Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
The Government recognise the challenge of high industrial energy costs. From April we will raise the discount on electricity network charges from 60% to 90% under the network charging compensation scheme, supporting around 550 electricity-intensive businesses. This year we also plan to review eligibility for the British industry supercharger and the energy-intensive industries compensation scheme. From 2027 the British industrial competitiveness scheme will cut electricity costs by around £35 to £40 per MWh for around 7,000 manufacturing businesses.
Nick Smith
Under the last Conservative Government we had soaring energy costs and the highest industrial energy bills in Europe. Now, under Labour, manufacturers, including those in Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney, have seen costly levies taken out. Will the Minister please outline what else the Government can do to bring energy bills down further for UK industry?
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for championing the businesses in his constituency. One such business, GS Yuasa Battery Manufacturing in Gwent, is receiving support from the supercharger, exempting it from several renewables levies and electricity network usage costs. This is all part of the Government’s clean energy superpower mission, which will cut costs, boost energy security and accelerate grid connections.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I have a fantastic Yorkshire brick company in my constituency. Unfortunately it had to go into administration, but it was rescued. As welcome as the supercharger scheme is, the problem was that the company did not qualify because it did not meet the business level test, so it did not get any Government support. Can the Government engage directly with ceramics manufacturers, which are huge users of electricity, gas and various other products, because if we export products to be made elsewhere, the carbon footprint is often much bigger than if we had made them locally?
Chris McDonald
The right hon. Gentleman knows that I share his concerns about the ceramics industry. He is quite right that many ceramics companies failed to qualify for the supercharger. There will be a review of the supercharger this year, and I have asked officials to look very carefully at the potential to include ceramics companies in it. I discussed that with the ceramics industry at an event in Parliament this week, which the right hon. Member attended—as, I think, did the Yorkshire brick company that he mentioned. I can also inform him that I and my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will meet ceramics industries in the near future.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
From April, every pub and live music venue will get 15% off its new business rates bill, on top of the £4.3 billion of support announced in the Budget. Bills will then be frozen in real terms for a further two years. We have also raised the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500, meaning that 865,000 employers will pay no national insurance contributions this year. We are also going to allow pubs to open later in England and Scotland during the world cup, because they have already qualified, and I hope that Wales will also qualify so that we will be able to do the same for Wales.
Mr Snowden
From the Queens in Lytham to the Hop Shoppe in St Annes, the Hand & Dagger in Treales and the Thatched House in Poulton, Fylde is blessed with many wonderful pubs, but they were hit very hard by the changes to national insurance, and the looming business rates changes that will hit them hard have many of them worried. Some of the changes that have been announced are welcome but will not go as far as mitigating all the cost increases that pubs are facing. What more plans do the Government have to support such pubs?
Chris Bryant
I note the hon. Gentleman’s support for pubs in his constituency. It is obviously intense—he basically took us on a pub crawl there. If he is looking for a Valentine’s day dinner, perhaps with his wife, the Coach & Horses in Freckleton is offering two mains and two drinks for £25.99. But we will keep it quiet so that it is a surprise for his wife—or whoever else he takes. [Laughter.]
Chris Bryant
Maybe you will be taking his wife to the Coach & Horses, Mr Speaker—who knows?
On a serious point, we are fully aware of the problems that pubs and live music venues have been facing for a considerable period of time. For live music venues, we have been trying to encourage arena tickets to put an extra £1 on the ticket, on a voluntary basis, so as to be able to support live music venues. I am conscious that over the years many pubs have closed. The hon. Gentleman was not in the House under the previous Administration, but some 7,000 pubs closed in those 14 years, which is something like one every 14 hours. We are conscious of the problems, and we want to do everything we can to help.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
Some 46% of the UK’s trade is with the EU, but we want to do far better, achieving trade with the EU that is as frictionless as possible. We are in the process of fine tuning the deal that we reached last year on food and drink, and negotiating on joining the single electricity market. We want to improve business mobility and secure the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. We have just appointed three new trade envoys—one for France, one for Germany and one for Italy—as part of our exports drive.
Rachel Blake
I listened carefully to the Minister’s response and am encouraged by the progress that is being made. When does he expect the UK-EU summit to take place? Is he expecting a completion of the negotiations on a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement and the youth experience scheme? Will he also update us on the approach to touring artists, to help ensure that they can access EU markets? That would make such a difference to the thriving cultural scene in the west end.
Chris Bryant
On touring artists, we are absolutely determined to secure that—not least because I have personally promised Elton John that we will, as has the Prime Minister. [Interruption.] I see the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) chuntering. I think he is bidding to be a trade envoy for some country. If he would like to come and talk to me later, we can have a discussion about it.
The truth of the matter is that we had a terrible deal with the European Union. We need to improve it, and we are working at pace to try and deliver that. I want British businesses to be able to export without friction into the European market, because we know that is good for them.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Business Secretary raised some eyebrows at the weekend by suggesting that MPs’ pay should be linked to economic growth. Who does the Trade Minister think should get the biggest pay rise? Is it the Conservatives and Reform, who have probably knocked up to 8% off our GDP; Labour MPs, who are contributing to as much as 0.5% with all their accumulated trade deals, including with the EU; or Lib Dem MPs, who are suggesting a customs union that could put 2.2%—
Mr Speaker
Order. I think we can let that one go. I cannot even begin to see a link. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Liberal Democrats are calling for a new UK-EU customs union—
Sarah Olney
Still! That would cut red tape for businesses across the country, boost growth by more than 2.2% and raise at least £25 billion a year in tax revenue. The Prime Minister’s chief economic adviser has recommended a customs union with the EU as one of the most effective ways of generating growth, the Health Secretary has talked up the benefits of a customs union and the Deputy Prime Minister has also suggested that countries within a customs union tend to see stronger economic growth. However, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade told the Financial Times last week that negotiating a customs union would be “foolish”. Will the Minister please explain how the Secretary of State plans to deliver growth without a customs union?
Chris Bryant
The hon. Lady knows that I think Brexit was a terrible, self-inflicted mistake. We need to make sure that we achieve what was promised by the Brexiteers, some of whom are sitting on the Conservative Benches, when they said we would achieve frictionless trade with the European Union as a result of our deal. I think that we can, first, do that on food and when we secure our SPS deal. We are working on the electricity market as well. Then we need to proceed with trying to ensure business mobility so that people can travel across the European Union and, as I said, we need to make sure that British artists and performers can perform across the whole of the European Union.
I have to say that it feels—I hate to use the term “groundhog day” in relation to the Lib Dems, but I can remember when they were in government. O Lord.
Chris Bryant
No, well quite. This is the problem: the Lib Dems never remember when they were in government and they landed us with half the problems that we are trying to sort out today.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
The Government are committed to supporting growth in coastal areas such as Bournemouth West. The partnership between Business Growth Dorset and the new business growth service makes it easier for firms to access tailored support. The Department for Business and Trade is also strengthening the conditions for investment and helping high-value sectors such as advanced engineering, aerospace and digital industries to expand. Through national programmes supporting investment, exports and innovation, alongside Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council’s economic strategy, we will ensure that Bournemouth’s businesses benefit fully from UK-wide measures to boost economic growth.
Jessica Toale
I thank the Minister for that answer. Bournemouth and Poole rightly have reputations as premier tourism and leisure destinations, but less well known is our leadership in the digital and creative industries. Two businesses in my constituency, Content Ignite and Iplicit, have been ranked in the top 50 fastest- growing tech businesses in Britain by The Sunday Times. Could the Minister please expand on how this Government are supporting fast-growing high-value industries in coastal towns such as mine?
Blair McDougall
I am due to come to my hon. Friend’s constituency in little over a month—I do like to be beside the seaside. We often think of constituencies like hers as tourism and hospitality hotspots, but, as she said, they can also be a hive for the creative industries, of which she is such a champion. Through the £380 million creative industries sector plan, we are boosting innovation, skills and access to finance nationwide, which is helping firms, including in her constituency. She will know that businesses in her area also benefit from such a strong talent pipeline coming from her area’s great universities, and I look forward to working with her and learning more when I visit soon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his positive, constructive and helpful answers. For Ards and North Down council in my constituency, the thrust of its economic growth strategy is tourism, and there have been many dividends from that. It is important that, right across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, we have the chance to advance and do better. The Minister might not have had the opportunity to talk to the local Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly, Gordon Lyons, on this issue, but I hope that he will do so, and thereby we can all gain from his knowledge of what we are doing back home.
Blair McDougall
I had a fantastic family holiday in Northern Ireland, driven by my son’s obsession with the Titanic—I had a very moving visit there. I have met my opposite number with responsibility for small businesses in Northern Ireland, and I am happy to have the discussion that the hon. Member suggests.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
The UK is the fourth largest exporter in the world and the second largest in services, but we want to do even better, which is why we are pushing forward our new trade deals to cut barriers for UK businesses, strengthening UK Export Finance, providing tailored market advice and targeting resources so that businesses can take advantage of those deals.
Jayne Kirkham
I am grateful to the Minister for last week meeting me and a representative of Watson-Marlow, a business in my constituency, to discuss barriers to export. Many businesses I have spoken to have been frustrated about the difficulty of moving people, goods and equipment to Europe post Brexit, and they face significant additional costs and admin. Fugro and Pendennis yachts have raised with me issues they have experienced with securing visas for their staff on short-term offshore projects. What steps can the Minister take with colleagues at the Home Office to ensure that some of those barriers are reduced?
Chris Bryant
First, it was great that my hon. Friend and other MPs brought individual constituency businesses along, because one of the things I want to do as Minister for Trade is try to persuade all 650 colleagues to come along with individual businesses so we can work out where there are barriers to export and try to encourage export growth. If we could release all the MPs, who probably know the businesses in their constituencies far better than the Department does, we would drive forward export growth. She is absolutely right that there are issues with visas and business mobility that we need to address. It is one of the things that the Home Office and the Department are discussing with our European allies. We need to do better on this, and we also need to get to a place where we have mutual recognition of professional qualifications so that people can simply transact their business more effectively.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
With reference to what the Minister said earlier about trade and investment envoys, I remind him that I was a trade and investment envoy to Georgia and Armenia some years ago. The problem is that the trade and investment envoys are now pretty much all Labour, whereas previously, under all Prime Ministers, they were cross-party. Can I suggest that the Government revisit the strength of having a cross-party approach? That might help business exports. I think he publicly offered—unless I misheard—for me to become a trade envoy again; if I was approached, I might do that. On a serious point, on UK Export Finance in high-risk investment areas, such as rebuilding Syria by getting jobs and investment into that country quickly, can I ask that UK Export Finance underwrites with insurance those high-risk investments?
Chris Bryant
I noted that there was another application, but just because the right hon. Gentleman has applied for the job, it does not necessarily mean that he will get it. He makes a good point about UK Export Finance, particularly in war-torn and other difficult areas. It is why we set aside a specific amount of money for Ukraine. I was delighted to be in Kyiv the best part of 10 days ago, where the Russian Government are, I would argue, engaging in war crimes by deliberately targeting the heating systems in the city—many elderly and vulnerable people have no heating, electricity or access to water. I was very proud to see Scottish steel and British architects designing the bridges that are helping Ukrainians to get to work again after the original bridges were blown up when the Russians tried to invade as part of their full-scale invasion. He makes a good point about export finance. I have also had discussions about how we can roll that out in relation to Syria.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Last week I visited the brilliant family-run Clark Door company in my Carlisle constituency. Clark Door designs, manufactures and exports right across the globe, and supplies venues such as the Tate Modern, the Qatar national centre and, topically as we approach next weekend’s super bowl, the National Football League media centre in New York. What support can the Government give to exporters such as Clark Door so that their pioneering research and development ensures their continued export success, and will the Minister visit Carlisle to take a look behind the—Clark—door?
