,000 places, but in 2025 the situation became even more stark. There are now more than 30,000 applicants, and over 12,000 UK-trained doctors and nearly 21,000 overseas doctors compete for fewer than 10,000 places. That is an enormous and unsustainable change. For some specialties, the competition is much fiercer. Aspiring neurosurgeons, for example, had to compete against 26 others to secure a place, and there were 737 applicants for just 10 cardiothoracic surgery training places.
Those are not abstract statistics, and behind every number is a person who has spent years training, often at great personal and financial cost, only to find their opportunities for career progression drying up. Some take time out, some seek experience abroad and some leave medicine altogether. Many do not have a choice. They are forced by a system that has become so congested that getting a training post in something that they are passionate about and trained in is completely unattainable. Every time a doctor leaves the NHS, there is no guarantee that they will come back.
The Secretary of State is incredibly committed to increasing medical school places, and we desperately need more doctors, but we have to be honest with ourselves: we cannot expand medical school places without addressing the growing crisis of competition for training places. It is within that context that the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill must be understood. There has been a direct correlation between the lifting of visa restrictions in 2020 under the Conservatives and the dramatic rise in competition for foundation and specialty training posts. Maybe that was one of the Conservatives’ Brexit bonuses that they so eloquently talked about. This needs to be addressed, because otherwise we risk training doctors for a system that cannot support them. We are recruiting doctors from abroad at a time when there is already a substantial pool of eligible applicants who have trained in the UK or are already working in the NHS. That cannot be right.
General practice is particularly reliant on international doctors, with half of first-year trainees having qualified outside the UK in 2024. Let me be clear, because this point matters enormously: international medical graduates have always played, and will continue to play, a vital role in our NHS. Many of our hospitals and services simply could not function without them. The Bill does not diminish that contribution, and neither does it seek to close the door to international talent, but it does ask fair and reasonable questions. When we are spending almost £4 billion every year to train doctors in the UK, is it right that those doctors are increasingly unable to access the very training posts that they need to progress? Is it right that huge amounts of taxpayers’ money is spent training doctors, only for that investment to be lost when doctors are forced out of the system or choose to go overseas or into the private sector? If we are honest with ourselves, how progressive is it that we poach doctors from countries that desperately need them, while we have our own brilliant and willing recruits who cannot get jobs here?
If we are serious about building an NHS that is stable, resilient and fit for the future, we must also be serious about retention and recruitment, so we must ensure that those we train can stay, specialise and build careers here at home. What is the alternative? We train thousands of talented, hard-working young people at significant public expense, only for them to hit a wall, feel undervalued and leave either the NHS or medicine altogether. Every doctor we train in the UK who chooses to leave is an enormous loss for our health service and our country. It is such a waste of talent and money. We cannot afford to lose our next generation of doctors—the future of the NHS depends on it—yet that is where we are headed unless we do something now. It is urgent.
Prioritisation is not about exclusion; it is about safeguarding public investment and guaranteeing the long-term sustainability of our NHS workforce. It is about ensuring that the NHS remains an attractive place for young doctors to build a career, and that doctors in this country feel valued, which the previous Conservative Government failed miserably on. The Bill sends an important signal to young people in this country considering a career in medicine that we want them to build a long and fruitful career right here in the UK, in our NHS. It says to those currently picking their A-level options or deciding whether a medical degree is right for them that their hard work will be rewarded and we want them to succeed.
The Bill is not a silver bullet. It will not solve every workforce challenge facing our NHS overnight, but it is a sensible and necessary reform that will go a significant way towards dealing with a deeply concerning and growing problem. If we care about the future of our NHS, we must care about the doctors in it and the doctors who will sustain it in the years to come. For the sake of the future health and viability of our NHS, I therefore urge all Members to support the Bill.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I will start with what is now a traditional declaration: I am a non-practising doctor and my wife is a doctor. I thank the Secretary of State for his comments, and for thinking through the content and merits of my new clause 2, on allocation based on merit. I hope that, as the Bill proceeds through this place and the other place, he continues to focus on that, because it is a very important point. For my Second Reading speech, I am not going to focus on the details of new clause 2—I will hold that back for Committee. Instead, I want to make some general comments.
In a sense, the Bill treats the symptoms of what has been happening in the medical workforce. I do not think it is a cure for the fundamental disease or the problems we have had over the years, which are in part down to a creeping de-professionalisation of the medical profession. I also think they are down to the way we have approached doctors’ appointments to placements, and how we assess their skills and CVs, and how that then leads to different appointments and places. Doctors are thrown from pillar to post, subject to the whims of a computer or a training programme. It has been shown time and again that one of the most important things in people’s eyes, or at least what gives most work satisfaction, is autonomy.
Unfortunately, we have sleepwalked into a situation, in pursuit of a weird type of fairness in the allocation of jobs, that works towards equality of outcome as opposed to equality of opportunity. Doctors have found themselves unable to compete or have control over their lives. Where they are allocated to their foundation school or their specialty training has a real, material impact. Crucially, within allocations, the geographical regions are huge. That means uprooting: moving your family and your social network. In the training scheme there really is no power that a doctor can exert in terms of choice or preference. My understanding—I am a creature of the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the Medical Training Application Service, when I was coming through and applying for posts—is that we just used to let doctors competitively apply for different posts and put together a sort of portfolio CV. That has all changed.
There is now the allocation to training programme schemes and national contracts, which is something I have been campaigning about for quite some time. Do not get me wrong: I think the way the BMA has behaved is absolutely appalling. I categorically and unreservedly condemn the approach that it has taken, and not just under this Government but under previous Governments over various disputes concerning junior doctors. But the fact that doctors have found themselves in a situation where they need to have a militant trade union is a consequence of the training schemes, programmes and national contracts not treating doctors as professionals when it comes to applying for jobs.
It also means that the training providers, the trusts and the integrated care systems, cannot provide options that doctors might want to compete for. They cannot say, “Well, we’re a really good research unit, so we’re going to have an offering that pursues a certain type of doctor who wants to go down the academic pathway.” We do not have trusts or regions that can say, “Actually, this is an area where there is quite a lot of social and economic deprivation, so we want doctors who are interested in certain specialties.”
For all sorts of different reasons, there are parts of the country that are oversubscribed and parts that are undersubscribed. We cannot use what we use in every other walk of life, which is changing remuneration to encourage people to go to other places. We cannot say, “You know what? Let’s look at flexible working arrangements.” As part of my medical school rotations, I was in Barnstaple. I can only imagine that if the trust for Barnstaple had recruitment challenges—I do not know if it does or does not—then it could look at whether people are into surfing or ensuring they could get involved in other activities outside of medicine. Dare I say, as a former doctor, that medicine is important but there are more important things than people’s careers, in particular their work-life balance. We have a system that does not enable that to happen. The behaviour of the BMA is, in a sense, a consequence of dismantling the normal human experience in the approach to the selection and allocation of jobs.
That has real consequences locally. Ashford and St Peter’s, my local trust, struggles to recruit because of the proximity to London, which has London weighting. Since we are on the border of London, to look at it purely financially—if that is the main priority—it makes more sense to pop into London and work than it does being employed in my area. Runnymede and Weybridge, by the way, has house prices and a cost of living that are equal to a big chunk of London, but there is no approach to regionalisation.
I am really glad that the Secretary of State is in his place to hear my contribution. I will say to him something that I have said to many previous Secretaries of State. When he is in those difficult negotiations with the BMA and hears from doctors about the workforce experience challenges that they have, would it not be better if we trusted doctors—and, for that matter, anyone who is subject to a national contract—to make decisions for their own lives, and that we devolve decision around pay and terms and conditions to some form of regional unit? For medicine, the obvious solution would be the integrated care systems, but there could be different solutions and ways of approaching it.
I think ICS devolution would make the most sense, but there are other opportunities to do it. That way, it moves from the Government essentially getting stuck in the middle of doctors, who are making difficult decisions about their careers and having to balance and judge different T&Cs of work, and the employers, which are different NHS trusts, being unable to use the normal mechanism that any other employer would use to recruit and incentivise people. If we do not do that, unfortunately the consequence is a Bill like the one we are debating: ever-increasing state intervention to try, in the absence of a market system, to impose a command economy.
The Secretary will have seen the issues dealing with local doctor prices. The fact that we have struggled with high locum payments for so long is because we do not allow the doctor employment market to resolve itself for adjustments in contracts. The system would save a huge amount of money overall if, rather than having a huge amount of money going to locums and a national contract system for doctors, we let the market sort it out. I will support the Bill, but I see it more as palliation than the definitive treatment that we need to solve the workforce problems for the NHS going forward.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Government bringing forward this legislation, and not just in response to the significant concerns that doctors currently have about access to training places, but as an important part of a reset, with a longer-term approach, to ensure that we have an NHS workforce that is fit for the future.
I am going to go off script and respond to some comments that the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), made. He rightly pointed out that the Bill is about prioritisation, not immediate capacity. However, in week one or two of NHS manager school, one of the core techniques that is taught is about capacity and demand modelling. A fundamental assumption about the capacity of our workforce going forward is retention—how long they will work over the course of their careers. The GMC is absolutely clear that an international medical graduate will, on average, work for a shorter period of time in the UK than a UK medical graduate—they are more likely to leave.
I suggest that it is entirely sensible that the Government are bringing in the legislation now, in advance of their NHS workforce planning, because the Bill fixes a core assumption of that plan. To give an example, I have managed cancer waiting lists and, knowing that I have a list of patients I am responsible for, feared that the lower gastrointestinal oncologist who is getting on will announce their retirement without a clear succession plan, as lower GI oncologists are in short supply. This Bill is not just the right thing to do but provides the absolute clarity around medical capacity that will allow the Government to do the proper demand work that is necessary to build the NHS of the future.
Turning to the immediate situation, I have heard the views clearly expressed by medical graduates in Sunderland and across the country about the bottlenecks they face when trying to secure foundation and specialty training places. Many are left in prolonged periods of uncertainty, unable to progress despite years of study.
When we talk about trainees, we risk giving the impression that the contribution made by these talented young people will all be in the future, but of course, in reality, people in training positions provide a huge contribution of direct service to the NHS today, forming the core of the medical workforce in hospitals up and down the country. When I was an NHS operational manager, I had to get to know the new rotation of core, foundation and specialty training doctors every time as they rotated around. Meeting those inspiring and motivated young people was not just a lovely thing to do but a hugely important one, as the day-to-day care of the patients in the specialties I was responsible for was largely provided by the people on those training courses.
That experience also highlighted to me how, over a decade under the previous Government, there was a total failure to put in place a proper care framework for those foundation and specialty doctors, which left UK-trained doctors competing in increasingly crowded pools. We have heard some of the numbers already from the Secretary of State: in 2025, there were more than 30,000 doctors competing for just 9,500 training posts. That is not a system that shows proper regard for the commitment of medical graduates or for their wellbeing, let alone a system that is designed to meet the future needs of the country or the NHS. We invest hundreds of thousands of pounds training each medical student, but too often we fail to retain them. That represents a loss not only of talent, but of public investment.
However, I think it is important, as others have done, to put on the record our recognition of the enormous benefit brought by medical professionals who have chosen to come to the United Kingdom and dedicate their careers to the NHS. I know that will continue even after this legislation is passed. As I always say, healthcare is a team sport, and in my experience, when a team is working together under significant operational pressure, the commitment of everyone in going the extra mile, no matter which country they trained in and what nationality they are, is always exemplary. That is the case throughout the NHS that I know.
The contribution of international medical and wider clinical staff to our NHS is invaluable, and it must never be diminished or forgotten. I know that will continue. It is important, therefore, that the discussion of the Bill is not interpreted as a slight on their contribution or commitment.
In aggregate, as I have said, the GMC has been clear that while international graduates are essential to the functioning of our health services, they are statistically more likely to leave the UK workforce within six years of joining compared with those who train here. That reality makes clear the risk of overreliance on a system that is unpredictable and, ultimately, unsustainable. This Bill is about balance, not exclusion; it is about ensuring that the significant public investment we are making in training doctors in this country translates into a stable and sustainable workforce for the years ahead.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As others will know, I have raised this matter a number of times in the Chamber. In Wales, for example, the health service pays students’ fees and trains them, and students then have an obligation to stay with the Welsh health service for a period of time. One of my constituents, whom I know well, did just that. She went there, received training and stayed there. What happened, of course, is that she met someone in Wales who she fell in love with, and now she wants to stay there, so we will lose her in Northern Ireland. The point I want to make is this: if paying the fees retains the staff in Wales, should we not also do that in Northern Ireland, Scotland and England? We could do so in this Bill.
Lewis Atkinson
There is some merit in the hon. Gentleman’s proposal, not just for medical training but across the clinical workforce. As Members have acknowledged, we pay significant sums of public money training clinical staff, but the graduates incur significant student debt. If a UK-trained undergraduate student decides to work abroad, the UK taxpayer will have invested a significant amount in their training, and that is then lost. It strikes me that there is an opportunity for the Government to think about the sort of incentive that the hon. Gentleman describes as part of wider workforce planning.
That is pertinent to my next point about the importance of the medical workforce reflecting our wider society, particularly the working class communities of the north-east of England. I want to ensure that a young person doing well at a state school in Sunderland has as much encouragement and access as anyone else in the country to study medicine and, crucially, progress through the ranks to the highest grades. We have heard some talk of international medical schools, but I can absolutely assure Members that there are not state school-educated kids in Sunderland thinking that they will pay privately to study in Grenada or anywhere else.
As the Secretary of State rightly pointed out, there have been welcome improvements on diversity in the NHS, but we often fail to consider socioeconomic background in that. The first line of the NHS constitution states:
“The NHS belongs to the people.”
But sometimes it can feel like it is staffed by a pretty unrepresentative slice of the people, particularly in medical roles.
In that spirit, I recognise the excellent work of the University of Sunderland medical school, which has placed widening access at the heart of its mission. Building on a 100-year history of wider clinical training, the school opened in 2019, shortly before the covid-19 pandemic—a period that starkly exposed our over-reliance on overseas recruitment and underlined the importance of growing our own workforce. By 2022, 47% of the University of Sunderland’s intake were local students, and it now ranks sixth in the UK for student satisfaction.
However, it is no good universities like Sunderland in my constituency doing excellent work on widening participation at recruitment stage if when we get to foundation training and specialty training those students are disadvantaged in competition. In my view, the Bill will help to ensure that talent nurtured by institutions like the University of Sunderland is retained and prioritised for the benefit of our NHS.
I highlight that medical schools such as Sunderland are increasingly placing a huge emphasis on training their medical students in a multidisciplinary environment alongside the trainee nurses and trainee pharmacists of the day, so that they are prepared to work in the multidisciplinary environment that our NHS rightly demands. I am not sure that all international undergraduate courses are always so advanced, so it is right to prioritise this UK-based training approach for the multidisciplinary ethos of the NHS in the future.