Chris Bryant
We are doing well on UK exports, which were up to £929 billion in the 12 months ending November 2025—up 4% on the year before. I am happy to consider ensuring that UK Research and Innovation, which is part of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, provides R&D support. Getting all our different strategies working together—the trade, business and industrial strategies—combined with UKRI, will drive exports forward. I cannot promise a visit, because I seem to be sent abroad a lot.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Defence and aerospace make up a huge element of our export business. As the Minister knows, plans without resources are hallucinations. The defence investment plan was promised to us in the autumn, and then by the end of the year, but it is still not there. When will the Government get their act together and stop dithering over the defence investment plan so that we can fuel our export economy?
Chris Bryant
Defence is an important part of both our industrial strategy and our export strategy. We are running a series of export campaigns, which are either titled “platinum” or “gold”, and several of them relate to defence expenditure. For instance, when I was in New Zealand just before Christmas, we talked about the potential for the UK to build a new dry dock and provide frigates for the New Zealand navy. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman, who makes a fair point, gets an answer from the Ministry of Defence, which has primary responsibility for that area.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
We know that some British businesses are put off exporting by the costs, particularly the cost of cross-border payments. One solution is the adoption of innovative digital payment methods, which is why I warmly welcomed the Government’s announcement of the transatlantic taskforce for markets of the future. However, since its announcement last September, we have not had a great deal of detail on it from the Government, so will the Minister provide an update on the status of the taskforce and what he hopes it will achieve for our exporters?
Chris Bryant
I will certainly write to the shadow Minister about that. Electronic commerce generally is one thing that we will need to address at the World Trade Organisation ministerial conference in Cameroon at the end of March. There has been a moratorium on tax in relation to that, and we would like to make it permanent—we are discussing that with our international allies.
On exports, I was at Fever-Tree on Monday morning. Its adverts used to say, “If three quarters of your gin and tonic is the tonic, why on earth do you not care about the tonic?” [Interruption.] I note that several Members are querying whether three quarters of their gin and tonic is the tonic—it might be 50:50, or even the other way around. The point is that many really successful businesses in this country, including Fever-Tree, know that three quarters of their business can be exports. That is what we need to drive up.
Gareth Davies
I thank the Minister for that response. This is an area that we genuinely agree on. Digital payment technology will genuinely provide an opportunity for British exporters, so I gently ask the Minister to get on top of the detail on that taskforce and provide an update as soon as he can. We asked DBT Ministers last June exactly what the Government’s strategy on digital payment technology was. We were promised that it would be part of the industrial strategy, but it was missing. Can he explain why?
Chris Bryant
The Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall), has just whispered in my ear that he met the main providers in this area only a couple of weeks ago. As I say, I will write to the hon. Member with some more detail. Some of these issues are difficult to land because of the international co-operation needed. I am pleased that in some of our trade deals we are talking about not just goods and services but ensuring a digital element, because that is where a lot of our economic future lies.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I know my hon. Friend has been actively engaging with his local businesses, such as Camerons Brewery, to highlight their importance to the local economy, and I thank him for that. We have introduced permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, while providing £4.3 billion to shield ratepayers from bill increases. On top of that, the Chancellor announced a 15% reduction in new business rates bills for pubs and live music venues, with bills then frozen for a further two years. We are also advancing licensing and planning reforms for the hospitality sector, and through the work of the hospitality support fund, we are providing £10 million to help hospitality venues grow and support jobseekers into the sector. Later this year, we will bring forward a new high streets strategy and work with the industry on its development.
Mr Brash
I thank the Minister for her answer. The Marine hotel in Seaton Carew in my constituency of Hartlepool has been run for the last 30 years by Lee and Claire Dexter. It is a family business run by hard-working people who are committed to their community, yet they have seen their business rates rise significantly, driven not by the multiplier but by the sharp increase in the rateable value. They need help, so I welcome the steps set out this week to support pubs. Will the Minister meet me to look at ways that we can fix the business rates system, which is failing hotels and wider hospitality in Hartlepool?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for championing businesses like the Marine hotel in Hartlepool. Hotels will continue to benefit from the support for business rates announced at the Budget, including the transitional relief scheme, which will cap increases for those seeing large overnight increases. We have announced that we will review the way that hotels are valued. We recognise that hotels have expressed concerns about how they are valued for business rates, and those valuations are undertaken in a different way from some other sectors. The methodology used is well established, but as with pubs, specific concerns have been raised, and it is right to review this to ensure that it accurately reflects the rental values for these sectors. I am happy to discuss this further.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
We regularly assess Israel’s compliance with, and commitment to, international humanitarian law. It was those assessments that led us in September 2024 to suspend licences where the items might be used in military operations in Gaza. Most of the licences suspended at that time have since expired, but we have continued to refuse licence applications on the same basis.
Iqbal Mohamed
The Secretary of State said that revisiting the pause on arms export licences to Israel was “intrinsically linked” to movement towards a so-called sustainable peace. Since then, during the so-called ceasefire, Israeli forces have killed over 481 Palestinians in Gaza, struck defenceless tents housing cowering families and bombed to kingdom come schools used as civilian shelters. What they have not done is allow the flow of humanitarian aid; instead, 37 international non-governmental organisations have been suspended. Yet this Government continue with a business-as-usual approach to arms trade with Israel. How can the Government justify revisiting the decision to pause arms export licences, rather than suspending arms exports altogether, to pressure Israel to comply with international law?
Chris Bryant
I agree with one part of what the hon. Member said, which is that we do want to see humanitarian aid get to the people who need it, and we need to see a proper, lasting peace, based on peace and justice, working together, and that is our commitment. He is, however, completely wrong to suggest that it is business as usual. We have suspended some licences, in particular where we think that because of Israel’s failure to comply with international humanitarian law they might be used in relation to operations in Gaza. Export licences are required only in relation to military and dual-use equipment, and some of that dual-use equipment is used by non-governmental organisations—armour for journalists and things like that—so of course it is right that we adopt a case-by-case approach. As I say, we have suspended a series of licences where we think that there is a threat to Gaza, but we maintain the export licence criteria that were laid out in Parliament.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
Hospitality businesses are vital to our community and city centres. We have introduced permanently lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties and have provided £4.3 billion to shield ratepayers from bill increases. On top of this, the Chancellor announced a 15% reduction in new business rates bills for pubs and live music venues, and bills will be frozen for a further two years. We are also advancing licensing and planning reforms for the hospitality sector, and through the work of the hospitality support fund we are providing £10 million to help hospitality venues to grow and to support jobseekers into the sector. Later this year, we will bring forward a new high streets strategy, and we will work with the industry on its development.
Joe Robertson
What the Minister does not say is that the Government have also taxed those businesses and made it harder to employ people, which is why there are 100,000 fewer people working in hospitality since her Government came to power. Hospitality businesses in my constituency are hanging on to one thread of hope: the vague assertion that the Government will look again at valuations. Will the Minister look again right now, scrap business rates for hospitality and back our high streets?
Kate Dearden
Every high street in every corner of our country is supported by our hospitality industry. They are absolutely vital to our economy, supporting over 2 million jobs. The sector is really personal to me; my first job was in the hospitality industry, and I know that many Members across this House also have that personal connection. We are reversing the damage that Conservative Members did to our economy, and businesses still do not thank them for it. Nor do people whose wages under the previous Government simply did not give them the disposable income to spend in their local pubs, spend in their high streets and support restaurants. That is why we are reversing that, ensuring that people see a rise in their living standards, cutting costs for households and raising wages to boost and support our high streets. That is what we are absolutely focused on doing: rebalancing our economy so that it works for working people and businesses alike. That is a responsible Government taking action.
Christine Jardine
The Minister referred to there being hospitality businesses in every corner of this country. Unfortunately, the change in business rates does not help hospitality businesses in every corner of this country because business rates are devolved in Scotland and Wales, and the businesses in my constituency of Edinburgh West are struggling. Hospitality is absolutely vital to the Scottish economy, and so far the SNP Government have proved completely ineffectual at dealing with the issue. The Minister speaks about the strategy coming later in the year. In it, might it be useful for VAT to be reduced for businesses in this sector across the UK, so that every corner of the United Kingdom can benefit?
Kate Dearden
All the devolved Governments have full control over the structure and level of business rates within their jurisdiction. As the hon. Lady mentioned, the new relief applies to England only; however, the devolved Governments have additional funding to allocate according to their priorities. We call on the SNP to decide whether to match the support for pubs and music venues that we have decided this week to provide. It is up to them to decide how to spend their money; we have made it clear this week what our priorities are and how we would do it.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
A lot of the hospitality small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency start out as market traders. As we know, our markets are a vital part of our identity and central to our local ecosystem, giving businesses the space to start, test and grow. Does the Minister agree that markets and hospitality are key to reviving our high streets, and will she meet me to discuss a national traders strategy to secure a strong pipeline for future success?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and for championing the brilliant hospitality sector, businesses and markets in her constituency—I have the wonderful Halifax borough market in my constituency, so I know the importance of thriving traders to our high streets and local economies. I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend and hear her thoughts on how we can work together to restore pride in our high streets; our traders are vital to that, which is why our high streets strategy this year will be so important. It will look at all those areas, directly investing in our communities to ensure local businesses can thrive, high streets bustle and pride is restored to our high streets and communities.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Hospitality in Blackpool is struggling. The cuts under the previous Government made Blackpool the most deprived coastal community and town in the country, but it has a solution: a new Blackpool tourism enterprise zone that expands our current enterprise zone along the promenade into the hospitality and tourism businesses. Will the Minister meet me and the managing director of Blackpool Tourism Ltd, Kate Shane, to discuss her idea to create jobs and unlock growth and investment in Blackpool?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and for all his work on behalf of his constituency and businesses in Blackpool. He makes an excellent point, and I would be keen to hear more about his work and discuss it further. Through the hospitality zones that we are looking to create, there is a real opportunity to drive investment and ensure that businesses and people alike benefit across our country.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Hospitality is on its knees, and it is already too late for many of the pubs and restaurants in Harpenden and Berkhamsted that are closing down. The small café Nook in Markyate is a real lifeline for that village, but Helen, the owner, talks about business rates, national insurance costs and the minimum wage. The Liberal Democrats have long been crying out, alongside the hospitality sector, for Government help for the sector. Although we welcome the U-turn, I call on the Minister and the Government to hear that cry before the next one, when it will be too late for the next swathe of hospitality businesses that will have closed down.
Kate Dearden
Over the longer term, we have committed to reviewing the methodology used for business rates purposes. If necessary, we will make changes to ensure that the next revaluation accurately reflects the rental market for these properties. We will be conducting that expert review, working closely with the hotel and pub sectors. We want to see our high streets thrive, and hospitality is key to that, in the hon. Lady’s constituency and across our whole economy. That is what I want to see, and it is what we are committed to work towards.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Liverpool’s hospitality sector and its small businesses continue to tell me that soaring business rates are pushing them to the brink. Many independent shops, cafés and community venues—pillars of our local high streets—are now facing increases far above what they can absorb, especially in energy and supply costs. These are businesses that create local jobs, drive footfall and keep our high streets alive, so can the Minister explain what immediate steps the Government will take to reform the business rates system so that it no longer disproportionately penalises areas such as Liverpool, and will she commit to meet affected business owners in my constituency to hear directly about the pressures they are facing and the urgent support they need to survive?
Kate Dearden
We are introducing new, permanently lower tax rates for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties worth nearly £1 billion per year, which will benefit over 750,000 properties. Next year, the rate for small RHL properties will be the lowest since business rates were introduced more than 30 years ago. This is paid for through higher rates on the 1% most expensive properties, which includes many large distribution warehouses such as those used by online giants—that high value multiplier is 33% more than the multiplier for small RHL properties. That is what we committed to in our manifesto. Creating a new, sustainable system with permanently lower multipliers for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties will make a massive difference for people. We will be publishing a call for evidence in September, exploring potential longer-term reforms, and I urge my hon. Friend to get involved in that call for evidence and to share it, too.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
The Minister has just heard from across the House continuing pleas to support the hospitality industry. It is always a good day when the Government U-turn and provide more support for pubs, so we welcome that. However, unless the Minister can explain to us when a pub becomes a gastropub, when a gastropub becomes a restaurant, and when a restaurant with rooms becomes a hotel and descends down that wormhole, will she make representations to the Chancellor to extend the same measures for pubs that she U-turned on this week across the whole retail, hospitality and leisure sector? The truth of the matter is that 90% of that sector will not benefit from this week’s U-turn.
Kate Dearden
Good morning to the shadow Secretary of State. I am sure he had a stiff drink after his performance at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday.
All pubs and live music venues that meet the definition set out in the guidance qualify for the support, and he will be able to see that clearly online. We will be working with local authorities to ensure that the definition includes establishments open to wide sections of local communities. I have already discussed valuations for pubs, how we take turnover into account and how we will work closely with the wider sector on valuations going forward. This is a Government who are working closely with the sector and are committed to listening. That is being a responsible Government, and we are doing the right thing.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The heavy burden of Labour’s national insurance contributions rise, compounded by high energy costs and the business rates increase, has raised alarm about the affordability of hospitality businesses’ monthly employment costs. Some 84,000 jobs in the hospitality sector alone have been lost since the NICs rise was introduced, and that is particularly damaging to young people, many of whom have traditionally found their first jobs in the hospitality sector, including the Minister, as she just said at the Dispatch Box. With the sector struggling to employ new workers, damage is being done to the career prospects of our young people, and it will be detrimental to the broader economy in the long term. Business confidence is down, job vacancies are down and unemployment is up, so what steps will the Department take to tackle high unemployment costs, support businesses and bring down those increasingly high levels of unemployment?
Kate Dearden
A decade of stagnant growth and living standards will not be turned around in 18 months, but there are signs of progress. The Conservatives left one in eight young people out of education, employment and training, and we are working relentlessly to turn around that disgraceful figure. We recognise the challenges that businesses have to work through as a result of the actions undertaken by the previous Government. On youth unemployment, we have announced an £828 million funding package to give a generation of young people a brighter future. Over the next three years, 1 million young people on universal credit across the country will benefit from support designed to get them into employment and learning, and that includes what we are doing with small businesses on apprenticeships, which we are partly funding. That will be significant, especially for the hospitality sector, in encouraging more jobs. Those jobs are a key lifeline for people to get into the employment market. That is something I recognise, as the hon. Lady noted. We know the importance of this issue, and we want to work closely with the sector and with councils in the significant wider work we are doing on the strategy.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
The Department is driving economic growth by delivering the long-term certainty that businesses need and by supporting the growth of businesses across the UK, including in Lancashire, where the Lancashire business growth hub is ensuring that businesses in Morecambe and Lunesdale have the advice to grow, to scale up and to succeed.
Lizzi Collinge
In my constituency of Morecambe and Lunesdale, we have the Electech innovation cluster, which is a growing group of small and medium-sized firms, many of which supply specialist components into the clean energy sector, particularly nuclear, and into the vital defence sector. The Minister would be welcome to visit them. How is the Department supporting SMEs, such as those in the Electech innovation cluster, and how will they benefit from the Government’s investment in industry?
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for her work in championing small businesses in her constituency, particularly the Electech cluster, where businesses such as Teleplan Forsberg, Like Technologies and Mazuma are working in the clean energy sector. Our clean energy industry sector plan focuses on capitalising on the strengths of these businesses and doubling investment levels across our frontier industries to more than £30 billion a year by 2035. That will directly support businesses in that cluster. I would of course be delighted to come and visit.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
Our plan to make work pay will bring employment rights legislation into the 21st century by extending the protections given by the best British companies to millions more workers, including those in Bracknell Forest. We are delivering this change in partnership with businesses, trade unions, public sector employers and civil society. When implemented, the Employment Rights Act 2025 will increase protection from sexual harassment, extend and strengthen statutory sick pay, end exploitative zero hours contracts, and tackle fire and rehire, with over 18 million workers gaining greater fairness and security.
Peter Swallow
Across the country, millions of fathers can be denied time off work to spend with a newborn child. Thousands of carers are out of work because employers will not give them the flexibility they need. This Government are delivering day one paternity leave, and we are listening on carer’s leave. I know what a difference that will make to my constituents. Can the Minister think why the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and his Reform MPs voted against this change?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for his really important question; he is absolutely right to raise this issue. Reform voted against the Employment Rights Act at every single opportunity. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) would row back on the protections that we have given to 18 million workers across the country, including the vital day one paternity leave and parental leave, statutory sick pay for the lowest paid, protections for pregnant workers, increased protection from unfair dismissal, an end to exploitative zero-hours contracts, a new right to bereavement leave and so much more. Reform is simply not the party for working people; Labour is. Reform Members voted against the Act, and their plans would threaten employment up and down the country.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Of course, it is not just Bracknell, and one day those on the Labour Benches will understand that there are no workers’ rights if people have no work. Youth unemployment is up significantly. That is a tragedy that everybody should be ashamed of, and it is going up on Labour’s watch. Small businesses, which provide so many jobs, are very worried about the administrative burden of trade union access. We are talking about the very smallest businesses—pubs, restaurants, garden centres and small catering businesses. They are the backbone of our communities. As the Minister tries to implement the Employment Rights Act, will she consider lifting the threshold for the trade union access agreements to a headcount of 250—that is recognised elsewhere in law as a threshold—which would protect our very smallest businesses from that administrative burden?
Kate Dearden
To hear the Conservative party try to lecture us across the Dispatch Box on trade union engagement, industrial relations and how we operate our economy is very interesting. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am working really closely with businesses of all sizes—small and large—and with our trade unions and partners, because that is the right thing to do. The Employment Rights Act is a significant piece of legislation. We want to get it right, but we also want to fundamentally change how we do things in this country. That is the right thing to do, and we are taking the responsible action to do so. We recognise that there are lots of changes, which is why are working in a staged way over the next two years to implement them, and we are doing so in partnership with businesses and trade unions. We want to work together to deliver this. It represents significant change for 18 million people across the country, and businesses are vital in delivering it. That is why we are working together to do so.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I am having quite the outing today, Madam Deputy Speaker!
I welcome the question from my hon. Friend, whose business experience as the chief executive of an international trade association gives him acute insight into this topic. This Government are committed to tackling the pressing issues with the current employment status framework, and we will publish our consultation as soon as possible. The consultation will seek to address issues with the framework that can enable worker exploitation and leave vulnerable workers without core employment protections.
Chris Bloore
I thank the Minister for her answer. She will know that too many parcel couriers in my constituency and across the country are on bogus self-employment contracts and worse terms and conditions, with no holiday pay or sick leave. That is driving down standards across the sector and, of course, robbing the public purse of national insurance contributions. I welcome her commitment to announcing the consultation on single worker status. Can she guarantee that both employer and employee representations will be included in the consultation?
Kate Dearden
My hon. Friend raises an important issue, and I thank him for doing so. I agree that it is completely unacceptable for businesses to seek to undercut others in a race to the bottom through bogus self-employment. Employers should never seek to deny people their employment rights and to avoid their own legal obligations by claiming that someone is self-employed when in reality they might not be. We will therefore consult on the changes to the status framework and our action to improve compliance, and we will of course engage with all stakeholders as part of that.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
The Government are working hard to reduce operating costs for all UK businesses, including those in Chichester. We are working to reduce the annual administrative burden of regulation by £5.6 billion by 2029, enabling businesses to unlock growth and boost innovation across key sectors. We are introducing the most significant legislation to tackle late payments in over 25 years, providing a support package worth more than £4 billion over the next three years to help business rate payers and fully funding apprenticeship training costs for all eligible 16 to 24-year-olds.
Jess Brown-Fuller
The irony for many small businesses in Chichester is that they are busy, well established and popular. It is not bad business, but bad policy, that is making them struggle.
“The current business rates system disincentivises investment, creates uncertainty and places an undue burden on our high streets.”
Those are not my words; they are lifted from the Labour party manifesto. When should my local businesses expect the changes to business rates that they need, and will the Government please explore a commercial landowner levy in their upcoming review?
Blair McDougall
The hon. Member is right to highlight the Government’s commitment to tackling inadequacies in the way rates are calculated, and that is exactly what my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury spoke about from the Dispatch Box the other day. Beyond the rates issue, we are protecting high street businesses from upward-only rental review clauses, and we are introducing a community right to buy so that people can take ownership of valued community assets on the high street. We also have rental options for empty properties on the high street and action on bogus businesses, as the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), mentioned. We are doing a great deal to help the businesses the hon. Member described.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
We are focused on delivering our industrial strategy so that we are once again a nation that makes things, invents new industries and exports around the world. We are investing £100 billion in industries through the National Wealth Fund, directing £9 billion in research and innovation funding to key growth industries, and bringing forward a huge increase in support for exporters through UK Export Finance.
Liz Twist
For 14 years under the last Government, my constituents’ living standards stagnated. Across Blaydon and Consett, we have many successful manufacturing and engineering firms such as Slaters Electricals and Petersen Stainless Rigging in Blaydon, Gardner Aerospace and CAV Systems in Consett, and many more. Can my hon. Friend set out how our modern industrial strategy will support businesses in my constituency to raise living standards for my constituents?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend is such a powerful advocate for the industrial strengths of her part of the world, and it is on exactly those strengths that our industrial strategy is working to drive up business investment to create the high-quality jobs that will improve living standards and deliver better public services for everyone. The Government’s northern growth strategy aims to increase the potential of the northern growth corridor to catalyse growth in sectors such as those she describes, and I know we will continue to work with her to make sure her constituents get the most out of that.
Luke Akehurst
County Durham has been home to proud British industries for centuries, but for decades they have been in decline, and communities such as mine in North Durham have paid the price. Our modern industrial strategy will work to fix that. It is going to invest billions in defence, advanced manufacturing and clean power, which are sectors where the north-east has a unique advantage. Can the Minister assure me that our modern industrial strategy will bring jobs, growth and reindustrialisation to my constituency of North Durham?
Blair McDougall
Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend of that. The industrial strategy recognises the great strengths of the north-east, for which he is such a strong champion. As part of the North East combined authority, County Durham is benefiting from targeted measures, including at least £30 million from the local innovation partnerships fund and the pilot to develop a resilient electric vehicle supply chain. This will support locally critical components and capabilities backed by DRIVE35. We will shortly set out further detail on our northern growth strategy, building on the commitment to invest up to £45 billion in Northern Powerhouse Rail.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
There is only one rebar mill in the UK—in Cardiff—and it can make enough to meet only a small portion of our needs, which means that we are reliant on imports. Even if we open a new facility, we will not have enough capacity for things like the rail projects and the 1.5 million new homes. The ending of the roll-over tariffs is leading to unused quotas. Companies such as Hy-Ten in my constituency cannot risk making an order when, by the time it arrives in this country, the quota has been used up and it cannot be imported. Will the Minister meet me to look at the impact of these changes on the ground before they strangle economic growth?