Other Members have mentioned the wide variation in specialist training fill rates, and GP recruitment has been mentioned as part of that. It is also worth saying that the national statistics about specialty training mask significant regional variations. The GP specialty training fill rate has been as low as 62% in the north-east of England, and as we have heard, over 73% of applicants for GP specialty training in 2023 were international. That has a disproportionate effect in regions like mine. My constituents want to have the confidence that there will be a stable GP workforce as part of our community for the long term. I cannot tell them in all candour that the status quo delivers that, so we must make changes of the type that the Bill sets out.
I hope that by introducing effective, regulated training pathways, the Bill will improve retention and strengthen workforce planning in our communities, including in areas such as women’s health, where training provision has not kept pace with rising demand. When I look at the shape of the NHS elective waiting list, it is no coincidence that some of the trickiest waiting time problems are in specialties such as gynae, where we have had recruitment and training challenges in recent years.
To close my remarks, I re-emphasise the link between capacity and demand, which I hope the Minister will touch on in advance of the workforce plan. Will she also say a little about the medical training review and the phase 1 report for NHS England and how the Government will work with that?
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
The NHS has a deeply unusual set-up when it comes to its workforce. The Government set the rules for who can qualify as a medical professional, decide how many medical training places to offer and control the flow of medical graduates into the NHS. They decide how much to charge medical students and under what conditions and since the NHS is by far the country’s primary employer of medical professionals, the Government also have effective control over the pay and conditions of those who qualify, and are responsible for deciding where medical trainees go and when. As a result, the health service workforce is not subject to the same labour market conditions as other organisations. The Government control both the supply of and the demand for its own workforce.
It is welcome to see this legislation before us, which rightly gives priority to British-trained doctors for NHS training posts, particularly at the early stages of their career. Those who decide to practise medicine in this country should have reasonable confidence that, if they wish to do so, they can build a career here. The Bill goes some way towards addressing the current situation in which British-trained doctors are being squeezed out of the system in favour of overseas recruits, despite the Government’s control of both the supply of new British graduates and the number of training places.
In 2025, 15,723 British-trained doctors were set to compete for 12,833 NHS training posts. This is already a competitive environment. However, the NHS’s focus on overseas recruitment meant that those British-trained doctors were also forced to compete with another 25,257 overseas trainees. It is clearly absurd that the British Government should restrict the number of training places offered, while also increasing demand for those places through a policy of overseas recruitment, having spent hundreds of thousands of pounds to train each medical student in this country.
That is particularly true when we know that doctors trained overseas are two-and-a-half times more likely to be referred to the GMC by their employer than doctors trained here. Many overseas recruits are hard-working and well-meaning, and many are excellent at the work that they do. Yet we must be honest about the fact that relying on overseas recruits instead of training more medical professionals in this country is not always a like-for-like swap.
Both medical trainees and patients would benefit from a system that trains more doctors here and ensures that those British-trained doctors are given a reasonable chance at moving quickly into an NHS training post. The system should also reward ability and allocate training posts based on merit. The current system of random allocation not only fails to reward our most talented medical graduates but creates profound uncertainty for those at the start of their careers.
Last summer, one of my constituents qualified as a doctor. He graduated with one of the very highest marks in the year—he was in the top three—from one of the most competitive medical schools in the country. He is clearly an outstanding student and will make an incredible doctor. In any sane system, he would have been placed immediately and been able to choose his location and specialism to keep him incentivised and happy within the NHS and to make the most of his obviously considerable talents. Instead, because of the mismanagement of places and the lottery system, he was not placed at all in the first round of allocations. He was not placed in the second, the third or even the fourth round. With fewer than four weeks to go, he still had no placement and no sense of where he would spend the next few years of his life, including whether he might be able to live close to his partner, who was also a doctor and graduating with him.
That is an insane way to treat our most brilliant graduates. I hope the Government will change their mind and amid their other good changes accept the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), to which I have added my name, to ensure that training places are, in future, allocated on the basis of merit. If the Bill aims to provide certainty to British-trained doctors that they will be able to build a career in this country, which is a noble aim, it should also recognise that the current system of randomly allocating training places is one of the biggest causes of uncertainty in our system. It would be far better for doctors and patients to have a system that instead prized excellence, providing a clear basis on which medical trainees could be allocated and creating a system that rewarded the most talented graduate doctors. It is right that the health service prioritises British-trained doctors. It is also right that, across every area of the public sector, we reward talent, effort and merit.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I would like to place on record my interest as the mother of an NHS nurse.
It is a privilege to speak in today’s debate and to do so on behalf of my Carlisle constituency, which I am proud to say has recently taken a transformative step with regard to medical training, with the opening of the Pears Cumbria School of Medicine. This new graduate school of medicine is being jointly pioneered by Imperial College London and the University of Cumbria, and I put on record my thanks to Professor Martin Lupton, Professor Mary Morrell and Professor Brian Webster-Henderson, whose vision the medical school is, and to Sir Trevor Pears and the Pears Foundation, whose generosity has made their vision a reality.
As with the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill before us today, the Pears Cumbria School of Medicine purposefully prioritises home-grown talent. The school also seeks applications from students from non-traditional backgrounds, encouraging applications from groups that are less well represented in medicine. As part of the school’s commitment to widening access, the four-year graduate programme has no GCSE or A-level requirements. The reason for this approach is simple: it provides the best chance, year in, year out and generation after generation, for Carlisle and Cumbria to produce our own doctors. These doctors will often come from the surrounding communities and, in part because of where they are trained, will be deeply committed to the local area and its people.
In geographically remote areas such as ours, the ability to train and retain our own doctors is critical. It matters enormously. Cumbria faces some of the most entrenched health inequalities in the country. We have struggled for years with recruitment and retention across both primary and secondary care, and our hospital trust relies heavily on locums. We know all too well that the traditional model of medical education, centred on large metropolitan teaching hospitals, simply does not produce or attract the workforce that rural areas such as mine need.
That brings me back to the Bill before us today. The Government are right to prioritise UK graduates for foundation and specialty training places. The Bill represents a significant and welcome step towards restoring confidence in the training pipeline, addressing the growing mismatch between the number of medical graduates and the number of available posts, and ensuring that those who have invested years of training in our NHS are not left without a route on which to progress. It is a sensible, fair-minded reform that will bring much-needed stability to a system that has been under real strain.
For Carlisle and Cumbria, however, the issue is not only who gets priority but where the training posts are located. At present, although foundation training can be delivered locally, it can be delivered only where accredited F1 and F2 posts exist. In Cumbria, the number of those posts is limited. The North Cumbria integrated care trust is able to provide places for some foundation trainees, and others will find F1 and F2 posts in primary and community care settings, but further accredited places will be required at foundation level. I ask the Minister to explain, in her response, not just how the new powers will prioritise UK medical graduates and members of the priority group, but how the powers might be used to widen the availability of accredited F1 and F2 posts in areas such as Cumbria, where there is a shortage of doctors.
Even if we successfully retain Pears medical school doctors in Cumbria for their foundation programme training, the risk of losing them when they come to their specialty training programme is even greater, because doctors will overwhelmingly choose to settle near to where they complete their training, particularly their specialist training, and Cumbria will never be able to provide every specialty training pathway within the county to retain our home-grown talent. We simply do not have the population size or the case mix to deliver all specialisms in our trusts. However, that does not mean that we cannot design a system that keeps trainees connected to Cumbria throughout their training. I therefore urge the Minister to consider how the regulation-making powers granted by the Bill can address that issue.
Pears medical school believes that a new approach to specialist training is the way forward. I recently wrote to the Secretary of State seeking a meeting between him and representatives of the medical school to explore that approach, and I very much hope that he will soon accept that meeting. I also ask Ministers to consider seriously how specialty training can be structured so that trainees who complete F2 in Cumbria are supported to remain based in the region, even if their specialist rotations take them elsewhere for short periods. That could mean funded return-to-base arrangements, rotational models anchored in Cumbria, or formal partnerships between specialist centres in UK cities and community providers in Cumbria. In other words, we need a training pathway that allows people to specialise with Cumbria, not away from it, because if we allow the system to pull trainees out of Carlisle at the very moment they are beginning to put down roots, we will simply recreate and repeat the cycle that has left rural areas like mine short of doctors for too long.
The Pears Cumbria School of Medicine is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reshape the medical workforce in Cumbria, but it will fully succeed only if training programmes are aligned with its purpose. In welcoming the Bill, I urge Ministers to ensure that its implementation meets the requirements and needs of remote communities. Prioritisation is important, but place matters too.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I broadly welcome this common-sense Bill. I am left rather flummoxed that we got to this point, but here we are. It is self-evident that if we pay to train doctors, they should be prioritised and encouraged in all manner of ways to stay in the UK. I understand why we must expedite the measures: talks with the BMA are ongoing and we want to avert strike action. I sincerely hope that the BMA and all resident doctors hear this debate and see that Parliament is listening to them, and that, together, we can avert industrial action, which does nothing to help the recovery of the NHS—fingers crossed that this works.
I will talk about the fears that I have heard about in my postbag. We are here in part because of the lack of a big joined-up workforce plan. We have been talking about such a plan for many years, but the previous one was clearly flawed, no matter which way one looked at it. It is in that context that we are bringing forward this very specific and quite technical point.
However, for resident doctors—formerly known as junior doctors—and for medical students, this is not technical at all; it affects their lives. Marco, an Oxford medical student, wrote to me last year to say that he was
“particularly concerned about the prospect of unemployment from being unable to secure a training position.”
He pointed out that countries such as Canada, the US and Australia already have structured approaches, while England has fallen behind.
Yasmin, another constituent, said:
“I studied for six years and graduated with over £70,000 of debt. I completed my foundation programme in a crumbling district general hospital, where I was routinely overworked and trying to care for patients in corridors under conditions that felt increasingly unsafe. I worked extremely hard to provide the best possible care despite these circumstances. Yet now, after two exhausting years, I find myself unemployed.”
Yasmin told me that many of her colleagues had been forced to take non-medical jobs—in administration, hospitality and other sectors—simply to survive. Some will never return to medical practice at all.
If our brightest and most committed young doctors are worried about unemployment, or are leaving the profession altogether, the system is clearly fundamentally broken and needs reform, so the Bill is a necessary step. Notwithstanding the good reasons to support the Bill, we must be mindful that it may well have unintended consequences if it is not implemented fairly. I am particularly concerned about the impact on overseas doctors who have already made significant life decisions based on the current rules.
Lamia, one of the many medical graduates in my postbag this week, said:
“Over the past two years, I have organised my professional life around the UK’s published requirements, completing examinations, securing GMC registration, and investing significant personal and family savings, even incurring debt. I also declined a stable job opportunity abroad to focus on the MSRA based on the rules at that time.”
She feels that to suddenly change things retrospectively is an injustice. The Government must clarify what “significant experience” means, because this will have an effect on people’s life choices. Perhaps the Minister could indicate that today—are the Government looking at one year, two, five or 10?
There is also the issue of British universities’ overseas campuses, which we have heard about from a number of Members. Graduates of institutions such as Newcastle University Medicine Malaysia, Queen Mary University of London in Malta and St George’s in Cyprus are excluded from the Bill. The vice-chancellor of Newcastle University, Professor Chris Day, wrote to me to say:
“these graduates complete the same medical degree, receive the same accreditation, and the majority then go on to train and work in the UK.”
As these students studied in English to UK standards, they transition into the NHS as quickly and effectively as home-based counterparts. He makes the point that they are incredibly effective very quickly within the NHS.
The Secretary of State explained why these students are being excluded: the Government cannot determine how many overseas campus places these universities will provide. However, to flatter my friend on the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman)—he is not here, but I know he will appreciate the flattery—he is absolutely right that the Minister could include a tightly drafted exemption for those who have already started those courses. I heard what the Secretary of State said about the fact that the terms and conditions on the website never guarantee a post, but we all know how this works. If we buy a product, understanding that for years and years it has worked a certain way, it cannot suddenly change halfway through. It would only take a year or two for this to wash through the system, so that we do not exclude those who have made the commitment and spent huge amounts of money in good faith, thinking that it would help. There could be some movement here, for a relatively small number of people. I hope the Government are listening to those voices. I am not sure it is a necessary battle, and it could be sorted in future regulations.
The other concern I have, which I have raised with the Minister and with the Secretary of State when he made a statement on the strikes before Christmas, is the signal that the Bill is sending to our overseas doctors. The more that we can all say this, the better: they are absolutely critical to our NHS. The chief executive of the GMC, Charlie Massey, gave evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee last week, and he was clear: doctors who qualified overseas make up around 42% of the medical workforce. Of course, we are not talking about that number, but if even a small proportion now might not want to work in our system, it will leave gaps that we simply cannot fill. Any conversation about prioritising UK graduates should explicitly recognise the immense contribution they make.
I want some concrete answers on this issue. We can keep talking about it, but will any measures be put in place? How will we show our appreciation? We must bear it in mind that these are highly mobile individuals to have come here in the first place. I understand the mantra that this is prioritisation, not exclusion, but if they find themselves excluded from some of the more popular specialisms, they may decide that they would rather leave the country and pursue that specialism elsewhere than stay in this country. We need them. There are potential unintended consequences in the short term. Has any modelling been done of how this might feed through the system? If the impact is negligible, what does that mean in concrete terms? Our Committee’s concern is that losing even a small number could have adverse consequences down the line.
My final point is on the workforce plan. I am confident that the Committee’s letter to the Minister is on her desk, and I hope it will be expedited soon. It would be better to flesh out some of the detail. The Secretary of State set out what the delay is and said the plan will be published in spring. I know that these things change, but we need to know exactly what is happening behind the scenes, so that we can get an understanding of the issues that are now being incorporated that were not there before. I agree we have to get this right. It was not right first time, and we have already had so many workforce plans that I understand why there is scepticism among the Royal Colleges and elsewhere that this one will work. Let us get it right—absolutely—but in the interim, by making such changes without the bigger picture, I fear we will end up doing more damage. England has 3.2 doctors per 1,000 people, but the OECD average is 3.9, and it is 4.5 in countries like Germany. The BMA estimates that we need another 40,000 additional doctors, so the 4,000 places announced by the Secretary of State do not even begin to get there.
The other issue, of course, is the leaky bucket: retention. Every time I meet anyone in the sector they say, “How do you solve the workforce issue?” I understand why the Government focus on training—it is an issue they can dial up when they can—but the thing that really matters is retention. Having a conversation about training places and inputs is essentially turning on the drip of a tap when we have a big hole at the bottom of the bucket. For GPs, we had a session on the shift to community, and if we are going to deliver that, boy do we need home-grown doctors as part of it—I totally get that. According to a survey by the Royal College of General Practitioners, one-third of GPs might leave in the next five years, with stress being the leading factor, and with 44% citing unmanageable stress, and 73% saying that patient safety as a result of the high work load was causing them moral injury. That is mimicked across all the different specialisms, and it is something we need to address. I appreciate that it is not an issue for this Bill, but it has a material effect on whether these measures will solve the problems that the Government say they will.