Blair McDougall
The hon. Lady is right to raise industry worries about the turbulent international trade environment. That is why it is so important that the Government are out in the world engaging—because businesses, including the one that she mentioned, need stability. I would be very happy to arrange that meeting with her.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)
The Secretary of State has asked me to reply, because he is in China with the Prime Minister. In the last few weeks, our Department has concluded an enhanced trade deal with the Republic of Korea, published a critical minerals strategy and secured the Employment Rights Act 2025, which will see the biggest improvement in employment rights in a generation. At home and abroad, we are resolutely on the side of business, tackling barriers to trade, improving productivity, driving up growth and winning business for Britain. Growth is up, productivity is up and business confidence is up.
Chris Vince
Last weekend, I had the pleasure of visiting the Advanced Aquarium Consultancy in my constituency of Harlow, where they breed, grow and sell coral. I am not going to make any coral jokes, which will be a reef to everybody. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] What is unique about Advanced Aquarium Consultancy is the amount of energy it needs to use. What are the Government doing to support such businesses to bring down energy costs?
Chris Bryant
I was told that my hon. Friend was going to ask a question about choral farms; I was wondering how one farmed tenors, altos and contraltos. He makes a very fair point. As the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), said earlier, there is a whole series of industries for which the cost of energy is a significant part of the problems they face. That is precisely the kind of work that we are engaged in as a Department and as a whole Government, and why it is so important that my hon. Friend is in two Departments and therefore able to bridge these issues.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Yet again, the Business Secretary is not here for his departmental questions. This time, he is in China, trying to sort out the mess that is British steel strategy. He is burning through £2 million a day of taxpayers’ money keeping the Scunthorpe furnace going, the Chinese owners are asking for £1 billion in compensation, and decommissioning could cost more than £2 billion. His steel strategy is literally melting before its long-awaited publication. Given that when the Prime Minister negotiates, Britain loses, what is a good outcome here?
Chris Bryant
Honestly! [Laughter.] Sometimes my heart wants to fall through my body when I hear Conservative Members, who seem to have completely and utterly lost the plot, whether it is enormous, multibillion-pound demands for extra cash they are making or anything else. As I understand it, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) is a chartered accountant, but he does not seem to be able to count, while the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) seems to forget that when she was in government, the previous Prime Minister refused even to visit any of the steel companies in this country. We are determined to get a good outcome.
The hon. Member for West Worcestershire attacks the Business Secretary for going to China, but it is important that we engage with all the big economies in the world. China is our fourth biggest export market, and there are lots of businesses doing trade with China. She is absolutely right that we have to get a good set of outcomes for steel, which is why we will soon produce a steel strategy that will answer all her questions. At a previous session of Business and Trade questions, I said that we wanted to publish soon what we will do with our steel trade tariffs after July.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
Madam Deputy Speaker, you can see why the Business Secretary needs to be here to answer questions, because I did not hear an answer to my question. I will try a different topic, which is also really important to our constituents. Sixteen million of them got their Royal Mail parcels and letters late this Christmas—my constituents have made many, many complaints. What has the Minister done to hold Royal Mail to account for its unacceptable level of service?
Chris Bryant
I think every single Member has heard similar complaints about service delivery. I am aware of people in my constituency receiving letters for NHS appointments after the appointment itself. The Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall), is meeting Royal Mail next week. We really need to ensure we get a better service across the whole country, and that is something we are absolutely focused on achieving.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that all jobs provide a baseline of security and predictability, and she perfectly outlines exactly why that is important. The next step is to consult before setting regulations to get that detail. I would love to hear from her further about those experiences—she has done hard work in this area over a long period of time. Providing workers with guaranteed hours is crucial for security.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Chris Bryant
We have been working hard to secure good outcomes for many businesses in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. Walker’s Shortbread is doing a phenomenal job of exporting around the world. I know that because I have seen them in supermarkets in Auckland, Melbourne, Dubai and all over the place. Similarly, we are trying to get a good deal with the United States on whisky. We already have a good deal with India on whisky, and the Prime Minister and others will be talking about whisky in China over the next few days. I do wish the hon. Gentleman would be a bit cheerier. He has one of the most beautiful constituencies in the land. Whether it is the Lairig Ghru, the Rothiemurchus estate, the ospreys in Loch Garten, or Loch an Eilein, it is absolutely beautiful. He could just be a bit cheerier!
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
I thank my hon. Friend for the work she is doing to highlight the north-east’s role as a key part of our life sciences and pharmaceutical industries. She mentions Organon in her constituency. Its Cramlington site was singled out by the leadership of that business at the J. P. Morgan healthcare conference in San Francisco recently. In two weeks’ time, I will be opening Fujifilm’s biotechnology factory in Billingham in my own constituency—a £400 million investment in north-east biosciences. Our life sciences sector plan is backing the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry with £2 billion of investment and our UK-US deal is delivering zero-tariff access for UK pharmaceutical exports.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Chris Bryant
We have already had quite a bit of a discussion on business rates and I do not have much to add to that. I will just say that the health and beauty sector is not only a sector in the UK, but one that is vital to our new exports. I am sure the hon. Lady is aware of this, but because we managed to get tariffs down on beauty products in our free trade agreement with India, we have been facilitating lots of businesses going out to India as part of a trade fair to drive up our exports around the world. The whole of the sector has an opportunity to prosper when we manage to secure better free trade agreements.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Almost one in three pubs in this country is a tied pub. In Calder Valley, one such pub saw its payments to Stonegate jump from £800 to £1,700 a week, just days after the six-month probationary period ended. I welcome the Government’s support for pubs, but that pub will still be paying 17 times more to Stonegate each year than it will in business rates. Will the Minister look at those unfair charges, and what can be done in regulation?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important case. He is my neighbouring colleague in wonderful Calder Valley, and our constituencies have some of the best pubs in the country. As he knows, the pubs code in England and Wales regulates the relationship between pub-owning businesses with 500 or more tied pubs, including Stonegate and its tied-pub tenants, and it aims to ensure that tenants are treated fairly. The Government are currently undertaking the third statutory review of the effectiveness of the code, and it may help to inform the review if my hon. Friend could write to me setting out the details of the example he mentioned.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
When will the Government announce the results of their British industrial competitiveness scheme consultation, and provide the fabulous manufacturing industry in my constituency with some much-needed help towards its energy costs?
Chris McDonald
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the British industrial competitiveness scheme will provide a significant discount to up to 7,000 manufacturing businesses of up to 25% of their energy costs. It will certainly help manufacturing businesses in his constituency and across the whole UK. I encourage businesses in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency to contribute to the consultation, the results of which we will announce in due course.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Recently I met with employees and union reps from SYNLAB, a thriving pathology laboratory in Abergavenny. It has been taken over, and now more than 30 jobs are at risk, meaning that these highly skilled opportunities in science, technology, engineering and maths could move out of my constituency. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), for meeting me earlier this week, but would she meet with colleagues in the Welsh Government and myself to discuss how we ensure that we keep these kinds of high-tech jobs in Wales, as it should not just be big cities that benefit from these STEM opportunities?
Chris Bryant
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend; it is great that she is a Member of this House because we hear her unambiguous support for small businesses up and down her constituency—not just in the big towns, but in the small villages, as she says. She is right that Wales is a good place for high tech. I am delighted that £1.4 billion of additional investment was announced at the Welsh investment summit in December, taking the total linked investment since the summit was launched to £16 billion. I am sure that that is going to deliver more jobs across south Wales in precisely the way that my hon. Friend asks for.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
While I always enjoy the soliloquies of the Minister of State, it might be an opportunity for the Minister who has responsibility for Royal Mail and postal services to answer this question, given that I wrote to his office about the catastrophic failure of the letter delivery service throughout Shropshire. Would he agree to meet with me and my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) to discuss resolving that issue?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
I am very happy to do so. The right hon. Member will understand that Royal Mail is a private company regulated by Ofcom, but it is also a critical part of our national economic and social infrastructure. It is not acceptable if people are not getting their post, which is a message that I will deliver to Royal Mail in person next week.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister mentioned the music venue levy earlier. He knows that my constituency has amazing music venues, so when will the first payment from that levy be made to those smaller venues?
Chris Bryant
I am afraid that I have changed job since I was pushing that levy very hard. The intention was for those payments to be happening fairly soon. I will ensure that the Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts responds directly to my hon. Friend. The levy is a really important opportunity. Every time someone goes to a big arena gig, there should be a £1 levy on their ticket. I urge all promoters, artists and concert arrangers to ensure that that money gets to small music venues.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
The use of the toxic chemical paraquat was banned in the UK by the previous Labour Government in 2007. It is associated with the development of Parkinson’s and is deemed too dangerous for use on our own soil, but continues to be produced here and sent elsewhere, perpetuating harms that would not be tolerated at home. What is the policy on exporting UK-manufactured products such as paraquat to other countries?
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for Industry for his engagement with Ceramics UK this week, meeting the organisation and ceramics companies from across Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent, the west midlands and further afield. He will have heard from them about the importance of getting ceramics firms into the super- charger scheme. I was pleased to hear what he said about trying to extend eligibility, so could he give us an idea of when we might hear some positive news on that front?
Chris McDonald
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for so clearly representing the importance of the ceramics firms in his constituency. I heard the message loud and clear from the ceramics industry this week about the impact of energy costs and, as I mentioned earlier, in the review of the supercharger scheme, I have asked my officials to look carefully at the opportunities for including the ceramics sector.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Ajax armoured vehicle programme is currently under threat, but work is due to be completed at the Merthyr Tydfil factory next summer. Could the Minister confirm whether there are any conversations through the UK Defence and Security Exports office around securing an export package for the Ajax vehicle and guaranteeing work at the factory going forwards?
Chris Bryant
Obviously we would like to do so. As the MP for the next-door constituency, and having visited the factory myself, I am keen to ensure that we do so. A large part of this programme is a Ministry of Defence responsibility, and I will make sure that the MOD writes to the hon. Gentleman.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
I return again to the steel industry, and thank the steel Minister for the meeting we held a few weeks ago. I was contacted by a couple of employers in Scunthorpe last week who expressed concern about recent reports of publicly funded contracts using foreign-produced steel. Could the Minister give an assurance that British-produced steel will take priority in such cases?
Chris McDonald
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his positive and constructive engagement on this issue. I do understand the concerns of the steelworkers in Scunthorpe. I know precisely the projects he is referring to; they were not procured under public procurement rules, and the developers and tier 1 contractors involved have followed their own rules and commitments. However, it is the case that this Government want to see more British steel used in both public and other projects around the country, which is a matter both for developing steel capability and, potentially, for reviewing our procurement rules.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
For the final question, I call David Mundell.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Latin America, I was interested to note that, after 25 years of negotiations, the EU has announced a trade deal with the Mercosur South American trading group. What is the position of the UK Government on a trading agreement with Mercosur?
Chris Bryant
It is certainly true that now that the EU has secured a Mercosur deal, having taken 25 years to do so, there is a danger that British business will be left out and excluded because there will be preferential rates for European businesses. It is something we are looking at very closely, and I hope to be able to update the right hon. Gentleman very soon. As he knows, I am passionate about trying to increase our exports to Latin America. I would just note that some companies, such as Inca Kola, were created by British firms.
Business of the House
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The business for the week commencing 2 February will include:
Monday 2 February—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill, followed by motions relating to the High Speed Rail (Crewe-Manchester) Bill.
Tuesday 3 February—Second Reading of the Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill.
Wednesday 4 February—Opposition day (17th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.
Thursday 5 February—General debate on road safety, followed by a general debate on obligation to assess the risk of genocide under international law in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 6 February—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 9 February includes:
Monday 9 February—General debate on the UK-India free trade agreement, followed by a debate on a motion on increasing survival rates of brain tumours. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 10 February—Debate on motions to approve the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2026 and the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2026, followed by a debate on motions to approve the draft Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order 2026 and the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veteran’s Relief) Regulations 2026.
Wednesday 11 February—Motions relating to the police grant and local government finance reports.
Thursday 12 February—General debate on LGBT+ History Month, followed by a debate on a motion on mobile connectivity in rural areas. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
The House of Commons will rise for the February recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 12 February and return on Monday 23 February.
Jesse Norman
I thank the Leader of the House very much for the business.
As the House will know, this is the week of Holocaust Memorial Day, and I am delighted that we will be debating it in this Chamber later today. I am sure colleagues will have visited the extraordinary exhibition of shoes in Portcullis House. I visited Auschwitz in 1988, when Poland was under communist control, and saw the originals of that exhibition—it was a profoundly moving experience. I know that everyone present will share my sense of sorrow and remembrance for all those who died.
This is also the week in which we note with great sadness the death of Captain Philip Muldowney in a live-fire exercise. We send our very best to his fellow soldiers, his friends and his family. I also put on record my personal sadness on the death of Howard Flight, Lord Flight, a dedicated servant of this House and the other place over many years.
This week, the Prime Minister demonstrated his genius and political touch once again by getting Andy Burnham barred from standing in the Gorton and Denton by-election, in which he would almost certainly have been hammered if he had stood—problem solved.
Meanwhile, the Resolution Foundation has calculated that the extra uncertainty created by the Chancellor’s repeated U-turns has already cost, or will cost, this country £8.2 billion, which will only increase over time. The figure is based on official Office for Budget Responsibility numbers and includes the Government’s U-turns on personal independence payments, universal credit and the winter fuel allowance, but not the additional uncertainty created by their recent U-turns on business rates for pubs and inheritance tax rules for farmers. Those will take the cost closer to £9 billion-worth of unnecessary extra burden on the people of this country created by the Government since July 2024. And lest we forget, even without any U-turns, the extra cost of servicing UK Government debt since July 2024 has been, and remains—again, thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer —higher than in either the US or the eurozone. That is according to Labour’s own friendly think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research.
Finally, extraordinarily—irony of ironies—we hear that Sir Tony Blair will sit on President Trump’s so-called board of peace for the reconstruction of Gaza, to which one can only say, in the words of the late, great Tom Lehrer, “Satire is dead.” This is the man who took this country to war in the middle east on a false prospectus. One must ask: have the people of Gaza not suffered enough?
I note that AstraZeneca is accompanying the Prime Minister on his trip to China. As the House will know, AstraZeneca is the single biggest investor in research and development in the United Kingdom. Its best-selling, global best-in-class breast cancer drug, Enhertu, is available for reimbursement in America, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Scandinavia and Japan. Within these islands, it is available for reimbursement in Scotland, but not in England, outside a few special cases. That is an insult to AstraZeneca, but still more to the 46,000 women a year who are diagnosed with breast cancer in England, and the millions more who have had breast cancer, who are at risk and who are unable to be treated affordably as a result. There is deep concern among all Members of the House about this issue. Does the Leader of the House share my view of it, and will he take up the matter urgently with his Cabinet colleagues?
Finally, data from this week shows that over the last year police numbers have fallen sharply. Between September 2024 and September 2025, the number of full-time equivalent police officers fell by 1,318. Police staff were down 529, and police community support officers were down 204. The number of special constables was down 514, and police volunteers were down 429. In total, around 3,000 fewer people are now involved in policing our communities. Those figures compare the same point in both years, precisely because recruitment happens in cycles, so there can be no statistical disguising.
I actually rather agree with Commissioner Rowley, who has said that police should be judged by outputs rather than inputs—a very welcome corrective to the endless tendency started, I am afraid, under Messrs Blair and Brown to trumpet increased spending as though it is the same thing as results—but that hardly applies to the number of volunteers and specials, both of which are down. In general, fewer officers and staff mean fewer crimes investigated, fewer patrols on our streets and slower responses to 999 calls. The Home Secretary’s announcement earlier this week was silent on protecting overall police numbers, so could the Leader of the House spell out whether the Government’s policy is to allow police numbers to decline over time? Could the House have an up-to-date statement on that specific issue?
Sir Alan Campbell
First of all, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, may we send our best wishes to Mr Speaker and wish him a speedy recovery from his recent injury?
As the shadow Leader of the House said, Tuesday was Holocaust Memorial Day. During Cabinet we heard from Mala Tribich, who shared her testimony. She actually sat in the Cabinet Room, which is the first time a Holocaust survivor has done that. Yesterday I had the honour of joining Annick Lever in speaking at an event in the Cabinet Office. Holocaust Memorial Day reminds us that societies who do not learn from the mistakes of the past run the risk of repeating them. We must stand together against hatred, prejudice and intolerance wherever it occurs. The theme for Holocaust Memorial Day this year is “Bridging Generations”. The theme is a reminder that the responsibility of remembrance belongs not only to survivors but to us all.
I echo the sentiments of the shadow Leader of the House in paying tribute to those who have died. I want to add a tribute to Sir Christopher Jenkins, the former first parliamentary counsel in the Cabinet Office, who died recently. Sir Christopher was renowned for his mastery in drafting legislation and worked on many important pieces, including the Summer Time Act 1972 and the first devolution Bills for Scotland and Wales. He will also be remembered for pioneering explanatory notes, which clearly explain the purpose of the Bill. I am sure that the whole House will join me in passing on our condolences to his friends and family. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
That gives me an opportunity to reflect on the work of those in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. They work tremendously hard behind the scenes supporting Ministers in bringing forward legislation. I want to take this moment to pass on my thanks to them for all their hard work.
Speaking of legislation and Government action, this week the Government published the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, which will deliver on our manifesto commitment to reform the commonhold model, making it easier for existing leaseholders to convert to commonhold and banning the use of leasehold for most new flats. It will significantly improve the current system for over 5 million existing property owners, ensuring a better deal for future generations of homeowners in England and Wales.
We also published a police reform White Paper, which the shadow Leader of the House referred to, announcing the largest reforms to policing since the police service was founded around 200 years ago. The reforms will create a police service that is more rooted in local communities and remove the barrier that prevents police from focusing on what really matters to our constituents.
Let me turn to the specific points raised by the shadow Leader of the House. He referred to the cost of what he calls U-turns. I notice that he did not welcome in his remarks the changes that we made to farmers’ inheritance tax and, indeed, the help that we brought forward for pubs. He cannot have it both ways. He talks about the cost of borrowing. It is, of course, important that that cost, and indeed borrowing, is brought down so that money is spent on better things, including public services. I gently ask him, however: who ran up the borrowing in the first place? Why is the cost of borrowing so high in this country? The answer is that it is because of the Truss Budget, which crashed and trashed the economy.
Breast cancer drugs, which the right hon. Gentleman raised, are a very important matter. I accept that there is concern, but this Government are determined to do more to address not just breast cancer but other cancers. I will draw his remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman mentions police numbers, but forgets that the number of police officers fell by 22,000 under the Government he supported. When they did recruit officers, they put them into offices—they were not on the frontline. The Home Secretary has been absolutely clear that we need to get more officers on to the frontline and we are determined to do that. The right hon. Gentleman wants me to spell out our ambitions for that, but he will need to wait slightly longer. I have just announced the business, which includes a debate on police funding on 11 February, when we will not only be able to spell out our plans for increasing the number of police officers, but be happy to compare our record against that of his Government.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
I associate myself with the comments of the Leader of the House about Holocaust Memorial Day. Coming from a family with Jewish heritage, I feel that very strongly.
One of the worst aspects of the austerity years was the impact on young people. In a community such as mine of 23 separate mining villages, all isolated, the future of the youth, who are after all the future of our country, is very difficult. Will the Leader of the House think about recommending a moment when we might discuss youth services in the country? That would give me an opportunity to raise the issue of a piece of land that has fallen into private use in Upton in my constituency. There is a covenant held by the coalfields authority, which I hope it will enforce. Such a debate would allow me to press that case.
Sir Alan Campbell
This Government have brought forward a young people’s strategy for the first time in more than a decade. A review is also being undertaken into how we can best tackle the difficult issue of bringing down youth unemployment. However, I will draw the matter to the attention of the relevant Secretary of State and see what plans we have to bring forward a debate, or perhaps a statement, so that my hon. Friend can make those points himself.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I associate myself with the comments made by the Leader of the House about Holocaust Memorial Day and the tributes he paid to the people we have lost.
Last weekend, all the plotting and deceit finally reached a climax. I have to say that the man from the north who I wanted to win that battle did not quite make it. Still, Faraaz played a good game and I thought that Stephen and Rachel were worthy winners of “The Traitors”—[Laughter.] I thought that deserved more.
Moving on, I think the whole House can agree that the world has become less safe. Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and the instability that Trump has brought to the NATO alliance has focused minds across Europe. We all know that we now need to find a way to increase defence spending as quickly as possible. This week, the Liberal Democrats put forward an idea about the possibility of issuing defence bonds. That would raise funds not only via the financial markets but allow ordinary Brits to take part. We could issue them on a fixed-term basis and hypothecate them specifically to capital spending on defence. We believe that that could help us achieve 3% of defence spending by 2030 and allow everybody to participate in the effort.
Pension funds and investment portfolios allow people to select the style of portfolio that they would like. Sometimes people tick a box to say that they want to invest in environmental, social and governance measures. We believe that if there was a UK-focused portfolio, many people would choose to opt in. In fact, research suggests that Brits would be willing to see lower returns on their investment if they knew that their money was going to a good cause, and to British assets in particular. Could we have a debate in Government time on just how we can get to that 3% target as quickly as possible? We need to build cross-party consensus on that.
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are absolutely committed to increasing spending on defence to 2.5% of GDP by April next year, and the Prime Minister has set out his ambition to spend 3% of GDP on defence in the next Parliament, but I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, because the world appears to be a less safe place. That means that we need to build better, deeper coalitions with our allies, but of course we must also play our part fully by increasing defence expenditure, and the Government are absolutely committed to doing that.
I find the idea that the hon. Gentleman raised of a defence bond genuinely interesting. I will raise it with the Secretary of State, at least to get the hon. Gentleman a response. I happen to believe that we do not debate defence enough in this House. [Interruption.] Well, not compared with how it was some time ago. I will therefore see what prospect there is of bringing forward a defence debate in the near future, in which we talk not just about what is happening in the world, but about how we might best support our armed forces.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
Recently, I had the pleasure of meeting Ali Davies-Marsh, the fantastic founder of Greener Littleover in Derby, which does outstanding work bringing people closer to nature, through initiatives such as the Great Big Green Week, and by doing outreach in our local schools. Does the Leader of the House agree that volunteer-led initiatives like Greener Littleover should be recognised, because they represent the best of our communities in Derby and across the country?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to champion the work of Greener Littleover and organisations like it. The work done by volunteer-led initiatives is admirable, and it represents the very best of our communities. I hope that everyone in the House will join me in praising Greener Littleover’s commitment to protecting, enhancing and celebrating local green spaces.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
In addition to the business that the Leader of the House announced, on Monday 9 February there will be a Select Committee statement from the Procedure Committee, the subject of which is secret. That should encourage Members to come along and listen to what is being said. It is secret because the Committee has not yet published its report. On Thursday 26 February—if we are allocated that date—we have offered a St David’s day and Welsh affairs debate, so I am sure the Leader of the House will not want to upset the Welsh.