In conclusion, I welcome the Bill and urge the Government to think again about overseas campuses, even in a short, time-limited, tight way. Let us also say again how much we value our international doctors, and how much we want them to stay. I am looking forward to hearing more from the Minister than just the warm words that I am sure she will provide. What else could we do to ensure that doctors believe that the NHS is a place where their career can thrive, not just make it slightly more bearable than it was before? We all want the NHS to succeed; I am sure they do too and that they want to stay and be part of it.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
People are the backbone of our NHS, and I am incredibly grateful to the healthcare staff who work in it, particularly in Thurrock, and who care tirelessly every day, often in difficult conditions, for my constituents. As a lifelong Thurrock resident, I have experienced their excellent care as a patient, and now as an MP I see at first hand when visiting services in our area that they perform all the time to a high level despite the immense pressure they are under.
This Bill is about supporting our excellent NHS workforce, prioritising home-grown talent to ensure there is a pipeline for the next generation of fantastic doctors and nurses. It is right that it is introduced as emergency legislation, because the former Government left the NHS in a critical condition. The Tories’ botched policies on immigration saw students and junior doctors who study in the UK competing against the world for foundation and specialty roles. Visa and immigration changes meant that thousands more international workers applied for coveted training positions in the NHS. In 2019, there were 12,000 applicants for 9,000 specialty training places. That figure has now soared to nearly 40,000 applicants for 10,000 places, with twice as many overseas-trained applicants as UK-trained ones.
Those bottlenecks mean that we are losing home-grown talent. We are losing people who grew up in our communities, studied at our schools and universities, and know our NHS back to front from personal experience, because they move to jobs abroad or in the private sector. The Bill begins to correct those mistakes. It implements the commitment in our 10-year plan for health to put home-grown talent at the front of the queue for medical training posts, ensuring that UK graduates are prioritised for foundation and specialty training places. It is a signal of this Government’s intent to improve terms, conditions, and opportunities for doctors. It is a downpayment on the tangible progress offered in the deal that the BMA unfortunately rejected in December, and it marks a critical step in supporting long-term sustainable workforce planning for the NHS, ending our—let’s face it—unethical addiction to hiring from abroad. There is also an economic case. Each year, we spend £4 billion on training medical students and doctors, only to not offer those graduates a training place to continue their careers in NHS. By ensuring that we retain that talent, we will ensure that patients in the UK benefit from the investment, which is better for local doctors and the taxpayer.
Retention of staff is particularly vital in Thurrock, where we have a critical shortage of GPs and an acute hospital trust ranked among the bottom in the country. It has always been difficult to recruit doctors to our area, not least because if staff get a job 10 miles down the road—even one mile down the road, in some cases—they can earn significantly more because they will benefit from London weighting. Last year, I held a roundtable with local GPs to ask them why they chose to work in our area and how I could encourage more young doctors to make it their base.
Many young people growing up in Thurrock say that they would like to return home after medical training. They are ambitious to improve our NHS and they want to serve their community. They want to live and work in the area where they grew up. Ensuring that those graduates are prioritised to local places and have local career training, advancing their ongoing professional development, is key to unlocking a sustainable long-term workforce for our area. I urge the Secretary of State to use the opportunity afforded by both this Bill and the upcoming workforce plan to ensure that the right professionals are in the right places geographically, in order to fill historical gaps in provision.
I also urge the Secretary of State to use the workforce plan to ensure that training, recruitment and retention in all professional areas is considered and planned for, particularly in those vital professions that are often overlooked. Allied health professionals, such as speech and language therapists, physiotherapists and occupational therapists, spring to mind and must feature in the plan, particularly those working in paediatric care, where waits for diagnosis are often felt acutely. I add a personal plea for the unique and important role played by learning disability nurses, who are already under strain. The charity Mencap, among others, warns that the role could collapse in three years’ time without urgent Government action. Those nurses are crucial in ensuring that some of the most vulnerable people in our society receive safe, effective healthcare, and in avoiding preventable deaths.
I welcome that the Secretary of State has brought this Bill forward, and the efficiency and speed shown in turning the legislation around at pace. I urge him to use the same efficiency and speed to bring forward the workforce plan, in order to set the right direction of travel to recruit, train and retain home-grown talent. I encourage him to bring forward the workforce plan as soon as possible, to ensure that those gaps in vital provision are addressed and to support our communities through our fantastic NHS well into the future.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
At the heart of the Bill is a simple test: does the Bill improve care for patients? Every delay in training, every cancelled clinic and every rota gap caused by workforce instability ultimately lands on the patient. It means longer waits, greater travel distances and, in too many cases, care that comes too late.
I was recently contacted by my Farnham and Bordon constituent, Dr R, as I will call her, who is a UK-trained medical graduate. Like thousands of others, she completed her studies in good faith, expecting a clear and credible pathway into the NHS. Instead, she now finds herself in a system where non-training posts are disappearing, competition ratios for training places are rising sharply and the holding pattern roles that once allowed junior doctors to remain clinically active while reapplying have all but vanished.
This is not a niche concern affecting a handful of individuals; it is a systemic failure that directly impacts patients. When trained doctors are unable to progress, fewer reach consultant and GP level in the years ahead. Services become overstretched, continuity of care is lost and waiting lists grow even longer. That is why I support the intention behind the Bill. Prioritising UK medical graduates, ensuring that the UK foundation programme is genuinely delivered in the United Kingdom and restoring confidence in the medical training pipeline are all necessary steps if we are serious about rebuilding NHS capacity for the benefit of patients.
I have supported amendments to this Bill because they strengthen those aims. They ensure that UK medical graduates are properly recognised as such, that training programmes are UK-based in substance rather than just name, and that allocation of training places is grounded firmly in merit, clinical knowledge, aptitude and performance. Patients, quite rightly, expect their doctors to be selected on ability and doctors expect fairness, and those principles should command support across this House. I also welcome new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), which addresses growing concern among doctors and patients about the erosion of merit-based progression. When merit is undermined, morale suffers; when morale suffers, retention suffers, performance suffers, and ultimately patient safety suffers.
As such, the context of this Bill matters. Resident doctors have received cumulative pay rises approaching 30% over recent years—among the highest in the public sector. Despite this, industrial action has continued. It is increasingly clear that the BMA is determined to extract every possible concession from the Government, using sustained disruption as leverage. While I do not align myself with some of the Secretary of State’s more inflammatory language, I do share the realisation he has belatedly reached: that repeated above-inflation pay settlements have not brought this dispute to an end, and that further concessions risk rewarding brinkmanship rather than restoring stability for patients.
However, in pressing its case so aggressively, the BMA has inadvertently shone a spotlight on a genuine and serious problem in the system: a broken training and progression pathway that leaves UK doctors without secure routes into the NHS. That problem is real, it affects patients, and it must be addressed regardless of the outcome of pay negotiations. That is precisely why this Bill matters and why it must not be treated as a bargaining chip, yet that is exactly the risk created by the way in which the Bill is drafted. It will come into force only when the Secretary of State gives permission. In theory, that may appear sensible; in practice, it allows a patient-benefiting reform to be delayed, diluted, or deployed as leverage in negotiations.
Before Christmas, Ministers openly discussed this legislation in the context of talks with the BMA. The implication was clear: progress on training reform was conditional. Now, months later, with industrial action ongoing, it appears that the same dynamic may be emerging again. That approach undermines confidence among doctors and, far more importantly, undermines care for patients. If a measure will improve the NHS for patients and doctors alike, it should be implemented because it is right, not because it is tactically useful. That leads me to a number of questions for the Minister to answer when she responds, which are all grounded in patient outcomes.
Patients need capacity and certainty. They need more doctors progressing through training, not further delays and ambiguity. If the Government genuinely believe that prioritising UK graduates will strengthen the workforce, why is the commencement of this Bill discretionary at all? What assurance can the Minister give patients that these reforms will not be delayed indefinitely while negotiations continue? Patients have already endured significant disruption from industrial action—hundreds of thousands of appointments and operations have been cancelled or rescheduled. Without further pay concessions, can the Minister explain how this Bill will reduce the risk of future disruption, or is she effectively accepting that patients may face continued instability?
There is also the question of scale. The BMA itself has said that the Bill does not go far enough to close the gap between applicants and available training posts. What assessment has been made of how many UK graduates will still be unable to access foundation or specialty training even after this legislation is passed, and what will that mean for patient access to care in the coming years? Patients in many parts of the country already struggle to access GPs, psychiatrists and emergency medicine specialists. How will the Secretary of State and the Minister ensure that these reforms do not inadvertently worsen shortages in hard-to-recruit specialties or underserved areas?
Finally, there is the question of credibility. If this Bill is genuinely good for patients, good for workforce stability and good for the NHS, why should its implementation depend on a ministerial decision at some undefined point in time? Why not give doctors and patients certainty by bringing it into force immediately on Royal Assent? This House has a responsibility to put patients first, not leave patient care hostage to industrial negotiations. That is why I strongly support amendment 1, which would ensure that the Bill comes into force at the moment of Royal Assent. It removes unnecessary delays, ambiguity, and the risk that these reforms will be postponed indefinitely while workforce and pay disputes continue. UK medical graduates, hospitals and training bodies need certainty that the rules will apply from day one, so that allocations, protections for those trained on military postings, and fairness measures can begin to operate without delay. The amendment would ensure that reforms designed to strengthen transparency, meritocracy and the workforce will take effect when they are needed most. That clarity is particularly important given the absence of a published NHS workforce plan.
We need certainty for doctors that delivers stability for services, which in turn delivers better patient care and better outcomes. That is the standard by which this Bill should be judged, and it is the standard it must meet.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in support of the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill. We all know that our NHS faces workforce shortages in many specialties. In my constituency of Morecambe and Lunesdale, the workforce problem, combined with other factors, means that my constituents are not seeing the improvement in waiting times that other parts of the country have seen. The progress that has been made nationally is astounding, and we Government Members should be proud of that, but there are pockets where that progress has not been made, and that is unacceptable. I would welcome more conversations with Ministers about how we can tackle that, and I will continue to raise the matter with the local NHS.
Alongside the workforce shortages, we have the bizarre situation that doctors who need training places are struggling to get them, particularly those who are UK graduates. Competition for foundation and specialty training places has grown, partly because of a 2020 change to visas that lifted restrictions on overseas applicants applying for those training places. I would like to believe that that was done in good faith to try to increase the NHS workforce and to plug specialty gaps, but because of how it was done, UK graduates ended up competing, not with perhaps one other person, but with six other people for a training place. That is clearly unhelpful, particularly when we have already invested so much in their education.
Doctors have taken on a lot of debt to go through their initial training. Faced with this level of competition, and unable to continue their training in the UK, many medical graduates are being pushed to seek employment abroad or, even worse, to leave medicine altogether. Pressure is uneven across the system; some specialties are heavily oversubscribed, while some are left with unfilled posts. For example, there is a 15% staffing shortfall in oncology. For many years, I was the deputy chair of the Lancashire health scrutiny committee, so I saw Tory incompetence in the health service in real time. That particular example adds to the litany of their failures in health. Over 14 years, they made us poorer, sicker and less able to get early help.
This Bill addresses the failure to provide training places for doctors, in order to ensure that UK graduates can continue to train in the UK. It introduces a system of prioritisation for UK medical graduates, and will deliver this Labour Government’s commitment to a more sustainable medical workforce. It protects public investment, reduces excessive competition and ensures that our home-grown talent can become the next generation of NHS doctors. No disrespect to the fantastic medics who come from abroad to work here—they do such a fantastic job, and our NHS would not have survived without that immigrant workforce—but prioritising UK-trained graduates would bring us into line with international norms. Favouring domestically trained clinicians helps countries to ensure that they have a stable workforce. To be honest, we should not be nicking other countries’ doctors, particularly doctors from countries with underdeveloped health systems. I do not believe that is in line with our values.
UK taxpayers invest around £4 billion every year in training doctors, so the aim of any sustainable workforce policy should be to see all UK graduates in training posts. A fifth-year medical student who wrote to me aptly described this Bill as essential to safeguarding what he calls
“fair access to training opportunities amongst UK graduates”,
and to ensure that the NHS workforce pipeline survives in the long term.
I am glad to see the Government addressing this issue with the urgency it deserves. Doctors, of course, are only one part of the health service. Many professions work together to care for patients, but doctors are a vital part of the NHS, and we need to ensure that UK medical graduates can progress their careers. This goes alongside all the other work that the Labour Government are doing to make us healthier as a nation, whether on controlling tobacco and vapes, helping people to afford healthy food, or enabling earlier access to primary care. I urge colleagues across the House to support this Bill.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
As I said earlier, I will be supporting the Bill. I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for their engagement with the devolved institutions on the Bill’s intentions, and on expediting its progress. Its implications for Northern Ireland, and for the medical workforce spanning the islands, are crucial.
As has been discussed, the Bill introduces a UK-wide duty on providers of medical training to prioritise applicants who have graduated from medical schools in the UK or the Republic of Ireland. While health is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, I entirely recognise that this legislation is essential to preserving a joined-up and UK-wide approach to medical training and recruitment. For too long, we have seen increasing pressures on training pathways, with locally trained graduates facing uncertainties and bottlenecks when moving from undergraduate education into foundation and specialty training. I hope very much that the Bill will ensure that those who trained in UK and Republic of Ireland systems have a clear and reliable route into employment in those same systems.
I welcome clause 4, which refers to the terms “UK medical graduate” and “the priority group”, but am concerned about the drafting of amendment 9, which was tabled by members of His Majesty’s official Opposition. If Northern Ireland were excluded from these arrangements in any way, by default, it would face an invidious choice between accepting increased competition for limited training places and withdrawing from national recruitment altogether. The latter would place a significant administrative and financial burden on local bodies, particularly the Northern Ireland Medical and Dental Training Agency, and could risk undermining long-established recruitment structures.
I welcome the fact that the Bill does not impose additional costs on health services in Northern Ireland, given that the system is under unprecedented financial strain. Instead, it simply changes the order in which applications are considered for existing programmes, and by doing so, it helps to protect the investment made in medical education. However, I seek an assurance from the Minister in connection with a graduate-entry medical school that was created at Magee College back in 2021. The first cohort of graduates came through in June 2025—69 second-degree doctors and surgeons. I hope that nothing in the Bill will hinder their progression into the workforce. I am sure that the Minister has engaged with the Northern Ireland Health Minister on ensuring that there are no impediments to that progression.
Ultimately, the Bill supports locally trained doctors and maintains the integrity of national recruitment systems. I therefore fully support it, along with its extension to Northern Ireland through the legislative consent motion process. I genuinely wish the Minister well, and commend her on the constructive approach taken to recognising Northern Ireland’s devolved competences while ensuring alignment across the entirety of the United Kingdom. However, I will support the Opposition amendment regarding the timing. In my view, this legislation is not just the right thing to do. It is the timely thing to do in order to tackle the issue of workforce recruitment, and it should not be used in any negotiations with the British Medical Association to resolve another issue out there. I seek an assurance from the Secretary of State, as other speakers have done, that the Bill will be introduced in the right manner, because it is the right thing to do.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s plan to change the law. It was obvious to me and to others that such a change would be needed, and it was one of the matters about which the newly elected doctors spoke to Ministers last year.
Imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you have graduated from a medical school, excited at last to be called a doctor, and looking forward to finally getting to work after years of intense study, uncountable examinations and fierce competition. When this happened to me at Sheffield medical school, our early pre-registration posts were organised by the university. We were simply distributed around the local hospitals. We were in familiar locations, with our classmates and consultants who knew us. We began, rather hesitantly, to work as doctors, but suddenly we had responsibility for life and death.
However, something changed. Now young doctors are simply sent by chance, with little notice, to a region of the country they have never visited. They are far from their friends. Ironically, they are now called resident doctors, but that is the very last thing they are; the residences have long since disappeared. The shift system replaced the on-call rotas, and the doctors’ mess disappeared, so hot food was no longer available. Now, if they are lucky, they have an office chair in which to rest, and a sandwich dispenser in a cold corridor. They have no friends nearby, nowhere to live, and nothing to eat at night. It is not really the best start, and these are the young doctors on whom your life may depend. We really must do something to look after the health workers who look after us—all health workers. That does not just mean paying them properly, although we obviously must do so. Today we are speaking about our doctors, for young doctors face a very uncertain future.
After Brexit, many of our European doctors just left. The deficit was filled, as so often in the past, by doctors from the rest of the world. Especially in hospitals that are remote from medical schools—such as my hospital, the West Suffolk hospital in Bury St Edmunds, and the hospital where I worked for so many years, the James Paget hospital in Great Yarmouth—we have always depended on brilliant doctors from many nations, many of whom have become my long-term colleagues and some of my best friends. Immigration rules were altered after Brexit, effectively enabling applicants from across the world to apply for a very limited number of posts. As we have heard, although competition is healthy, it is certainly not healthy for the ratio of applicants to posts to go from about 2:1 to more than 4:1. As we have also heard, this is absolutely the cause of the bottlenecks. UK graduates simply cannot progress and are obliged to repeat years, often as unstructured and unrecognised clinical fellows. They leave the country or give up medicine altogether. The Government have rightly recognised that this must change.
Medical training is a continuum, and the end result is a general practitioner or a hospital specialist—by the way, I much prefer “specialist” to “consultant”. Doctors have five or six years of undergraduate training, and eight to 10 years of postgraduate training, and it makes no sense to graduate so many students and then fail to accommodate them in postgraduate training. The measure to prioritise the graduates of UK medical schools is simply common sense and I support it, alongside, I understand, almost all Members of the House.
Finally, let me issue a word of warning. The number of new medical schools—I understand that there are many new medical schools, including the one in Cumbria, which I did not know about—means that we have more graduates than ever. That is good, because we have insufficient doctors, but the health system must create additional training posts, more substantive posts for general practitioners and hospital specialists, and incentives to create these posts, especially in general practice, so that our new neighbourhood health centres, which I like to call “Bevan health centres”, can be fully staffed and open late at night, and so that we see an NHS renewed. That is our aim, and we will achieve it.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
As always, it is an honour and a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), who is a retired ear, nose and throat surgeon. It has been a pleasure to listen to my colleagues in the House debating this Bill. In common with Members from across the House, I absolutely welcome the Bill, and I am glad to see it come forward. I have heard from many of my junior medic colleagues about the issues that my hon. Friend set out so eloquently, and we need to care for our UK graduate workforce.
In recent years, NHS workforce planning has not been done well. There has been an increase in the number of medical students training, which we welcome, but there has not been a commensurate increase in the number of jobs available at the end of that training, which makes no sense. Training is expensive, and UK graduates should be able to access employment at the end of their training. As many Members from across the House have said, there must be recognition that healthcare professionals are part of a global workforce. There will continue to be a natural flow of my medical colleagues heading to other parts of the world to deploy their skills, and there will continue to be a global workforce in our national health service. We should not underestimate the mutual learning that results from this arrangement.
I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on global health and security. We are undertaking an inquiry with our Global Health Partnerships colleagues on the net benefits to the UK from international recruitment, and at the future reciprocal benefits for both the UK and countries of heritage. The benefits will go both ways; we should not underestimate that. A balance needs to be found, and I think this legislation more than achieves that. We are prioritising UK graduates, increasing the number of placements available, and continuing to recognise international skilled personnel who already have experience of the UK health service, whom we value and do not want to lose. This will of course need close monitoring, alongside implementation of the NHS workforce plan. All that has been said, but I just wanted to reinforce it.
What has not been mentioned in the Chamber this afternoon, and I would like to bring it to the Minister’s attention, is the public health workforce. As a declaration of interest, I am still a public health consultant or specialist on the General Medical Council register. The public health workforce is exempt from the prioritisation in this Bill, because we are very fortunate that public health benefits not only from medical graduates such as myself, but from a non-medical workforce. There are benefits from this mix, and the global nature of public health is reflected in having an international mix, but public health training is hugely oversubscribed in the United Kingdom. So will the Minister give further consideration to this exemption to ensure that UK graduates do not continue to face the issues, which have been so eloquently outlined, currently faced by their medical colleagues?
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I will keep this short, because many of my points have already been made. I think that there are two main problems. The first is about priority for our medical graduates. To be honest, I was a little bit surprised when, about a year ago, I found out that they are not prioritised. That clearly is not reciprocated around the world, and we need to change it. The other problem is our training numbers. If we are training medical students up to graduation, we must ensure that the number training fit into our postgraduate training, because otherwise it is crazy, which is the situation we find ourselves in.
I have been a GP trainer for about 25 years, and many of the doctors I have trained as GPS have gone off to Australia. My favourite went to New Zealand and is staying there, although I keep trying to entice her back by saying how great it is that the NHS is improving. GP training is unique. It involves 18 months in general practice in a one-on-one apprenticeship-type system, and I think the system in the UK is one of the best in the world. It teaches continuity of care for patients, and it also teaches the skills that are bringing back the family doctor. This is about the doctor being the gatekeeper to the NHS, and also protecting the patient against the NHS and from over-investigation.
In fact, I always think an MP is bit like a GP, because a GP has to know a little about absolutely everything, which is the same for an MP. I would like to give a shout-out to my Stroud GP trainers group, who visited Parliament last year, and also to the 8,000 GP trainers in this country, who do a fantastic job, often going above and beyond their responsibilities.
I would like to mention international medical graduates—I have had a number of them. At the moment, 50% of those training in the UK are international medical graduates—I understand that in Teesside the figure is 100%—and we are depending on these people to provide some of our general practice. I have had fantastic trainees from India, Spain, Germany and Algeria, who have all become fantastic NHS GPs. As I have said, we must ensure that they are welcome and treasured in the NHS, because they constitute a large body of GPs in our system. Although we need to prioritise UK graduates, we must not put off international graduates from coming and helping us to deliver a new NHS.
I would like to make another point about medical training. Postgraduate medical training goes through a process, and it is important that we recalibrate this so that the number of training spots exactly matches the number of our medical graduates. That is particularly true for anaesthetists. There are bottlenecks in anaesthetics training, and if we could relieve those bottlenecks, we would get more anaesthetists training and could start to bring down our waiting list. However, that will involve a decent workforce plan, which I understand we are developing, and proper planning for the future, so we can get our waiting lists down and deliver a better NHS for everyone.
To conclude, after years of failure and the neglect of our home-grown talent, this Government are taking action so that our doctors can train, stay and serve the communities that need them most. I urge Members to support the Bill.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
This Bill matters enormously in my constituency. The NHS is one of the largest local employers. Our hospitals, community services and care settings are the backbone of our local economy. We also have outstanding institutions—Bournemouth University, Bournemouth and Poole College and the Health Sciences University—ready and willing to provide a strong local pipeline of medical and health professionals. I have met professors at the school of midwifery at BU worried about whether its graduates will get a first placement, specialist nurses unable to progress their careers, and early-career psychiatrists forced to look for work far from home. That is not through a lack of demand for these services in the local area. If we train doctors here, fund their education through British taxpayers and ask them to commit their lives and careers to the NHS, we owe them a fair chance to build those careers within it.
The shadow Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), has said that we should not play politics with people’s jobs. I agree, but we must recognise that the situation we are in now is a direct result of the Conservatives’ ill thought-through visa changes in the wake of the mess left by their post-Brexit settlement for the UK. The fact that we now have more than double the number of overseas-trained applicants than UK-trained applicants for a limited position is a consequence of that. Under the Conservatives, we became too reliant on pulling the immigration lever to solve our workforce shortages. Their policies meant that UK graduates are being squeezed out, with too many lost to the private sector or overseas not because of a lack of talent or commitment, but because the system did not work for them. I was proud to campaign on a commitment to train more local young people and to encourage companies to hire locally before looking overseas, and the same should be true for the NHS, so I am pleased that the Bill is doing that.
This is not about blaming or disrespecting migrant workers. International doctors and those from our immigrant communities who work in all elements of our NHS are valued and respected. Immigration has enriched my town. The people who have come to the UK to care for our elderly, nurse our sick and heal our injured are important parts of the vibrant and diverse community that we have in Bournemouth, and I thank them for their service.
We should also be proud that the NHS is a world-renowned employer and a real part of our soft power influence. Countries around the world aspire to the type of universal healthcare offering that we have in the UK, and our specialists train health professionals around the world. For many doctors around the globe, time spent working in the NHS is a badge of honour, but poaching doctors from countries that desperately need them while UK-trained doctors cannot progress is morally wrong. It undermines global health equity and erodes trust here at home. It is right that we prioritise skilling our own people; other countries recognise that reality. The United States, Canada and Australia prioritise domestic graduates for training opportunities.
The Bill is consequential for me, as a Labour MP for a constituency that has never voted Labour before. Bournemouth and Poole are often seen as affluent areas, but they contain real inequalities and serious barriers to social mobility. In places such as West Howe and Alderney, parents tell me that they feel forgotten. They worry that their children do the right things, work hard and get the right grades, but are constantly told that they cannot compete or are locked out. If we want young people from council estates to believe that they belong in medicine, we must back that belief with opportunity. We cannot claim to be the party of social mobility and dignity in work if we do not put the ladders in place.
The Conservative record is clear: expanding medical places without expanding training posts, liberalising visas without the workforce planning and leaving UK graduates to carry the cost. The Bill is a necessary correction. It is fair, responsible and morally right for our NHS, communities and the next generation. To any students or recent graduates considering Australia, I say this: if we get this right, we have beaches that are just as impressive in Bournemouth, even if I cannot always guarantee the weather.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
At its heart, this Bill is about fairness—fairness for the doctors who train in this country, and fairness for the patients who rely on the care provided by our fantastic NHS workforce. Before Brexit, graduates from our British medical schools predominantly competed among themselves for foundation and specialty training posts, but since Boris Johnson’s disastrous visa and immigration changes made under the previous Conservative Government, that picture has changed completely. Doctors trained here are facing huge barriers to progressing their career and caring for patients up and down the country, and many are turning to jobs abroad or within the private sector. That is not because they lack the ability or the commitment, but because of how the system was left to drift by the previous Government until it has got to this point of being set up against our graduates.
We hear a lot about the doctors who train here but then end up going abroad, but we hear a lot less about the concerns of the doctors who remain here in the UK. They are passionate about our NHS and want to dedicate their careers to it. They want to build their lives here, but all too often they find that they simply cannot secure a training post. This is not a new problem; it is a reality that has been behind the flight of doctors overseas for many years. But only now do we have a Government who are committed to tackling it. I commend the Health Secretary not only for bringing forward the Bill, but for committing to bring in changes as swiftly as possible.
Our NHS and our constituents are missing out on our home-grown talent because of the previous Government’s changes to immigration, which led to the so-called Boriswave. As we have heard, international medical graduates contribute hugely and are welcome, but visa changes have had a destabilising effect on British-trained doctors who now face double the competition for every single post. We are training more doctors now than ever before, but we have failed until now to match that ambition with a system that supports them. As we have heard, we spend around £4 billion a year training doctors in the UK, a huge investment of public money, and it is only right that taxpayers see that investment translating into doctors building their careers in our NHS.
The prioritisation to which the Secretary of State referred is about sustainability and keeping things fair for our UK-trained graduates, not about shutting out international talent. The NHS is rightly proud to be a major international employer and people from around the world will continue to bring vital skills to our health service. Of course, anyone who can apply now will still be able to apply. But many countries from which we are recruiting also desperately need their own doctors. We should be proud that people want to come and work here, but it is morally unacceptable to pinch doctors from other countries that need them, meanwhile leaving our brilliant and willing resident doctors unable to get training places.
The Bill builds on action that the Government have already taken to boost the NHS workforce. When the Government came into office, we heard concerns from GPs and patients alike about a dire need for more GP surgery capacity, while many qualified GPs were out of work. Labour removed the red tape around the additional roles reimbursement scheme and more than 1,000 additional GPs have since joined our primary care workforce. When the Government heard from nurses who were just about to qualify and struggling to find work, despite a clear and chronic need for more nurses, they brought in the graduate guarantee. Now the Government are acting again.
Following the Secretary of State’s constructive approach to negotiations with the BMA, he offered a package of support, including quadrupling the number of specialist training posts being created in the coming three years and funding resident doctors’ Royal College exam and membership fees. Despite a rejection of that deal, he is making good on his commitment to put British graduates back on a level playing field, giving them a fair shot at taking the next step in their careers, with competition ratios that are reasonable and workable.
The Bill will ensure that the NHS retains the talent it has developed through excellent medical schools such as Keele University in Staffordshire, rather than losing that talent to overseas recruitment or forcing doctors out of the profession altogether. The BMA has welcomed extending prioritisation to the foundation programme, which the Government expect will significantly reduce the number of placeholder offers faced by final-year medical students. I hope that as their members vote on whether to take further strike action, they will see that the Government do not make pie-crust promises. We are taking the steps we said we would take to fix the issues that they have raised.
I know that the Bill will not fix every workforce challenge overnight, but it is certainly a big step in the right direction. It will reduce competition for training places and, most importantly, send a clear message to resident doctors who trained in this country: if you want to progress your career here, the Government will back you. For those reasons, I am proud to support the Bill.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for the Bill, which delivers on the promises made previously in this place in response to the proposed industrial action a couple of months ago. It is welcome to see the pace with which the Government have moved in progressing these important changes. It shows their commitment to backing doctors and medical professionals in this country.
There is a lot to welcome in the Bill’s provisions. Members have talked at length and with a lot of personal and professional expertise about the challenges of the medical training system. As a member of the Health Committee—alongside the Chair, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), and others who have spoken—we often hear about the need for a proper workforce plan to address the NHS’s long-term issues with training and development, which frankly have failed staff and patients.
It is important to reflect on, as others have, the important and vital contribution that doctors and nurses from around the world have made. That is the case in my constituency at Hillingdon hospital, and in GP and community-based health services. My mum recently had a stroke and, fortunately, recovered from it at University College London hospital in central London. As ever, it was doctors, nurses, speech therapists and allied healthcare professionals from almost every country around the world who helped and supported her to recover. I am sure that they will continue to serve our national health service with dedication and commitment, and I am sure that the whole of this House is thankful for their service.