In Westminster Hall, on 3 February there will be a debate on town and city centre safety. On Thursday 5 February, there will be a Select Committee statement on behalf of the Scottish Affairs Committee, followed by a debate on sustainable drainage systems and a debate on secondary breast cancer. On 10 February, there will be a debate on the Independent Water Commission final report. On Thursday 12 February, there will be a debate on onshoring in the fashion and textiles industry, and a debate on which we are waiting for confirmation. On 24 February, there will be a debate on Government support for the healthcare system in Gaza.
The Leader of the House and I had a very good meeting on Monday. I look forward to the necessary changes to the Standing Orders coming forward to assist the Backbench Business Committee in doing its work.
The Mayor of London is wrestling with a £260 million gap in the finances. There are proposals to close police counters across London to save about £6 million a year. Since 6 October 2023, hate marches across London have cost the Metropolitan police £82 million, and officers have been dragged in from all over London to police them. Council tax payers of London are outraged about having to pay to police those marches. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Minister who responds to the debate on the police grant tells us how the Government will make sure that the organisers of such demonstrations—rather than the council tax payers of London—bear the cost of policing them?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his update, and for our very productive meeting earlier this week. He rarely leaves us in such suspense in his updates, and I look forward to finding out what that Select Committee statement is about. Our intention is certainly not to upset the Welsh; that has been the job of his party over the years.
The hon. Gentleman raises the important matter of policing, as he often does as a constituency MP. The 2026-27 final police funding settlement is up to £21 billion for the policing of the system in England and Wales. The Metropolitan police and City of London police will receive funding of up to £4.1 billion—an increase of £184.1 million.
The hon. Gentleman raises an issue of concern relating to marches. I will ensure that the Minister who introduces the police debate on 11 February is aware of his concerns, but he may wish to attend to make those points directly to the Minister.
Several hon. Members rose—
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I welcome this Labour Government’s record investment in repairing and renewing our roads, and in fixing potholes, with £7.3 billion having been allocated to local authorities over the next four years. Following the recent introduction of red-amber-green ratings for how local authorities are spending that money and for their road conditions, I have launched a pothole survey to get feedback from my constituents and ensure that local voices are heard. Will the Leader of the House join me in encouraging my constituents to fill out the survey and to give feedback about where roads need improvement, so that I can ensure that local voices are heard?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in encouraging her constituents to complete her survey. As has been said, local people are best placed to make local decisions and outline where improvements need to be made, so I pay tribute to her for ensuring that their voices are heard.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Last May, Reform pushed leaflets through the doors of homes in Worcestershire that said that it would cut taxes, but this year, Reform-led Worcestershire county council has sought permission from the Government to increase council tax by a staggering 10%. Does the Leader of the House agree that that inflation-busting rise is a step too far for the residents of Worcestershire? Will he rule it out, and make representations to the relevant Secretary of State?
Sir Alan Campbell
Once again, the hon. Gentleman raises the fact that Reform over-offers and underperforms. I will draw the attention of the relevant Department to his comments and concerns.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Four year ago, the regeneration of Wealdstone—now entirely in my constituency—was poised to begin. Since then, the Conservative councillors who run Harrow council have cancelled or stalled key decisions, so much-needed affordable housing is nowhere to be seen, council offices are closed to the public, local services have been starved of investment, and Wealdstone High Street is under pressure. Might we have a debate on how to help failing councils lead regeneration initiatives better?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises a serious matter. For far too long, people have watched their towns and streets decline. The Government are investing in the future of our local communities, not least through the £5 billion Pride in Place programme, and we are giving local people the power to transform their communities. Should he seek a debate—or indeed use the 11 February debate on local government funding—to make his points, I am sure that he would find common cause with others across the House.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
I congratulate the Government on one of their policies: the launch of a UK town of culture. Often, the Government find themselves having to pull their business. I hope that when they are next in that position, they can organise a debate on the UK town of culture. Stone town council is putting in a bid for Stone, which is a great town. It has the Crown Wharf theatre and one of the best food festivals anywhere in the country, and it would be a great recipient of this title. I hope we can have a debate on this issue in Government time.
Sir Alan Campbell
I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes the UK town of culture competition, and I encourage towns across the country to take part. We hope that it will be a huge success, and I imagine that we will want a debate on it at some point. He makes a very strong case for Stone. It would probably be remiss of me to make the case for North Shields, which celebrated its 800th anniversary last year very successfully, and which I understand will put forward its own bid, but of course, I would not mention that.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The Royal National Institute of Blind People’s 2024 report, “Turned Out”, found that disabled people face significant barriers when it comes to casting their vote, a finding echoed by the Electoral Commission in its report last year. Both those reports informed my ten-minute rule Bill on this subject, which I presented to the House last year. Could the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to make a statement on improving accessibility at our polling stations for disabled people ahead of this year’s elections?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are firmly committed to supporting disabled people’s ability and right to vote. I know that the team at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government regularly meet disability organisations to identify barriers, share good practice, develop products and promote awareness, but I will make sure that the Secretary of State has heard my hon. Friend’s contribution.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Storms Ingrid and Chandra have wreaked havoc across Devon, whether it is flooding in Ottery Saint Mary, closure of the Dawlish rail line or having parts of our harbours and seafronts in Torbay ripped apart. Torbay council advised me that these storms have caused more than £3.5 million of critical infrastructure damage. Will the Leader of the House encourage the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness to open up the Bellwin scheme to local authorities, like ours in Torbay?
Sir Alan Campbell
Alongside partners in the emergency services, local authorities and utility companies, we co-ordinated agencies, so that they could prepare for and respond to the storm, and our hearts go out to those who have been severely affected. As far as the Bellwin scheme is concerned, I will draw the hon. Gentleman’s remarks to the attention of the Minister.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Two weeks ago, the Office for Environmental Protection announced its annual report to Parliament. It found that the country remains off track for the 2030 targets. It also found that this Government were making good progress in some areas, but colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs appear to wish to hide their light under a bushel, because we did not get a statement in the House on that, or on the environmental improvement plan. Will the Leader of the House have a word with DEFRA colleagues about ensuring that these important landmarks get a statement? In the absence of that, can we have a debate in Government time on the OEP report and the important environmental improvement plan?
Sir Alan Campbell
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all the work he does on these issues. He raises a very important matter, and I am confident that DEFRA Ministers want to keep the House updated on our environmental improvement plan. We have ambitious targets, and I will make sure that Ministers have heard his request for a statement.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I thank the frontline staff at the Environment Agency, drainage board and council who are working hard to tackle flooding in Somerset. This year, water levels have risen faster than they did in the 2013-14 floods. Currymoor used to fill in 10 days; this week, it filled in four. Communities in Fordgate and Moorland are watching nervously as water levels continue to rise. Can we have a debate on how the Environment Agency approaches these incidents? Why is it using out-of-date trigger points to dictate its response? Why were the emergency pumps at Northmoor operational only last night? Why is the EA actively withdrawing from main river maintenance, and why are we allowing building on floodplains without proper mitigation?
Sir Alan Campbell
Floods often cause devastation for people who live in areas affected by them. Our floods resilience taskforce is focusing on the delivery of a flood resilience strategy, and indeed investment, because these things have been neglected for too long. The hon. Gentleman began by paying tribute to the Environment Agency workers not just in his area but across the country, who are out working day in, day out to make improvements. He may wish to seek a Westminster Hall debate on the matter, but I will also look at whether there is time to bring forward such a debate.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Keeping our neighbourhoods clean and tidy requires a whole community effort, and that is exactly what we are delivering in Hartlepool. Our Labour council is investing £1 million in its Pride in Place campaign, complementing the fantastic work of volunteers from Hartlepool Big Town Tidy Up to make a visible difference to our borough. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating my constituent, 11-year-old Theo Rhead, a pupil at High Tunstall school, on winning a young litter picker award at the Davina Hodson memorial awards hosted by CleanupUK? He embodies the spirit of Hartlepool.
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to celebrate a community approach to keeping our towns and cities clean, and the dedication of environmental volunteers in that, and to draw attention to the support that the Government are giving through the Pride in Place programme, not just in terms of resources but by putting the community in charge. I think the whole House will join me in congratulating Theo Rhead on his young litter picker award, because his commitment sets a bright example for us all to follow.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Redbourn village faces a potential 70% housing increase after this Government reclassified swathes of open land as grey belt, leaving villagers powerless against unplanned development, with legitimate infrastructure and environmental concerns compounded by being next to the M1 and 7 miles from Luton airport, which is expanding. The ministerial answer to my recent question about grey belt impact assessments referred me to yet another update of the national planning policy framework, which is under consultation. As councils cannot pause their planning timelines, may we have a debate in Government time on how Members can address live planning issues during this consultation limbo, before it is too late for our villages?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Lady is of course free to apply for a debate, perhaps one in Westminster Hall or an Adjournment debate, in which she can raise these matters. Matters of housing and infrastructure are often raised with me. I gently say to her that what we are trying to do in updating the legislation is ensure that we are building the houses that the country needs. It is really important that we get on with building those houses. I will draw her remarks to the attention of the relevant Department.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
Many girls in my constituency, some as young as 12, have told me that they face misogynistic abuse and sexual harassment in school from boys of a similar age. Some have even told me that reports of their experiences have fallen on deaf ears with the school leads, some often saying, “You should be flattered.” Will the Leader of the House please condemn such words from school leads, and allow for the Education Secretary to lay out what steps her Department is taking to tackle the scourge of misogynistic abuse in schools and academies?
Sir Alan Campbell
I think most people would condemn the words that my hon. Friend set out. He raises a really important matter, because every parent should be able to trust that their daughter, or indeed their son, is safe in school. Too often, toxic ideas take hold early and go unchallenged. Our violence against women and girls strategy, published in December, seeks to ensure that girls will be better protected from violence and, crucially, that young boys will be steered away from harmful misogynistic influences. I will raise my hon. Friend’s concerns with the Secretary of State.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I do not know whether the Leader of the House is a keen cyclist or mountain biker, but I am sure that he will share my excitement, and that of my constituents, that after the grand départ in Edinburgh, the Tour de France will pass through Innerleithen, Walkerburn and Canonbie in my constituency. Along with the forthcoming opening of the mountain bike innovation centre in Innerleithen, does he agree that this will showcase the Tweed Valley as the best cycling venue not only in the United Kingdom but in the world?
Sir Alan Campbell
What an opportunity to showcase what the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say is a very beautiful part of the world. As he can probably imagine, I am not renowned for my cycling ability or my history of such things, but I know that a lot of my constituents and people across the country are, so it is a great honour to have the course routed through the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I wish everyone involved well.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I recently met Unison health and care workers from Liverpool, who highlighted deeply worrying reports of migrant care staff being underpaid, overworked and, in some cases, intimidated because their work visa is tied to their employer. Not only does this exploitation harm dedicated workers, but it drags down standards across adult social care at a time when we desperately need to strengthen the sector. When will the Government make time for a full debate on the impact of the changes to the skilled worker visa, and on their implications for the ongoing exploitation and poor pay and conditions in social care and other sectors?
Sir Alan Campbell
We utterly condemn any examples of underpayment or exploitation, and I put on the record that care workers do a fantastic job up and down our country. As for when we may get the opportunity to debate these matters, I will draw my hon. Friend’s remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State and will do everything I can to find an opportunity for her to raise these matters in a debate.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Yesterday, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), the Deputy Prime Minister made a statement in the Chamber that was incorrect, misleading and disrespectful to Lord Brodie—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The hon. Gentleman should please be seated, as I am on my feet. We do not accuse other Members of misleading the House—inadvertently perhaps, but not misleading. Perhaps he can correct the record by starting his question again, and keep it short.