As we have heard, however, it is absurd that thousands of British doctors trained by our NHS at great expense, funded by the British taxpayer, are currently unable to find jobs in the NHS after graduation. In a time of crisis for the NHS, we do not have a penny to spare, and every pound needs to go even further. It is a great waste of talent and capacity, and it is not fair to young doctors in the system, who are being beaten to entry-level NHS positions by doctors from overseas with decades of experience.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I wonder if the hon. Member has given any thought to residents such as George and Dennis in my constituency, who are both British citizens, brought up here, but went to work abroad either because they are dual citizens and wanted to be able to learn in two languages, or because of the covid delays. They will not be included in these measures. Does the hon. Member think they should be included within the second tier of graduates from places like Iceland and Liechtenstein? Does he have any views on whether we should be excluding British citizens?
Danny Beales
I am about to turn to a specific issue about British citizens, so I hope I will pick up on the hon. Member’s points. More generally, there is nothing progressive about a system that promotes a brain drain from some of the most deprived and underdeveloped communities in the world, with significant health needs. To have doctors and nurses come from those systems on an industrial scale, and to take away the resources spent in those systems on education and training for our benefit in a western, developed country, is not progressive. It is important to welcome the provisions in the Bill that address those challenges.
As the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) raised, I will press the Secretary of State—and the Minister for Secondary Care, who is now in place—on the specific language of the Bill, which seeks to prioritise graduates from medical schools in the United Kingdom, rather than UK citizens who are medical graduates.
Like other Members, I have been contacted by a number of my constituents who will be affected by these provisions. That includes Alisha, a British citizen who was schooled and grew up here; her family live in Ickenham in my constituency, and she is a first-year medical student at Queen Mary University of London’s campus in Malta, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) mentioned earlier. When she enrolled last year, she was given a guarantee by the university that she would face no disadvantage compared with students on the London campus.
We have heard that there can never be any guarantees; that there is not a legal contract that this Government make with individuals; and that this House is sovereign, and can make different decisions. But I think there are issues of fairness around the retrospective applications of decisions that we make that can affect people’s lives, particularly at crucial points, such as when studying or getting a job—decisions that have major impacts on someone’s future life chances.
Alisha studies a British curriculum and she will be awarded the same degree qualification as her peers on the London campus. However, if the Bill’s current wording is interpreted strictly geographically instead of institutionally, it would mean that she is categorised as an international medical graduate, despite being a British citizen, studying a British medical degree at a British university.
I ask the Secretary of State to take away this point and, with officials, to look at this specific issue in greater detail and at modelling and sharing the number of UK citizens projected to be affected this academic year by those changes. If, as has been suggested by Queen Mary University, this is a matter of 40 or 50 individuals, I ask the Secretary of State to look at whether further changes could be made to ameliorate the impact on UK citizens, at least in a transitional way, that would not bind us in future academic years. I also ask that officials have discussions with Maltese counterparts about our important and ongoing strategic relationship in health and other key areas.
To conclude, there is much to welcome in this Bill. I know that medical colleges and societies strongly support many of the provisions. I hope that they will be the start of a broader process of a comprehensive workforce plan that will address the many challenges in workforce planning, training and development and the numbers of bottlenecks that exist throughout the workforce system so that we have a training and development system for medical professionals in this country that delivers both positive results for patients and better and fairer outcomes for those applying to study, learn and train.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
As the final contributor from the Back Benches, I shall try to strike a slightly different tone from the rest of the debate.
Over the past few days, I have been contacted by a number of constituents who are likely to be affected by today’s emergency Bill. One of those is Dr Khan, a resident doctor at Poole general hospital’s emergency department. He trained overseas and has been working in the NHS for almost three years. He also has a young family living in my constituency. As an international medical graduate working in the NHS, he is concerned that the proposed emergency legislation on UK medical graduate prioritisation will have a negative impact on people like him. Although I support a sustainable domestic medical workforce, implementing these changes mid-cycle in 2026, after applications have closed and commitments have been made, is, I believe, a breach of procedural fairness.
My constituent has raised further concerns that I would also like to share. The technical proposal to use immigration status such as indefinite leave to remain or citizenship as a proxy for NHS experience is both blunt and unnecessary. The Oriel application system already specifically collects data on whether an applicant has more than six months of NHS experience, and this existing evidence-based metric should be used to prioritise those already contributing to our health service rather than relying on immigration status.
Many of Dr Khan’s colleagues have relocated to this country and planned their lives based on the rules in force when the applications opened in late 2025. To change the rules now, while we are in the middle of the interview window, will cause immense personal distress and undermine our long-standing commitment to fairness.
There is also a genuine risk to the workforce. Our NHS relies heavily on our international staff, and today’s Bill risks damaging the UK’s reputation as a fair employer. It could lead to an exodus of skilled professionals that the NHS, in my view, cannot afford to lose.
When the Minister responds, will she consider providing clear transitional protections for the 2026 cohort who are already here? Will she further consider that any new criteria should be implemented prospectively for 2027 and that any measure of NHS experience should utilise the data already collected, rather than blunt immigration-based proxies?
A few days ago, I submitted a written question on the impact that the proposed changes to rules around indefinite leave to remain for health workers would have on the viability of the NHS 10-year workforce plan. The response from the Department was that no such assessment had been made. I fear that we are now making the same mistake again. Those who are already here and making a contribution need to be acknowledged for their service. I would welcome any assurances that the Minister could give to Dr Khan and all those like him who are already a valued part of our NHS.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Opposition, but first I should declare my interest as a consultant paediatrician and member of the British Medical Association.
Medicine is a vocation, but it is also an art and a science, and training takes a long time. After, in general, five years as a medical student, new resident doctors need to train further in a specialism such as orthopaedics, ophthalmology or, in my case, paediatrics. Postgraduate training varies in length and structure among the specialties, but in broad principle it is divided into a foundation programme and more specialist training. The foundation programme is two years long and teaches a variety of skills. Specialist training is more specific, and there are well over 60 different specialties that people can choose from. It is those two phrases—the foundation programme and specialist training—that the Bill refers to.
We are in a situation where there has been a huge surge in the number of applications per training post. One reason for that is the substantial increase in the number of medical school places. That was caused by action by the previous Conservative Government to improve the number of doctors in the long term. The previous Government opened five medical schools—at Sunderland, Anglia Ruskin, Kent and Medway, Edge Hill and, very close to my constituency, Lincoln. The first students at those universities graduated in 2023, 2024 and 2025, which increased the number of students looking for posts.
At the time there was also a widespread expansion of existing medical school places—and, of course, there was the pandemic. During the pandemic, students who had applied for medical school and accepted offers found themselves unable to take their exams, and teacher-assessed grades meant that there was a huge increase in the number of successful applicants who got the grades they needed. There were more compared with the number that was statistically expected. The Government lifted the cap, and there was a huge number of medical students in that period. Many of them qualified last summer. That is why there is a huge increase in the number of local graduates.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), the Secretary of State talked about his pledge to double medical school places, but there does not appear to have been an increase in the number of medical school places this year, and a statement from the Department for Health and Social Care at the weekend suggests that it is not a Government commitment. When the Secretary of State was asked whether he stands by his pledge, he seemed to say no, so I would appreciate it if the Minister clarified that issue.
In 2024 at a visit to the Royal Derby hospital, the Secretary of State said that that site would be part of delivering the doubling of the number of medical school places that Labour is committed to in order to ensure that the NHS has the staff it needs to treat patients on time. He then encouraged people to vote for that in the 4 July general election. Will he clarify whether he stands by his pledge, and if so, when does he expect to start delivering on it?
UK factors are not the main cause for the rise in numbers. The BMA has published figures from freedom of information requests that show that the number of UK graduates applying for training programmes went up from 9,273 in 2023 to 12,305 in 2025, which is an increase of about a third. Over the same period, the number of international medical graduates applying for specialist training went from 10,402 in 2023 to 20,803 in 2025, which is a doubling of applications.
The surge in numbers has left British graduates facing unemployment. Some may pursue careers overseas and not return. The valuable contributions from international medical graduates are appreciated, but many complete training and return to their home nation, which could leave us with a potential shortage in the long term of consultants and GPs.
The Government are right to step in to prioritise local talent. As such, we support the principles behind the Bill. However, there are some issues that we have questions about. First, the foundation programme applications are in progress. An application window closed on 8 October, and pre-allocation outcomes were due in mid-December. Foundation school applications due on 26 February are also to be delayed. The foundation programme website states that allocations can only occur once the Bill receives Royal Assent. That delay in itself, and the uncertainty associated with it, is difficult enough for young doctors and their families. Yet the Secretary of State creates an extra layer of uncertainty by adding clause 8 and the right to withhold activation of the Bill to a day of his choosing. Why is he doing that?
What are the foundation programme and the people who run it to do? Should they wait, based on, “Will he, won’t he?” and, “When will he allocate it, when will he not?” Should they allocate places anyway, on the basis, as has been said already, that people need to know where they will live and sort out their arrangements? Or will they have to reallocate if the Secretary of State activates it, after it was allocated on the basis that he had not done that yet? That is not the way to treat professional, hard-working people.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon said in his speech, this is not just about doctors; it is about patient safety now and in the future. The Conservatives have submitted an amendment that would activate the Bill on Royal Assent. I urge the Secretary of State to do what is right for the country and for patient safety and support it.
Secondly, Labour has forgotten the British people—those we represent and should prioritise. I will say more as we consider the specific amendment, but under Labour’s Bill, foreign nationals completing a primary medical degree in Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and the UK are in a priority group. Yet a British citizen who trained in the USA, Canada, France or even the Malta campus of a UK medical school are not.
The hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) talked about the likelihood of international medical graduates leaving the UK after training, but surely that is an argument to ensure that British trainees are prioritised wherever they have trained—if the degree is suitable. The Conservative amendment ensures that British people are always front and centre, and we urge the other Opposition parties to back it. The issue of British citizens was raised earlier too. I want to clarify for the avoidance of all doubt that when we say “British citizens” we mean those from England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
There are other clarifications, which I will be grateful if the Minister can address when winding up. On military doctors, what position is in place to ensure that military resident doctors are able to access the posts that they need? What impact will the Bill have on them, particularly if, as the world is more dangerous now, they spend more time overseas in future than at present?
As Conservatives, we believe in meritocracy and, as such, I support new clause 2 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). We all want excellent doctors and—I will say more about this in Committee—a random allocation does not encourage excellence. It produces stress and uncertainty, it does not encourage excellence, so I support the amendment.
We agree with the principle of the Bill, but we encourage the Government to accept amendments that encourage excellence, to think through the detail, to put politics aside and do what is right for the country, to prioritise British citizens and to activate the Bill immediately on Royal Assent.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to close on behalf of the Government. I welcome the support of the Opposition spokespeople and the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). I put on record my thanks to them for meeting me in advance of the Bill and for airing their concerns.
From the many contributions this afternoon, there is clearly a broad base of sympathy and support right across the House for the measures in the Bill to support our NHS staff, who have been at the sharp end of every ill-conceived policy of the past 14 years—not least since the previous Government lifted the visa restrictions in 2020, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale). The last Government’s failure to do any proper workforce planning has also led to patients struggling to find a GP appointment while GPs struggle to get a job, bottlenecks for resident doctors and an over-reliance on overseas workers and a refusal to foster our own home-grown talent.
Although I welcome the support, I find it slightly ironic that some of the Opposition speeches were around the need for clear and consistent routes and for clarity. That is exactly what we intend to provide to fix the mess. We will bring forward wider issues in the workforce plan, which, as the boss said earlier, will be in the spring. That is as a result of the concerns around training from the Royal Colleges and other stakeholders and making sure that we do that properly. We will bring that forward in due course.
Karin Smyth
I am going to make some progress. Time is of the essence, I am afraid, but we can pick up more in Committee.
When I was a manager in the NHS, I worked alongside many overseas doctors, and I want to make it clear from this Dispatch Box this afternoon that they are, of course, welcome here. The NHS is and always will be one of the most diverse employers in the world. This Bill is about bringing future generations into the health service and giving them the secure future that we all know they need. It is about sustainable workforce planning so that patients are no longer at the mercy of the market. Crucially, it is also about fairness. How is it fair that every year the taxpayer picks up a £4 billion bill to train medics who cannot then get jobs? Those taxpayers deserve a return on their investment. How is it fair that medics in this country put themselves forward to train, make sacrifices, get into debt and work long hours only to find themselves trapped in bottlenecks?
I am going to try to address a number of colleagues’ points. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), for his experience and for outlining the capacity and demand issues that people like him have to face as managers, and also for his important point about our workforce needing to reflect our society. He talked about the great work being done in Sunderland, and I was pleased to meet the leaders there, including Dr Wilkes, to see the work they are doing so that we can take that elsewhere. That is exactly what we want to do.
I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns)—the mum of a nurse, as she told us—for putting on the record the work of the Pears Cumbria School of Medicine and the intention of growing doctors who are steeped in Cumbria. She also mentioned health inequalities, and I would be pleased to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those issues further. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) was right to highlight the soaring numbers of people we are losing and to recognise that it was all going back to front.
Why do we need emergency legislation? We need Royal Assent by 5 March at the latest to ensure that the change happens this year. We do not want medics to face another year of bottlenecks. Specialty training offers will be made from March, and any delay will risk vacancies in August. This emergency legislation gives the NHS the certainty and stability it needs to carry on bringing down waiting lists and to keep us on the road to recovery. The people applying for those posts need enough time to make decisions about their lives, including deciding where they will move, finding accommodation and sorting childcare, and they deserve enough time to get on with that.
A number of colleagues have raised the definition of prioritisation for training posts. Let us be clear that, for specialty training posts starting this year, we will prioritise UK medical graduates and others, using their immigration status as a proxy for having significant experience of working in the health service. Colleagues might wonder whether there has been some pulling of strings to include Irish doctors in that prioritisation, but I can assure them that that is not the case. Ireland is included because of our special and long-standing relationship with Ireland and very similar epidemiology. I thank the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) for the important points he raised about Magee College and working with the devolved institutions. I can assure him that officials have worked closely with officials in Northern Ireland on this. If there are any other issues, he should please raise them, but we have worked closely on that point.
From next year, 2027, immigration status will no longer automatically determine priority. I accept some of the points from my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) . He perhaps suggested that the proposal was crude, but it is a proxy for this year. Next year we will bring forward regulations to prioritise whether someone has significant experience as a doctor in the health service or by reference to their immigration status. This point was raised by the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, and many others. We will continue to work with all partners and the devolved Governments to agree those criteria in time for the autumn application round.
On international staff, my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), the Chair of the Select Committee and others raised the issue of foreign doctors. Let us be clear that international staff play an important role in our NHS and they always will. The NHS might be the most diverse public body in the world, and we would not have it any other way, but we are recruiting doctors from abroad—sometimes even from countries that are short of medical staff—when there is already a pool of applicants at home.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) said, we are not about nicking other people’s workforces. Home-grown doctors are more likely to work in the NHS for longer, and be better equipped to deliver healthcare tailored to the UK’s population, because having been trained in the UK’s epidemiology, they better understand it. It is not fair for British taxpayers to spend over £4 billion training medics every year, as my hon. Friends the Members for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) and for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) said. Nor is it fair for doctors who struggled to get into specialty training places. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston said, a responsible Government get a grip on this.