Seamus Logan
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Deputy Prime Minister made a statement in the Chamber that was incorrect, inadvertently misleading and disrespectful to Lord Brodie, who is chairing a public inquiry into events at the Queen Elizabeth University hospital in Glasgow. He stated that the Scottish Government had
“sided with the health board and dismissed families who went through tragic circumstances.”—[Official Report, 28 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 900.]
That is categorically untrue, given that it was the SNP Scottish Government who set up the public inquiry. [Interruption.] Worse, it was a naked pre-election smear and an act of desperation on behalf of the Labour party, which is struggling to make third place in the polls. What does the Leader of the House propose to do to put a stop to Ministers coming to the Dispatch Box and repeating falsehoods, and will he call on the Deputy Prime Minister to apologise for undermining Lord Brodie?
Sir Alan Campbell
Of course, it is important that Ministers, and indeed Members of this House, are accurate in their comments. However, as the hon. Gentleman will have heard—not least from Members behind me—this matter is one of dispute, and his version of events is also disputed. I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister will hear the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, but it is disappointing that, on such an important matter, he seeks to make a political point about polling and elections. I gently suggest that the Scottish Government should get on with the biggest settlement we have ever given to Scotland, and spend it better.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
A week ago, a 175-year-old Thames Water main pipe burst, leading to a devastating flood in Holland Park, which has forced dozens of my constituents into temporary accommodation and caused massive damage. Those same residents were flooded in 2021 and now face months out of their homes, so Thames Water again has major questions to answer. Can the Leader of the House assure me that the Government will give due consideration to strengthening the governance, oversight and accountability of Thames Water, so that this does not keep happening to my constituents?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for his question—that sounds like an untenable situation for his constituents. The Government have launched the largest ever crackdown on poorly behaving water companies —we have already banned bonuses, secured record levels of investment and introduced tougher laws. However, he may wish to raise this matter directly with Ministers at Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions this time next week.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Over the past month, more than 35,000 men, women and children have been shot dead—murdered—in Iran. Overnight, the French Government backed a move to put the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on the EU’s terrorist list. The majority of those shot have been shot by operatives of the IRGC. The Government have said that they cannot put the IRGC on the proscribed list because it is a state group, rather than a non-state terror group. However, given what the French Government and other EU Governments have done, can the UK Government at least bring forward new legislation on proscription, bringing together hybrid legislation in some way that allows the Government to take action to support all those men and women standing for freedom and democracy in Iran?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government have already proscribed and sanctioned 550 organisations and individuals around the IRGC. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we keep these matters under constant review. I am not sure I would characterise the Government’s position on the IRGC quite as definitively as he has, but we keep these matters under consideration. If, as we do that, we find that the legislation falls short, we will come back with changes to it.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
My constituent Muhammad is a young man educated at a local school and hoping to go on a school trip in a couple of weeks with his classmates. His application for citizenship was received by the Home Office in November 2024, but a decision is now eight months late, and if he went on this trip, it would void the application. Can the Leader of the House encourage Home Office colleagues to expedite an outcome to this delayed application, so that this young man can attend this vital educational trip?
Sir Alan Campbell
If my hon. Friend gives me the details of the case, I will ensure that the relevant Department gets that information and hopefully can act in the way he suggests.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It has been brought to my attention by an employer in my constituency —a vape manufacturer—that there are products on sale in this country by importers that are either circumventing or exploiting loopholes in the legislation. They are selling vapes that are big puffs and break the regulations. They are rechargeable but are being discarded because they are so cheap, creating a fire hazard. Will the Leader of the House enable me to speak to a Minister to see how we can address the issue?
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
After beaches in Burntisland and Kinghorn recently had their water quality downgraded, many of my constituents will be angry that Scottish Government-owned Scottish Water are hiking bills by almost 10%. Both beaches were closed for periods last summer due to pollution, and people became sick from exposure to it. That is particularly galling after the chief executive of Scottish Water was handed a £50,000 pay increase. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is long past time for the SNP Scottish Government to get a grip and to clean up our coasts? Will he make time for a debate on water quality?
Sir Alan Campbell
Yes, I agree that it is time, and I encourage my hon. Friend to apply for an Adjournment debate so that she can raise these matters directly with the Minister.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill that we sent to the other place is being scrutinised extensively, and it has been reported this morning that the Parliament Act 1911 may be invoked to force the Bill through to become an Act. Given that it is a private Member’s Bill and was not in the Labour manifesto, can the Leader of the House assure the House that he will not allocate Government time to do that?
Sir Alan Campbell
I read those reports, as I am sure did other Members of the House. The Government’s position has not changed, and this is not a Government Bill. However, the hon. Lady started off by talking about scrutiny in the House of Lords. They have every right to scrutinise, but I hope that they do so responsibly, because this House made clear its position on the Bill. I hope that progress can be made. When there is what looks like an impasse or a slowdown, people will be looking for a quick route around that—or any route around that, to be honest—but the Government’s position has not changed. Once the Lords have completed their scrutiny, we will if necessary find time in this place to debate those amendments, because the will of this House was very clear. I hope that we will, without having to go down the avenues that have been described, be able to resolve this matter.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Last Friday, we launched the Bournemouth town centre citizens’ panel action plan. This was the culmination of seven months of work by 50 local residents of all ages and backgrounds to set out a shared vision for our town and action points for the future. The citizens’ panel was an effective way to meaningfully centre residents’ voices in the future of our town. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking those residents, who put so much time and passion into the project, and will he assure me that the Government are giving due consideration to how we centre residents’ voices in our high street strategy?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for the innovative work that she and her constituents are doing, and I join her in praising them. We are supporting local businesses and our high streets in all sorts of ways, not least through Pride in Place. As I have said consistently, local people are best placed to make decisions about their local communities, and it sounds as though my hon. Friend is helping to make that happen.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Patients, cancer charities and healthcare professionals have been calling for urgent investment in oncology to prevent a postcode lottery of care. Unfortunately, regional inequalities exist, denying many patients access to effective treatment or quicker diagnosis. Will the House schedule time to consider what funding and workforce measures are being prioritised in the national cancer plan to address the gaps?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman raises a really important matter: the postcode lottery that can exist in cancer care. Of course, the Government do not want that to happen, which is why we are investing more across the NHS, but also through the NHS plan, to ensure that we iron out any differences that exist across the country. I will draw his remarks to the attention of the Health Secretary to see if and when he can bring forward a statement on these matters. Otherwise, we might be able to have the debate that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
When will the Government publish the full national security assessment of global biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse? No. 10 is said to have pulled the full report last autumn because it was too alarming. Given that the truncated version, published last week, says that
“every critical ecosystem is on a pathway to collapse”,
with an
“irreversible loss of function beyond repair”,
and that this will affect national security and national prosperity, and give rise to conflicts between states, is it not vital that this House examines the full report and that the Government schedule a debate about it in Government time?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an important matter, and I know he takes these matters very seriously indeed. I cannot give him the answer he seeks, but I can request a meeting with Ministers so that they can explain to him what the plans are going forward or, if necessary, the concerns and difficulties that mean they cannot proceed in the way that my hon. Friend asks for. If he wants that meeting, I will arrange it.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that your constituents, like mine, were absolutely shocked this morning to discover that their water bills from South East Water will go up by 7%, while the company is being investigated by Ofwat. The water industry is a failed industry. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on adopting the Liberal Democrat call for a mutual ownership model for the water companies?
Sir Alan Campbell
The previous Government should never have allowed the water sector to get into this state, with record levels of sewage and ageing water infrastructure. I understand very well how consumers will react to the news that their bills are going up yet again, and the Government are absolutely committed to improving the situation. As I said before, we are calling out water companies that are underperforming. I am not sure that we can promise to go as far as accepting a Liberal Democrat solution to these problems, but I am sure there will be ample opportunity to debate these matters going forward. Water is such an important consideration for our constituents, not least because it adds to the cost of living, which we are equally determined to tackle.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Let us aim for much shorter questions and much shorter answers.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
The Arthur Terry Learning Partnership runs 24 schools in the west midlands, including six in my constituency. It is currently trying to plug a £6 million gap in its finances that was caused by what it characterises as an accounting error. The National Education Union has taken nine days of strike action at Arthur Terry schools this month, with nine more planned for February. The Department for Education’s engagement with my office on this issue yesterday was excellent, but may I ask the Leader of the House to ensure that the relevant Minister meets me and other affected MPs as a matter of urgency to discuss the ongoing dispute?
Sir Alan Campbell
This is a difficult situation for children, and indeed families and teachers, in Lichfield and the west midlands in general, so I will help to secure the meeting my hon. Friend asks for.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
The Leader of the House will be aware that, on Monday, I joined my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) at a huge rally in support of our brave British veterans, a magnificent occasion organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). The message from veterans was clear: Labour’s plans to enable the perpetual persecution of soldiers who served in Northern Ireland is “diabolical”. Indeed, I would say it is a betrayal. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate about how the United Kingdom has ended up with a policy of giving legal protection to the terrorists who killed British subjects, while the soldiers who protected civilians in Ulster face prosecution simply for doing the job of serving Queen and country?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government are replacing a system that, quite frankly, we found was not legal, could not be enforced and therefore did not give protection to our brave servicemen and women. He will have ample time to continue this debate as the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill continues its progress. Whether his new hon. Friend the Member for Clacton can be bothered to be in the Chamber to take part remains to be seen.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I recently had the pleasure of visiting St Mary’s Catholic primary school in Blackhill to learn about its Solar for Schools project, and the children were really engaged in learning about solar power and saving energy. This is funded by Great British Energy and the Government through the Solar for Schools project. Can we have a debate in Government time to talk about the importance of extending such projects?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in recognising the enthusiasm of students at St Mary’s primary school in Blackhill, which is the place where I was born. I am happy to hear about this example of one of over 250 schools benefiting from our £255 million scheme to deliver new rooftop solar power for public buildings. I encourage her to apply for an Adjournment debate on the matter.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
The Chapel in Cotford St Luke in my constituency is a fan favourite, but because of the decisions of this Government, it is dying. It has been hit exceptionally hard by VAT and the business rates regime, as is the case for many establishments in our part of the world, many of which rely heavily on tourism. Can the Leader of the House allocate Government time for a debate on how we can better support the hospitality and tourism sector, and prevent much-loved businesses from closing their doors?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Lady will be aware of the support that the Government have recently brought forward for pubs, and we keep under review what other support we can give the hospitality sector. Her concern about what more can be done will be shared not just by Members on the Opposition side but by those on this side too. Should she seek an Adjournment debate, she can air those concerns herself.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Tetrosyl is a Rochdale-based company that has recently used fire and rehire tactics to, in effect, dismiss staff, rehire them with £7,000 a year less in their pay packets and remove their right to paid leave, all despite its shareholders receiving £2 million last year. Does the Leader of the House agree that the company should even now get around the table with the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers? Does he also agree that this Government’s new Employment Rights Act 2025 will finally outlaw fire and rehire, give day one rights to sick pay and parental leave, and give basic rights to every worker who deserves them—rights that Reform Members voted against in this House?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to the House and, yes, I do agree with him not only on the need to get around the table, but on the shameful approach taken by Reform on these matters. This Government’s Employment Rights Act represents the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. As he said, it will end exploitative zero-hours contracts, end unscrupulous fire and rehire practices, prevent the misuse of non-disclosure agreements, and strengthen statutory sick pay and the collective voice of workers.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Storm Chandra has left the south-west in havoc, including deep flooding in Dorset, with routes blocked, villages cut off and even part of our historic Wimborne Minster underwater. Some residents have suggested that blocked drains are the cause, but the best flushed gullies would not cope. I welcome the reference to the upcoming flood strategy, but as weather warnings return I repeat my call following last summer’s fires for a debate in Government time on climate resilience and response, so that Members can have their concerns heard.