I will refer to the amendments when we move into Committee of the whole House. We are seeing the green shoots of recovery as we repair the NHS following the damage done over the past 14 years. We are turning another page on that decline. However, the decision in 2020 to lift visa restrictions has done untold damage to the system and to staff morale, and contributed to a national mood of cynicism and pessimism, especially among the young, so we need to act. Those points were articulated well by the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), and expertly, as always, by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley).
Let me end my remarks by talking about the many young people who will be affected by the changes that we are setting out. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) said, these are not abstract statistics but personal costs. When I speak to those in my family, my constituency and even my parliamentary office who have breached the first barrier of getting to a medical school from a state school, I am disheartened to hear how many of them feel that their careers would be better served by moving abroad. In the 1970s, James Callaghan said that if he were a young man, he would emigrate. I do not want young people to take that path; I would rather say to them, “By all means, travel, see the world and enjoy that time, but there are great opportunities for you all in this country, and we want you to rebuild the NHS with us.” My niece is currently in Australia, and we sometimes call this the “bring Talia home Bill”.
The NHS must play its part in training our young people and keeping top talent in the UK. If colleagues agree that that is worth doing, and if they want to keep our people here, they should join us in voting for the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).
Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:12 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 91 / Noes: 378 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:26 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 61 / Noes: 311 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:39 - divided: - Ayes: 88 / Noes: 310 - Question accordingly negatived.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)
I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Please use our names. Madam Chair, Chair or Madam Chairman are also acceptable.
Clause 1
UK Foundation Programme
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The First Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to consider:
Amendment 6, in clause 2, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
“(e) persons within subsection (3),”.
This is a paving amendment for amendment 7.
Amendment 7, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
“(3) A person is within this subsection if they—
(a) were actively employed as a doctor in the NHS or Health and Social Care Northern Ireland on 13 January 2026; and
(b) had submitted a valid application for a UK specialty training programme for a start date in 2026 before the day on which this section comes into force.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), “actively employed” includes, but is not limited to, persons on fixed-term Trust Grade, Clinical Fellow or Staff, Associate Specialist and Specialty Doctor contracts.”
This amendment would require applications to specialty medical training in 2026 from those already employed in the NHS to be prioritised.
Clause 2 stand part.
Clause 3 stand part.
Amendment 10, in clause 4, page 3, line 2, at end insert—
“unless that time was spent outside the British Islands as part of a posting with the UK armed forces.”
This amendment would include within the definition of a UK medical graduate anyone who spent all or part of their training on a military posting outside the British Islands.
Amendment 9, page 3, line 3, after “are” insert
“a British citizen or are”.
This amendment would require British citizens to be prioritised for places on UK Foundation programmes and for interviews and places on speciality training programmes from 2027 onwards.
Clause 4 stand part.
Amendment 8, in clause 5, page 3, line 30, at end insert
“,provided that the majority of training for the programme takes place in the United Kingdom.”
This amendment would require a UK Foundation Programme to be a programme for which the majority of training takes place inside the United Kingdom.
Clause 5 stand part.
Clause 6 stand part.
Amendment 2, in clause 7, page 5, line 1, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment, taken together with amendment 4, would provide that regulations made under Clause 3 are subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 3, page 5, line 24, leave out “section 3 or”.
This amendment is consequential on amendments 2 and 4, which provide that regulations made under Clause 3 are subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 4, page 5, line 40, after “under” insert—
“section 3 (regulations describing persons who may be prioritised for specialty training programmes from 2027 onwards)”.
This amendment, taken together with amendment 2, would provide that regulations made under Clause 3 are subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 5, page 6, line 19, at end insert—
“(6) Before laying before Parliament a draft statutory instrument containing regulations under section 3 the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of—
(a) the Welsh Ministers, if the draft regulations contain provision which would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if it were contained in an Act of the Senedd;
(b) the Scottish Ministers, if the draft regulations contain provision which would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of the Scottish Parliament;
(c) the Department of Health in Northern Ireland, if the draft regulations contain provision which—
(i) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if it were contained in an Act of that Assembly, and
(ii) would not, if it were contained in a Bill for an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly, result in the Bill requiring the consent of the Secretary of State.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of the relevant devolved government before laying draft regulations under section 3. It is consequential on amendments 2 and 4.
Clause 7 stand part.
Amendment 1, in clause 8, page 6, line 23, leave out from “on” to the end of line 24 and insert
“the day on which it is passed”.
This amendment would bring the Act into force on the day on which it receives Royal Assent.
Clause 8 stand part.
New clause 1—Report on impact—
“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an annual report on the impact of the provisions of this Act.
(2) A report under this section must include—
(a) an assessment of the impact of the provisions of this Act on the number of applications for places on—
(i) UK Foundation Programmes, and
(ii) UK speciality training programmes, and
(b) if the assessment under paragraph (a) concludes that there has been a decrease in the total number of applications attributable to the provisions of this Act, an analysis of the potential impact of that decrease on the number of fully qualified doctors working in the NHS and Health and Social Care Northern Ireland, including specific analysis of the impact on the number of general practitioners and on each medical specialism.
(3) The first report under this section must be laid before 31 December 2029.”
New clause 2—Allocation of individual places on merit—
“(1) This section applies to the allocation of individual candidates to specific places on a UK Foundation Programme or a UK specialty training programme, whether that allocation takes place in the course of deciding offers of places or otherwise.
(2) A person who has a function of allocating places on a UK Foundation Programme or a UK specialty training programme must ensure that, once the prioritisation requirements set out in sections 1 to 3 of this Act have been applied, those allocations are based on an assessment of the applicants’ merits.
(3) For the purposes of the assessment of the applicants’ merits, a person may take into account—
(a) the candidates’ educational achievements,
(b) the candidates’ clinical performance,
(c) structured assessments of relevant skills and knowledge,
(d) the candidates’ research, leadership, management, quality improvement, and teaching skills, and
(e) the candidates’ knowledge relating to the place being allocated.”
This new clause would require the allocation of candidates to specific training places to be decided on an assessment of the candidates’ merits, after the prioritisation requirements in clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill have been met.
New clause 3—International students—
“(1) The Secretary of State must report annually to Parliament on the impact of the provisions of this Act on the numbers of international students at UK medical schools.
(2) This report must include an assessment of the financial impact on medical schools.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament annually on the impact of the measures in this Act on the numbers of international students studying at UK medical schools.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
In the interests of time, I will address the amendments at the end of proceedings, when I have heard from them—I think we have the gist of most of those issues. I restate our firm commitment to the Bill and all clauses.
Let me turn to clause 4 and clarify how we are defining “UK medical graduate” and “the priority group” for the purposes of the Bill. “UK medical graduate” in this context excludes those who have spent all or the majority of their time training for their medical qualification outside the British isles. This means that if a person has obtained a primary UK qualification but has studied mainly overseas, they will not be eligible for prioritisation as a UK medical graduate unless they fall into another group that is to be prioritised under the Bill. While internationally educated graduates from overseas remain an important part of the workforce and can continue to be recruited under the Bill, we are committed to growing home-grown talent, who are more likely to work in the NHS for longer, and to be better equipped to deliver healthcare tailored to the UK’s population.
Clause 8 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill and deals with commencement. The Bill extends to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and we have worked closely with the devolved Governments to ensure that it meets all needs and provides consistency. We are grateful to them for their support in bringing these measures forward so quickly. The Bill will engage the legislative consent motion process, and the devolved Governments have committed to commence this process in their Parliaments.
To ensure that the systems, planning and operational capacity required for successful implementation are in place, the Bill will be commenced
“on such day or days as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint.”
As the Secretary of State outlined on Second Reading, this is an important fail-safe to ensure that we are not in a position in which a law is enacted that we cannot implement effectively at the time. I am happy to expand on that after we have discussed the amendments, but the key issue is the ability of the NHS and training providers to deliver the measure. That is why we have a fail-safe; we first need to be very clear that the NHS is in a position to deliver. Members have talked about the strikes. Those would be one consideration, and there are many others. We are asking the NHS and training providers to do something very difficult very quickly, and in order to ensure that they have the capacity and capability to do it safely, we are reserving the right to commence the Bill at a later date, rather than at the end of this Session. I will come back to the amendments when I close the debate.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Minister.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I will speak to the amendments tabled by the Opposition. First, amendment 9 would require that from 2027, priority is given to British citizens on UK foundation programmes, and that they are prioritised for interviews and places on specialty training programmes. Clause 4 defines a UK medical graduate as a
“a person who holds a primary United Kingdom qualification within the meaning of the Medical Act 1983 (see section 4(3) of that Act)”.
However, it does not include
“a person who spent all or a majority of their time training for that qualification outside the British Islands.”
The Secretary of State has stated his intention to prioritise UK medical graduates, but he has failed to protect all British citizens in doing so. Our amendment would ensure that British citizens who study on an eligible medical course overseas were still prioritised in the Bill. There are many scenarios in which we may need to ensure that we protect British citizens. Consider, for example, a spouse, partner or child of a serving member of the UK armed forces who completes relevant training overseas while their relative is posted in Cyprus; a student at Queen Mary University of London who has completed the bachelor of medicine and bachelor of surgery course at its Malta campus but received a UK medical degree; a young British citizen who has studied in the US or France, owing to a family relocation; or, given that the largest bottleneck is not in training places but in getting a place in medical school at all in some cases, a British student who has gone to study overseas because of their fervent desire to become a doctor.
Those are all entirely possible and plausible scenarios in which British citizens have completed their relevant training, and wish to bring their skills back and to relocate in their homeland for the rest of their career, but may not be covered by the Government’s prioritisation model. The Government’s prioritisation model is based on where the degree was taken, rather than also considering who did it. The Secretary of State must ensure that we do not overlook our own citizens if we are to fairly address the competitive landscape for training posts. The Opposition therefore urge the Government to accept amendment 9.
Amendment 10 is a probing amendment to explore the effects of the Bill on military personnel. As a Member of Parliament representing an area with a large armed forces community, I know that medical trainees are an integral part of our serving community. The world is becoming an increasingly dangerous place, and junior trainees may be sent abroad earlier in their career than is currently the case. It is clearly wrong to penalise people who are doing brave work caring for our armed forces. They ought to be provided with optimal opportunities, and the Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that they are not overlooked. I would be grateful if the Minister covered that in her response.
New clause 3 would require the Government to make an annual report to Parliament about the Bill’s impact on the number of international students at UK medical schools, and the financial impact on UK medical schools. We talked about the bottleneck, and the balance between UK and international students training at UK medical schools; clearly, becoming a UK graduate will now come with a significant premium. What impact will that have on British children getting to make their choices and become doctors if they want to? What incentives does it provide to universities to increase the number of international students, and what effect will that have overall on UK medical schools?
New clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), is about places for UK foundation and speciality training programmes, and the importance of allocation on merit, because we all want the very best doctors. When I became a doctor—believe it or not, it was 25 years ago this year, Madam Deputy Speaker—I applied for a job as a junior house officer, as it was called then. I applied for the jobs I wanted, I was interviewed by the consultants who would have been supervising my training, and then I was offered the jobs.
The experience of students today is very different. They are allowed to put in a preference and say which deanery or foundation area they would like to work in, but that is all. After that, the application goes into a computer system, which gives them a single rank that is not based not on anything they have done at university, or on whether they got good results or worked hard, or anything like that. The computer system will do a first pass, and if the first choice is available, it will give the student their first choice. If it is not available because by the time its gets to that student those places have gone, the computer system will miss the student and go on to the next one. When it has completed its full pass of the list, it will start again, and when it comes to that student next time, it will give them the highest preference that is still available.
Once the student has been allocated a foundation deanery, the process starts again within the locality, and I mean “locality” in the loosest possible sense. Take those applying for the Trent rotation; they could be posted in Lincoln, Boston, Nottingham, Derby or Burton. The doctor has no control over where they will go, and very little ability to express a preference. My hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) spoke about a student in her locality who had not been able to get a place, despite being at the top—third, I think—of their university class. It is clearly not fair to give people no opportunity to control their future. By the way, there is no right of appeal, so having been given their place, the choice for the student is: that place or no place.
The hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) spoke about ordinary children from the north-east. Having once been an ordinary child from the north-east, I agree that it is important that people have opportunity, but it is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome, that matters. I worry that the system creates equality of outcome. We therefore support new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge.
Amendment 1 would require the Bill to take effect on the date of Royal Assent, as opposed to a date at the discretion of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. The Bill is deemed necessary emergency Government legislation to prioritise medical graduates in the United Kingdom for places on medical training programmes. When he announced the Bill in an attempt to avert industrial action by resident doctors in December, the Secretary of State told the House that he had been working intensively with his team to
“to see how quickly we could introduce legislation”—[Official Report, 10 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 430.]
However, the Bill does not commit to a date when these measures will be enacted. Instead, the power lies in the hands of the Secretary of State, giving him a clear bargaining chip for future negotiations. It is clear that the Government intend to pass this legislation urgently, as they have said. However, without a commencement date, there are clear concerns that the Bill is just a negotiating tactic to prevent industrial action by resident doctors, and can be scrapped at a later date. There remains the prospect of further industrial action, despite the legislation being introduced. The Secretary of State should not be asking Parliament to pass a Bill that he has no intention of enacting if the British Medical Association plays ball and holds off on strikes. Either the Secretary of State thinks that this is emergency legislation that we need to get on with and enact, or he does not.
It is vital that the legislation is enacted straight away, because students are due to be given their training programme places now, and they need to decide where they are going to live. They cannot put their life on hold, and measures to prioritise UK doctors cannot be held off, until the Secretary of State has finished dangling a carrot in front of the British Medical Association. The Opposition are clear: while we are supportive of the principles of the Bill, it must be used for offers made this year.
Amendment 8 would clarify that under clause 5, a UK foundation programme is a programme where the majority of training takes place inside the United Kingdom. A foundation programme is defined as
“an acceptable programme for provisionally registered doctors”
in section 10A of the Medical Act 1983. It is vital to clarify that a UK foundation programme is a programme where a majority of training takes place inside the United Kingdom. That is because the General Medical Council can approve foundation programmes overseas. If it is not explicit that a foundation programme needs to be in the United Kingdom, a loophole is created whereby a foundation programme could be approved overseas, creating a back way into the system and circumventing the measures that the Government have tried to put in place. I encourage the Minister to look at that carefully as the Bill progresses.
In summary, we support the Bill, but we have concerns about some of the clauses, so we have tabled amendments that we hope the Government will look at carefully.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The amendments in my name raise concerns about the Bill’s impact on fairness, transparency and the smooth functioning of the NHS, notwithstanding the Liberal Democrats’ overall support for the Bill.
Clause 7(1) would allow Ministers to change who is eligible for prioritisation through the negative procedure, meaning that such changes could be made unilaterally, without meaningful scrutiny. In practice, that hands the Secretary of State the power to redraw the boundaries of opportunity, and to decide who gets prioritised for medical training places, without Parliament ever having a say. That is unacceptable for a decision that affects people’s lives and careers, as well as the future capability of our health service. While I do not doubt the intentions of the Secretary of State and the Front Bench team, it opens the door to the risk of political whim or prejudice influencing who gets access to career-defining opportunities in the future. That is why the Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments 2 to 5 to reverse this, and to ensure that any changes must be subject to full parliamentary consent.
On the timing of the Bill’s implementation, the Government intend to apply the new prioritisation rules midway through the 2026 specialty recruitment cycle. Let us reflect on what that means in practice. Doctors already working in the NHS have entered this cycle under one set of rules. They have paid for exams, secured visas, arranged travel, uprooted their families and committed themselves to the NHS. To change the rules halfway through the process would not only be potentially destabilising for services, but very unfair to those individuals, many of whom are plugging urgent staffing gaps right now.
We already face real workforce pressures, so the last thing our NHS needs is a wave of dedicated doctors forced out by uncertainty, or pushed to leave the country because the Government moved the goalposts after applications had already begun. For this reason, we believe that the Bill should come into force from 2027. We must protect frontline services and protect the integrity of the applications process. To address the problem directly, we have tabled amendments 6 and 7 to safeguard those already in the 2026 application cycle, ensuring that they are not deprioritised, because that is a simple matter of fairness.
We have also tabled amendments to improve the transparency and long-term impact of the Bill. Across the NHS, we face severe shortages, not just in general practice but in radiology, oncology, mental health services and many other specialities.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Last year, research by the Royal College of Radiologists found that 76% of English cancer centres had patient safety concerns due to workforce shortages. While we welcome the Government’s recent commitment to ending the postcode lottery of cancer care, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to publish an assessment of the Bill’s impact on doctor numbers, broken down by speciality, to ensure that cancer treatment is not delayed because of staff shortages?
Helen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for her point, which I agree with fully. That is why we have tabled new clause 1. It will require the Government to publish a report on the Bill’s impact on the number of applicants to foundation and speciality training programmes and, crucially, to break that down by speciality. If applications fall as a result of these changes, the Government would be required to assess the impact on the total number of fully qualified doctors entering the NHS. This report would be produced annually after three years, allowing time for a full training cycle to complete. It is a sensible safeguard, one that ensures that we do not inadvertently exacerbate the very workforce shortages that we are trying to address. To return to the core principle that is at stake, we are not opposed to the Bill’s objective. We support the principle of prioritising those who have trained in the UK, but that principle must be implemented fairly, transparently and with proper oversight.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
As always, Mrs Cummins, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I rise to speak to new clause 2, which stands in my name and is supported by many other Conservative Members. I declare again that I am now a non-practising doctor and my wife is a doctor.
I believe that ambition should be encouraged, and success should be dependent on the talent and hard work of the individual. However, in a vocation where we really want to encourage and support the brightest and the best, the signal being beamed out by the NHS and its various arms and quangos is unfortunately quite different. We have already seen this over the years in how the NHS treats competence and excellence among doctors—someone could be the best doctor in the world and be treated exactly the same as someone who is just about competent. No other operation would approach employment, and celebrating and supporting success, in that way.
I do not think, though, that I have ever seen as egregious and extreme an example of completely ignoring talent and merit as the preference informed allocation system. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), has laid out some of the details behind that system, but I encourage Members across the Committee to read about how preference informed allocation works—about the soulless, computerised, algorithmic method by which it allocates human beings a random number. That random number is then the sum total of those people’s dreams, hopes and ambitions when it comes to placements as they take their first steps into their medical career. To me, PIA looks better suited to the dystopian sci-fi programmes that I enjoy watching—better suited to “Logan’s Run” or “The Prisoner”, in which people are allocated numbers. It is not the way that we should be treating people in this country, and it is outrageous that such a system has been brought into force. We in this House should stand up for merit, and I really hope the Minister will affirm from the Dispatch Box today that the Government will dismantle this awful scheme.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to Members for their contributions to the wider debate at this hour and for their considered amendments. I will respond briefly to their points and the amendments that have been tabled.
Amendment 6 and 7 would widen the scope of who is prioritised for specialty training starting in 2026 by prioritising applicants who worked as a doctor in the health service on 13 January. Although we welcome the intention to recognise the importance of internationally trained doctors, we cannot accept the amendments at this time. They would mean that the Bill was ineffective in delivering on its intention to tackle bottlenecks and ensure that we have a sustainable medical workforce that can meet the needs of the population.
I remind the Committee again that the Bill does not exclude anyone. In particular, there are likely to be opportunities in specialties such as general practice, core psychiatry and internal medicine, which historically attract fewer applicants from the groups we are prioritising for 2026. International medical graduates also continue to have opportunities in locally employed doctor roles. That could lead to NHS experience that might count towards future prioritisation as we look to make regulations to set criteria for what is considered “significant” NHS experience from 2027.
Amendment 10 would ensure that members of the armed forces are not excluded from prioritisation due to having undertaken medical training while on posting outside the British islands. We cannot accept that amendment as we believe it is not necessary. That is because medical cadets do not spend time outside the British islands as part of their UK medical degree. While cadets undertake their elective with the military, which may be overseas, that is no different from other civilian medical students, many of whom undertake electives overseas. As such, we do not believe that medical cadets are disadvantaged by the Bill.
Amendment 9 would include all British citizens within the priority groups so that British citizens will be prioritised for the purposes of the foundation programme and specialty training from 2027 onwards. It has no effect for 2026 specialty training, as British citizens are already prioritised by virtue of their immigration status. We therefore cannot accept the amendment. To do so would risk a significant increase in the pool of prioritised doctors who would compete with UK-trained doctors. The amendment would incentivise the expansion of the market for overseas medical schools, including medical schools working with foreign Governments to grow the overseas campus sector. That could offset any increase in postgraduate training places and undermine workforce planning. While British citizens will be prioritised for specialty training places in 2026, this is a proxy that is necessary for practical reasons. From 2027 we want to prioritise applications with experience and training based in the NHS.
Again, prioritisation does not mean exclusion. International medical graduates who are not prioritised will still be able to apply and will be offered places if vacancies remain after prioritised applicants have received offers. However, it is important that we do not incentivise actions that will undermine the Bill. This Bill will reduce competition for places for UK-trained doctors so that home-grown talent can become the next generation of NHS doctors.
Amendment 8 would limit the definition of a UK foundation programme in clause 5 to include programmes only where the majority of training has occurred within the UK. Although I understand the desire to do that, the number of doctors on a foundation programme within the meaning of the Medical Act 1983, but where the majority of training occurs outside the UK, is very small. Indeed, we understand that there is only one such active training programme. There are fewer than 25 doctors on that programme this year, of which fewer than five applied to continue their training in the UK. As such, there is no material impact on the Bill, so we do not think amendment 8 is necessary. However, we will keep the situation under review.
Amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5 would change the procedure for making regulations to set additional priority groups for specialty training from 2027. The regulations would prioritise additional groups based on criteria indicating that a person is likely to have significant experience of working as a doctor in the health service or by reference to their immigration status. To be clear on our intention, the Bill sets out the groups of people who are to be prioritised for specialty training from 2027 onwards. The delegated power is limited to adding to that list by reference to their having
“significant experience of working as a doctor in the National Health Service”,
or immigration status. Although I am sympathetic to the desire for more parliamentary scrutiny, as outlined by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), we believe that, due to the limited scope of the power, the negative procedure is justifiable. I therefore encourage her not to press those amendments to a Division.
Amendment 1 would change the commencement of the Bill—from being commenced by regulations to being commenced automatically on Royal Assent. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined, the commencement clause is important, and I have addressed that point. It is a failsafe that, given the tight timeline for introducing the Bill, will ensure that we are not in a position where a law is enacted that we cannot implement effectively for whatever unforeseen reason.
As I have said, there is also the question of whether it is even possible to implement prioritisation if, for example, the strikes are ongoing, given the strain that they put on resources and the impact that could have on delivery of the Bill. Because our objective is not just to move quickly but to get this right, these considerations are key to the commencement of the Bill, which is why the Government believe that we need to be able to commence the Bill when it makes sense to do so. For those reasons, we cannot accept the amendment.
We do not think that new clauses 1 and 3 are necessary, because the data is already published, or, as we have said, we would be seeking to monitor the impact. New clause 2 would require the allocation of individual candidates to foundation and specialty training places on merit, once the requirements to prioritise certain applicants had been met. We consider the new clause to be unnecessary at this time because existing systems for recruitment to foundation and specialty training already assess the applicants on many of the merits outlined by in it. The Bill does not alter that; it simply ensures that UK medical graduates and other eligible applicants are prioritised.
Karin Smyth
I am coming to the hon. Gentleman’s point. We will keep the current system under review—I think the Secretary of State was clear about that—but we think that any change is best made through established guidance rather than through legislation.
Many Members raised the issue of our relationship with Malta and Queen Mary, and the work that is done there. That relationship is clearly important. We have a great deal of work ongoing with Queen Mary, in the medical field as well as others. We are not excluding anyone. We are making sure that the prioritisation works in the best way possible, and we will of course keep all that under review. I thank hon. Members for their constructive debate on this important legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
“UK medical graduate” and “the priority group”
Amendment proposed: 9, page 3, line 3, after “are” insert
“a British citizen or are”.—(Stuart Andrew.)
This amendment would require British citizens to be prioritised for places on UK Foundation programmes and for interviews and places on speciality training programmes from 2027 onwards.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Karin Smyth
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Third time.
I will not use this time to rehearse any of the arguments made today. We have had some good discussions. I want to thank the Leader of the House, the Chief Whip, parliamentary counsel and business managers, the public servants in my Department and NHS England, who have worked so hard to bring this together, and the devolved Governments for their support. They really have worked well together to bring this important measure to this place.
I am also grateful to all colleagues for scrutinising the Bill so thoughtfully and thoroughly during today’s proceedings and, as I said previously, for meeting me last week to go through some of the provisions. It shows that Parliament can put its shoulder to the wheel and get stuff done in the public interest. We act in the public interest because we were elected on a mandate to fix our broken NHS and make it fit for the future, and we will not succeed in that goal without our workforce, who are and will always be our greatest asset.
When I worked in the NHS during the Lansley reforms, I had a front-row seat to see their devastating impact on staff morale. I saw that patients bore the brunt of some of that collapsing morale. When our workforce does well, our NHS does well. That is why we are working to restore confidence and renew belief among frontline staff. The Bill is another step on that journey, and I urge colleagues to come with us and see it through.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Petitions
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of Elizabeth Spain and the South Cambridgeshire Climate and Nature Group in my constituency. The petition states that peaceful environmental protesters are being criminalised through excessive charges, harsh sentencing and negative media treatment, and that the Public Order Act 2023 has introduced restrictive protest measures that deter people from exercising their right to peaceful protest, undermining the United Kingdom’s long-standing commitment to freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and non-violent civil disobedience.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of South Cambridgeshire,
Declares that peaceful environmental protestors are being treated as criminals, facing excessive charges, receiving prolonged sentences, and enduring unjust treatment in the media; further declares that the Public Order Act 2023 introduced anti-protest regulations that have proven intimidating to those who wish to continue to raise their voices peacefully; and further declares that the UK’s commitment to the fundamental rights of freedom of assembly, expression and non-violent civil disobedience should be reaffirmed.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to introduce a bill to repeal the Public Order Act 2023.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003156]
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
I present this petition on behalf of my constituents from Tillicoultry who have had nowhere to call home for two years now, and for those people from across the United Kingdom who have also had their life impacted by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete in their homes. This builds on a similar petition circulated locally, which gathered over 200 signatures. That shows the strength of feeling in Tillicoultry and beyond. My constituents deserve answers and accountability. All they ask for is fairness.
The petition requests
“that the House of Commons urge the Government to hold a public inquiry into the handling of RAAC by national and local government, to introduce legislation to require the maintenance of a high-risk building register, to mandate reporting of building defects by surveyors and other professionals and to introduce sixty-year liability for developers for building defects; and to consider compensation measures such as a ban on levying interest on mortgages on homes condemned after the discovery of RAAC, and the restoration of first-time buyer status for affected homeowners.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that many families across the UK face homelessness, bankruptcy and trauma after being forced from homes made unsafe by RAAC (reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete), particularly in former council homes purchased under the right to buy scheme.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to hold a public inquiry into the handling of RAAC by national and local government; to introduce legislation to require the maintenance of a high-risk building register, to mandate reporting of building defects by surveyors and other professionals and to introduce sixty-year liability for developers for building defects; and to consider compensation measures such as a ban on levying interest on mortgages on homes condemned after the discovery of RAAC, and the restoration of first-time buyer status for affected homeowners.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003158]
East Park Energy: North Bedfordshire
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I start by thanking you and, through you, Mr Speaker for permitting me to speak on this important constituency matter. I also welcome the Minister. For the benefit of those who may be not familiar with the process, the Minister will probably be very limited in what he can say specifically about the topic I am raising today. The topic is a proposal by East Park Energy for a large-scale, ground-mounted solar plant and battery energy storage system spanning North Bedfordshire and also the constituency of Huntingdon. This proposal is currently under consideration as part of the nationally significant infrastructure project process.
East Park Energy spans 1,900 acres of land—to give some perspective, that is larger than Gatwick airport—on what is currently open countryside. It engulfs the rural parishes of Pertenhall and Swineshead, Bolnhurst, Keysoe, Little Staughton, Staploe and Dean and Shelton in my constituency, as well as the parishes of Hail Weston and Great Staughton in the constituency of Huntingdon. Some 74% of the land is classified as best and most versatile agricultural land, and East Park is one of six nationally significant infrastructure projects impacting North Bedfordshire.
I have called this debate to discuss with the Minister the impact that East Park Energy could have on North Bedfordshire’s local residents and on its landscape and rural character, and to raise with him points specific to the proposal that, in my opinion, warrant serious consideration for its rejection. East Park Energy would permanently and fundamentally change the area’s rural aspect and character and transform open countryside into industrial land. It is important that we stop referring to these installations by the rather cute term of “solar farm”, because the truth is that they are industrialised complexes. This one is made up of 700,000 solar panels, each up to 3 metres high, along with fencing, lighting, CCTV, inverter stations, transformer units, battery storage infrastructure and cabling. That sounds a long way from what we understand a farm to be.
Proposed mitigations to plant trees in order to screen the development are usually insufficient. Even if planting to screen the panels is successful, it would take years for the trees to mature, and even at full maturity, large parts of the site would still be visible because of its topography. The site will be a huge, permanent, unmissable and miles-long change to the local environment of that part of England. It will not blend in with the existing environment; it will crush it.
It is important to say that we in Bedfordshire are not against solar farms in general. In fact, we have 44 solar farms that are already operational or proposed in both Bedford borough and Central Bedfordshire, which are the two local authorities that traverse my constituency. However, this specific proposal is different.
Given my interest in financial matters, I hope that I have the House’s discretion to make a couple of general points about the finance of solar farms, of which I know the Minister will be aware. First, it is important to note that, with large solar plants, we are paying the cost of capacity, not of output. Capital costs are excessive because of the inherent process inefficiencies in solar farms. That is fine as long as it does not end up on the public purse, but ultimately investors look for a return, so it does indirectly end up on us.
Secondly, we are paying for the cost of variability of output from solar plants—the hidden costs of changing the national network to cope with that new factor of energy production. Thirdly, it is important to note that we are paying the cost of buying the energy produced, even when it is not necessarily needed or used—paying essentially for wasted energy.
In addition to those points, which the Minister is aware of and which have already been factored in, the combination of solar-generated energy and energy price arbitrage via battery energy storage systems fundamentally changes the economic case for solar—certainly from a public benefit point of view. Returns to investors will already be supercharged by the addition of new capacity in the form of battery storage—a very significant additional investment. However, that additional investment makes financial sense only when the purpose is to arbitrage energy costs—producing energy at low price points to sell at high price points—but that is not really the intention of trying to get low-cost energy.
As a business person, I say that the overall structure of the contracts, which the Minister inherited from previous Administrations, directly encourages maximum financial leverage—taking on as much debt as possible in order to maximise returns to investors. We have seen in other areas of public infrastructure—particularly with Thames Water—the problems that arise when so much leverage can be put up. Essentially, the returns are privatised and the losses socialised. I would be interested in hearing the Minister’s observations on that.
Will the Minister advise on whether the Government have put in place, or have plans to put in place, a limit on the debt ratios that large-scale solar plant operators can carry? I did a quick check but could not see that such a limit was in place at the moment. I would be interested in the Minister’s thoughts on that. Tied to that point—again, from a financial point of view—is my own understanding about corporate and political risk. In the case of East Park solar, I am concerned about the corporate history and financial viability. I mean no disrespect to the business, but it has no prior experience in developing or operating such large-scale solar projects. There are substantial issues of project failure or poor management, and therefore the risk that the current developer sells the site on to somebody else with a whole new set of investors and objectives.
The Minister may not be able to speak about this, but at least one political party in this House has said that it might cancel such projects in the future, raising the risk of stranded assets. The Government should be considering that, not because they agree with it, but because if there is such a change in Government, it is the people of North Bedfordshire in this instance who will be left with those stranded assets—solar panels stretching for three miles one way and three miles the other way, with no economic return and no financial viability to remove them. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe there is a requirement for an escrow fund to be put in place for the removal of plants should a business go bust. Can he say what weight is placed on the historical experience of applicants for large-scale plants in installing and operating such plants in the past? Does that factor at all?
I have reviewed a number of these debates, and in many of them the issue of best and most versatile land has come up. The Minister must accept that East Park Energy’s proposal of 74% of the site being best and most versatile land is a pretty high proportion, well in excess of almost every single plant that has been adopted or accepted to date. It is a generational loss of arable land. I am afraid the proposal from East Park Energy lacks any serious demonstration of seeking lower-grade or brownfield land, and it appears to be at odds with national policy, which is to avoid using best and most versatile land.
I will quote the Minister back to him, because what he said was very sensible. In a debate on 15 May 2025, he said:
“I am not going to put a figure on it right now, but we have clearly said that it is important to find the right balance when it comes to best-use agricultural land.”—[Official Report, 15 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 573.]
The Minister will not give a figure today, but 74%? Come on now! Can he advise whether the proportion of best and most versatile land at 74% and the scale of East Park Energy will be an issue of weight in the appraisal? I do not expect him to say whether it is right or wrong. However, Ministers have said in previous debates that it is important not to use best and most versatile agricultural land and that food security is important, and then they have gone on to say that solar will only take up 1% of land, which implies both that it matters to avoid using the best and most versatile land and that it does not matter. Which is it? With the proposed figure standing at 74%, this seems to be a central point.
I want to make two final points that are of particular significance, to make the Minister aware of the broader issues. We need to consider the cumulative impacts. I want to put on the record the context of North Bedfordshire and the surrounding area that the East Park Energy proposal will be coming into. The first thing he should be aware of is that, for the past decade or more, Bedfordshire’s housing growth has been between two and three times the national average. If he looks at the 2011 and 2021 censuses, and at the number of households in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), he will see that the level of housing growth is between two and a half and three times the national average. As he will know, that is great for the country, but it puts a strain on the surrounding infrastructure.
Secondly, Bedfordshire has six nationally significant infrastructure projects on the blocks right now. That is a huge amount. Let me enumerate them for the Minister. The first is the Black Cat roundabout on the A428, which is in the direct area of East Park Energy. That is the country’s largest ongoing road project, due for completion in spring 2027 or thereabouts. Secondly, East West Rail is the country’s third largest railway project, proposing to drive a line between Bedford and Cambridge, cutting through my North Bedfordshire constituency. Thirdly, Universal Studios is the country’s most significant inward investment. It started under the previous Government, supported by the then Opposition, and it has been brought home by this Government and is supported by the Opposition today. It will mean 10 million visitors a year, with all the movement of people that that entails, and the ancillary development around it.
Further away, Luton airport is expanding to facilitate that, doubling in size from 18 million to 30 million passengers a year. Very specifically, there is a new settlement in Tempsford. As I have said, Tempsford is currently a village of 400 residents and seven sheep. The Government are highly likely this year to take forward the proposal from the new towns commission that Tempsford should be the site of at least 40,000 new homes, going from 400 residents to over 100,000 on land that encompasses, abuts, and perhaps embraces, land for East Park Energy. On that specific point, it seems that we can have one or the other, but we cannot have both.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. He is making a thoughtful and important speech. He has spoken eloquently about the cumulative development in both our constituencies, which is putting central Bedfordshire and Bedford borough under significant strain from a planning perspective. Does he agree that it is important for the Government to support our local authorities, so that we think holistically about these developments and ensure that our landscapes are protected, our local communities are listened to, and that we secure the agricultural land that we need for future food security? The reason we have so many farmers in Bedfordshire is because we have fantastic agricultural land. Would it not be a waste to build on all that land, and in the case of East Park Energy, to do so on the altar of net zero?
Richard Fuller
My hon. Friend makes two important points. First, during world war two, London would have starved without agricultural produce from Bedfordshire. More importantly, the Minister must recognise that we are supportive. We know that the Government have a growth strategy—we may have disagreements on national economic policies, but we want to do our bit. Indeed, the people of Bedfordshire are doing their bit, and a lot more. The Minister will appreciate that, with so many projects happening all at once, at some point those things are going to break, and my hon. Friend makes an important point about that.
In East Park Energy’s documentation, it chose not to be comprehensive in the scope of its evaluations, and was insufficient in the depth of its analysis. For example, it completely omitted any reference to Luton airport expansion, the Universal theme park, and any potential new town at Tempsford. It dismissed the need for an assessment of Black Cat roundabout on the assumption that construction would be finished before East Park Energy starts, but there will be consequential effects, including further construction from the change at Black Cat roundabout. It dismissed the need for an assessment of East West Rail on an assumption, but it is highly likely that there will be an overlapping construction period should East West Rail go ahead. It lacked any assessment of medium or long-term effects such as permanent land use change and increased perception of the urbanisation of the area. It provided no consideration of the over-concentration of solar development in North Bedfordshire—my constituency is part of the 1% club, which is constituencies where over 1% of the land area will be covered by solar panels—and it ignored the impact of overlapping construction periods that it would be adding to for two and a half years, or 30 months.
Just imagine all the traffic from building Universal Studios, getting in construction because we want shovels in the ground to start building at Tempsford if the Government decide to go ahead with that, and trying to build East West Rail. East Park Energy completely ignored that, so from the point of view of understanding the impact of what it is going into, the proposal that was presented fell significantly short.
Finally, before I yield to the Minister, I know that he is limited in what he can say about specific projects and that, given his role, the Secretary of State would not be able to comment at all. As I mentioned briefly to the Minister earlier, I am in a small minority of Conservative Members who agree with some of the Secretary of State’s criticisms about past energy policy, even though I may not agree with all of his proposed remedies, so I hope that the Minister understands that my observations come from a positive place.
The role of a Secretary of State or his designated Minister in making a decision is a crucial step in an evaluation process, which the public must trust. They must assess each proposal individually on its merits, not just on overarching goals. There have been 12 solar panel development consent orders for evaluation since July 2024, each of which has been approved. Some of us may be old enough—not you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but certainly me—to remember the musical “Oklahoma!”, in which there is a song, “I Cain’t Say No”. That is a very old reference, but I am very old. I encourage the Secretary of State to avoid any caricature that he “cain’t say no”, because in the case of East Park Energy, my personal view is that there are considerable and specific reasons why he can say no.
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) on securing the debate. Although I disagree with some of what he said, the tone of his remarks is welcome. I will respond to some of his points, but given the time I will not be able to respond to them all.
On a general point, I appreciate that many issues, and planning issues in particular, are contentious. As Members of Parliament, we all know that as such issues are raised regularly. Although we might take decisions as a Government that people will disagree with, I hope that I have always given the impression that I am always keen to hear the points that the hon. Gentleman raises, and that other hon. Members raise, and I want to continue those conversations.
Helpfully, the hon. Gentleman said at the outset that I will not be able to comment on the specific application that he references, and it is worth being clear about why that is: the application will come before my Department for a decision. As the Minister with a policy interest in this area, I personally do not see the papers for such decisions and I am not engaged in that process. My noble friend Lord Whitehead usually makes these decisions, or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. It is important that no Minister who has a role in decision making speaks about the specifics, and I know that the hon. Gentleman understands that. However, I can talk in more general terms about how we ensure that solar projects, which are really important, are rolled out sensibly and sensitively, which is at the heart of many of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks.
To start, I will take us back slightly to the bigger picture about why solar power is so important in the first place, and why it is at the heart of the clean energy mission. We know that far too often energy bills are still being set by the cost of gas, and that deploying renewables faster than we have before is a way that we can reduce our dependence on volatile fossil fuels, protecting bill payers now and in the future. That deployment also provides an economic opportunity to create thousands of jobs in communities across the country. In addition, the Government cares deeply about tackling the most existential crisis that the planet faces. I will return to this point, but the effects of climate change, which we see all too often, cannot be put off until tomorrow. It is hugely important that we tackle them now, so this mission is critical.
Solar is at the heart of the mission—and critical to it—because it is one of the cheapest renewable energy sources that we can deploy, and it can be deployed at scale. The aim of our clean power mission is to achieve at least 45 GW to 47 GW of solar by 2030. We are at around 22 GW today, so if we are going to deliver that goal, we need to rapidly deploy a combination of ground-mounted solar and a roof-top revolution, which I will return to. At the same time, we have a commitment to doing that sensitively for the communities that host that infrastructure, and to ensuring that those communities gain a benefit from hosting it on behalf of the country.
I will pick just some of the hon. Gentleman’s substantive arguments. The way in which we balance the need for this infrastructure across the country—the fact that it has to be somewhere—with the adverse impacts, as well as the potential benefits, that communities face from hosting the infrastructure, is exactly what our rigorous planning system is about. The views and interests of local communities are key to that. I know that the hon. Gentleman has engaged in the process in this specific case—he has already made representations, and will obviously encourage his constituents to do the same. That feedback is hugely important; people should feel that it has a serious role in the decision-making process, because it does, and therefore it is worth participating in that process. Making those submissions and turning up to those meetings really does matter.
Obviously, the planning process itself considers many of the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised, including visual amenity, protected landscapes, land use, food production, safety, and traffic conditions during construction. The system for nationally significant projects requires that considerable community engagement be undertaken before a decision is made. The level and quality of engagement is considered during the decision-making process, and these projects are marked down if that is not taken seriously.
The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of cumulative impact, which is a really important one for us to wrestle with. I do not pretend that we have a single answer to this, but the idea that we should plan holistically—I think the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) made this point—to make sure communities do not face multiple projects, with all the cumulative impact that comes from that, is something we want to tackle. We are doing that in two ways.
Richard Fuller
The Minister is talking about cumulative impacts from projects. Just so that it can be on the record, the point I was trying to make is that one consideration is the cumulative impacts from solar farms; the other is that there are a lot of other types of infrastructure construction going on. Could the Minister be clear that cumulative impact includes consideration of both?
Michael Shanks
I will come to that point in just a moment. Part of the wider work we are seeking to do across Government is to plan where infrastructure is built holistically and strategically. For example, the land-use work that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is doing is about looking at the whole United Kingdom and making sure we have a plan in place for future land use, so that all of those things are taken into consideration.
The legal requirement for a cumulative effects assessment is set out in environmental regulations. The Government have published advice that summarises the process for undertaking that assessment in relation to NSIPs, and the hon. Gentleman’s wider point about the cumulative impact of housing, Universal Studios or transport is also really important. Obviously, my Department has a particular interest in how we plan the energy system, but we are seeking to work much more broadly right across Government. The land use consultation that DEFRA launched closed in April 2025, and the outputs from that and the regional workshops that have been undertaken are now being analysed. That is the first time we have had a national, holistic plan to bring all these things together.
From an energy perspective, which is what I am responsible for, the second point is about the strategic spatial energy plan. For the first time in our history, we will strategically plan the energy system that we need and make conscious decisions about where we site energy infrastructure, so that we are not needlessly building the grid infrastructure that goes with it—so that we are building it next to where we need it the most, reducing the impact on communities and taking into account the cumulative impact of those projects. We should have been doing that a long time ago. I do not blame any particular Government for this, but we have rolled out a huge number of renewables projects across the country without doing any of that strategic planning. That has been a huge failure in the past, and as a result, we are now spending huge amounts of money on building the grid to connect that infrastructure. We have to do that. It is a shame that we did not plan it more strategically in the first place, but we start from where we start, unfortunately.
I am conscious of the time, so I will quickly refer to the point about land use and the use of farmland for solar projects. That point is raised regularly, and it is an important one to raise—food security is also our national security, and it is hugely important. Planning policy makes clear that, wherever possible, developers should utilise brownfield, industrial, contaminated or previously developed land. I understand the point that the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire made about this particular site; I cannot comment on that, but he helpfully quoted me to me. I still agree with me—which is not always the case—but I am not going to set a specific figure, for obvious reasons. There is very much a determination in the process that we should be using lower-quality land wherever possible, but that does not mean that we can always do so. We need to realise that for some projects, that is just not possible. However, if we zoom out just a little bit, even in our most ambitious deployment scenarios, only 0.4% of UK land would be devoted to solar in 2030.
There are a number of other points that I do not have time to address, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman with some responses on them. In the context of what we are seeking to do, I am not complacent about the impact that these projects have on communities—I genuinely understand it. I read all of my correspondence from people who write to me about these points, and he is right to raise these issues. We are seeking to build the infrastructure that the country needs in a way that takes into account the local impact. Communities may feel that has not been done, and for that I apologise, but we are seeking to build a strategic system that deals with many of these issues into the future, so that communities feel that energy is not done to them, but is part of their community and is something that they welcome. At the same time, that helps us to deliver our missions as a Government.
Solar power in this country remains hugely popular and, despite a number of issues, the planning process is rigorous. There is not an automatic yes coming out of the planning system; we look carefully at every single one of these applications. They get a huge amount of consideration, and it is important that communities feel that, and that they know that these applications are taken seriously. If they do not feel that, we have to do more as a Government to ensure that people have confidence in the system. As we deliver this clean power mission, solar will play an important role. We want to bring communities with us, and I commit to doing more to make sure that is the case.
Question put and agreed to.