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Lady is right to raise the concerns of her constituents; where they have been affected, I am sorry to hear that. She has raised these matters before, and should she wish to meet with a Minister and outline the experience of her constituents to see what further can be done, I will arrange that.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
We face a serious skills gap in the construction sector. Colleges across the country are doing fantastic work to help solve this issue. In my constituency, Kirklees college is a testament to the value of such institutions. I welcome the Government’s commitment to train 60,000 more skilled workers by 2029, but can we have a statement from the Government on the steps that they are taking to support institutions such as Kirklees college to meet the high demand for places and close the skills gap?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that matter and welcome the vital education and training that Kirklees college provides to its students. The Government announced a construction support package worth more than £600 million to tackle the shortage of skilled workers in the construction sector. That investment is a key part of our wider strategy to support our national infrastructure, but I will draw my hon. Friend’s request either for a statement or debate to the relevant Secretary of State’s attention.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as the chair of the all-party group on infant feeding. In December last year, as part of their child poverty strategy, the Government published their response to the Competition and Markets Authority on infant formula milk. There were a number of recommendations to which the Government said no, including restricting unverifiable claims on formula packaging. This is a vital issue that affects parents up and down the country, so will the Leader of the House make Government time to debate infant feeding?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government did announce important steps forward, but I am not across the specifics that the hon. Lady refers to, so if she wants to meet with a Minister to explore what more can be done, I will arrange that.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
As Member of Parliament for West Dunbartonshire, I have the honour of following in the footsteps of a very distinguished predecessor, Lord McFall, the Lord Speaker, who steps down this week after 40 years at Westminster. He has served my community and our democracy with great wisdom, courtesy, grace and humility. Will the Leader of the House join me in expressing gratitude for his decades of service, and send both him and his wife Joan our warmest wishes?
Sir Alan Campbell
I think I can speak for everyone across the House in thanking Lord McFall for his service and commitment to both Houses. He was a fine Whip and Minister in government and a truly tremendous parliamentarian. Alongside my hon. Friend, I wish Lord McFall and his wife Joan all the best for what is to come.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
It has been raining hard in my constituency and across the west country generally. I pay tribute to Somerset council, North Somerset council, the internal drainage board and the Environment Agency for their work. The land, however, is saturated. If one were to put the water in Somerset and the little bit of North Somerset that I represent end to end, it would flow from mid Somerset to Singapore. It is 8,000 miles-worth of waterway. Will the Leader of the House please ask his colleague with responsibility for planning and housing to insist that new housing is not built on the floodplain, because when Flood Re finishes in a few years’ time residents will be left high and dry with their insurance but certainly not in their homes?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to everyone involved in dealing with what is a traumatic situation. As I said, we do have a need to build houses, but we need to build them in the right place and build them safely, so I will draw her remarks to the attention of the relevant Minister.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Last year I hosted Blackpool’s biggest ever jobs fair. It showed just how strong the appetite is in our town for work, skills and opportunity. On 26 February, I am bringing it back, bigger than ever, in conjunction with the jobcentre and Blackpool Tourism Ltd, with 120 businesses offering around 2,000 jobs for local residents. The event will include entry-level roles, opportunities for career change and wraparound support, with employers ranging from the NHS emergency services to major local and national firms. Will the Leader of the House join me in encouraging Blackpool residents to sign up through my website to take part in the event, which aims to connect people with good jobs, skills and training? Will he also give a nudge to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who is sat next to him on the Government Front Bench, to whom an invitation has been extended to open the event?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. The Government’s growth mission is committed to securing good quality jobs for people in our local communities and, I have to say, nobody fights harder than him to bring jobs to his local community. I join him in encouraging his constituents to sign up for what sounds like a worthwhile jobs fair. I am sure the Secretary of State, who is sat next me, will have heard his remarks.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The fifth anniversary of the military coup in Myanmar-Burma will be on 1 February. It overthrew the democratically elected civilian Government, and created a severe humanitarian and human rights crisis. It is in that context that the military regime is proceeding with elections that exclude opposition parties, criminalise criticism and disenfranchise large parts of the population. Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to set out what steps the Government are taking to challenge any attempt to legitimise the elections, press for the release of political prisoners, and hold the Myanmar military accountable for ongoing violations of human rights and freedom of religion or belief?
Sir Alan Campbell
As the hon. Gentleman undoubtedly knows, the UK is committed to defending freedom of religion or belief for all. We have long opposed the persecution and marginalisation faced by minorities in Myanmar. Particularly concerning are the race and religion laws, which entrench prejudices against ethnic and religious minorities. I will ensure that the Foreign Secretary hears his concerns, not least in the light of what he says about elections, and responds to him.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I was recently contacted by one of my constituents regarding a four-month delay to her daughter’s provisional driving licence application, relating to her type 1 diabetes diagnosis. My constituent’s application remains outstanding. She has been unable to obtain an update from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency or any timescale for the conclusion of her application. My constituent’s mental health is now being affected by the delay, as she has lost her driving instructor and feels as though she has been treated differently due to her diagnosis. Will the Leader of the House allow for a debate in Government time to discuss the important issue of delays in the DVLA system, in particular for individuals with disabilities and health conditions?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. The DVLA is currently rolling out a new casework that which will deliver significant improvements to the services provided to drivers with medical conditions. That perhaps comes as cold comfort to those who are still waiting in a queue, but I would be happy to follow up this particular case with the Department, should he wish me to.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Last Sunday, I joined the congregation at St Augustine’s church in Slade Green to celebrate the retirement of Rev. Jim Bennett. Jim has been a long-standing pillar of our community in Bexleyheath and Crayford, having worked for Greenwich and Bexley community hospice for 16 years, starting as a fundraising co-ordinator and eventually becoming its chief executive. Following his retirement from that post, he took on a new career later in life. Following his ordination, he spent over six years as the priest at St Augustine’s church in Slade Green. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Jim for his work in supporting my constituents across Bexleyheath and Crayford, and wish him all the very best for his retirement?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Rev. Jim Bennett. His work at both Greenwich and Bexley community hospice and St Augustine’s church has greatly contributed to his community. In paying tribute to Rev. Jim Bennett, let us pay tribute to all the churches and churchmen and women across our country, who play such an important part in our local communities. I wish Rev. Jim Bennett a very long and happy retirement.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The final question is from the ever-patient Josh Newbury.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Stafford Pride is a fantastic event that brings together thousands of people every year in a celebration of the diversity that makes our county such a fantastic place. Two councillors on Staffordshire county council awarded money from its community fund to Stafford Pride, and yet, despite all other recipients having had their funding, approval for Stafford Pride’s allocation has, we are told, been with the Reform cabinet for months. Stafford Pride is taking a stand, not for the money but against what it sees as institutional homophobia. Will the Leader of the House join me in calling on Reform UK Staffordshire to get on with processing this legitimate funding application, and can we have a debate on the worrying increase in discrimination against LGBT+ organisations by certain councils?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for his local area. Initiatives such as Stafford Pride aim to honour and celebrate the LGBTQ community and are vital for our local communities. It is such a pity that Reform is seeking to pursue divisive policies, and I agree with my hon. Friend that Reform should get on and process the legitimate application for funding so that the community can get on and celebrate diversity.
Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
In November, I informed the House that the Government would make a new decision in response to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report into the way changes to the state pension age were communicated to women born in the 1950s. This followed relevant evidence coming to light as part of legal proceedings challenging the original decision announced by my predecessor in December 2024. We have now concluded the process to make a new decision and are placing copies of the Government’s full response in the Libraries of both Houses.
Before I turn to the substance, I think it is important to be clear what this decision and statement is about, and what it is not about. There are legitimate and sincerely held views about whether it was wise to increase the state pension age, and in particular whether the decision taken in 2011 by the coalition Government to accelerate equalisation and the rise to the age of 66 was the right thing to do. But the issue we are discussing today is not the merits or otherwise of past policy decisions about the state pension age. What the ombudsman investigated was how changes to the state pension age were communicated and whether within a specific and narrow time period there was maladministration and injustice—and if so, whether that warrants compensation.
In March 2024, the ombudsman published its final report. As with so many other issues, the previous Government left the report on their desks, issued no response, took no decision, and left it to this Government to respond. In December 2024, the then Work and Pensions Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), set out the Government’s response, having considered all the information provided to her.
However, given that relevant research from 2007 about the effectiveness of sending letters subsequently emerged that had not been provided to my right hon. Friend, I wanted to ensure that the right and proper process was followed to take account of this alongside the information previously considered. Of course, I asked the Department not just to consider the 2007 report, but to undertake new searches as part of an extensive review of relevant historical documents to help inform the new decision.
We accept that individual letters about changes to the state pension age could have been sent earlier. For that, I want to repeat the apology that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West gave on behalf of the Government. I am sorry those letters were not sent sooner. We also agree with the ombudsman that women did not suffer any direct financial loss from the delay.
However, the question is about the impact of the delay in sending those letters. The evidence taken as a whole, including that from 2007, suggests that the majority of 1950s-born women would not have read and recalled the contents of an unsolicited pensions letter, even if it had been sent earlier. Furthermore, the evidence also suggests that those less knowledgeable about pensions—the very women who most needed to engage with a letter, and for whom it might have made a difference—were the least likely to read it. An earlier letter would therefore have been unlikely to make a difference to what the majority of women knew about their own state pension age. Indeed, the 2007 report concluded that automatic pension forecast letters had only a negligible impact on pensions knowledge and planning, and the Department stopped sending them.
The evidence shows that the vast majority of 1950s-born women already knew that the state pension age was increasing thanks to a wide-range of public information, including leaflets, education campaigns, information in GP surgeries, and information on TV and radio, in cinemas and online. To specifically compensate only the women who suffered injustice would require a scheme that could reliably verify the individual circumstances of millions of women, including whether someone genuinely did not know that their state pension age was changing and whether they would have read and remembered a letter from many years ago and acted differently. It would not be practical to set up a compensation scheme to assess the answers to those questions conclusively.
A flat-rate scheme would cost up to £10.3 billion and would simply not be right or fair, given that it would also be paid to the vast majority who were aware of the changes. I have heard calls for compensation aimed at lower-income pensioners, and we have focused in the past 12 months on raising pension credit uptake, but in the context of this decision, a scheme focused on any single income group still would not specify who may or may not have suffered injustice. That is why, in taking this new decision, we have come to the same conclusion on compensation as that announced by my right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State in December 2024.
I know that many people feel that the state pension age should not have gone up in the way that it did; indeed, Labour argued against the 2011 policy decision put in place by the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition that accelerated the increase. However, I repeat what I said at the start of my statement: that is a different issue to the one the ombudsman investigated and that I am responding to today, which relates to the communication of changes in the state pension age and, narrowly, to a delay in sending letters over a relatively short period.
The changes from 2011 underline the importance that decisions on the state pension age carry and the impact they have on people’s lives, and I take seriously the need to weigh carefully any future changes. That is why, together with the ombudsman, the Department has been developing an action plan for the future. Work on that had stopped pending today’s decision, but I can confirm that it will now resume.
It also underlines why we are determined to ensure that all pensioners on lower incomes, the majority of whom are women, have a better life in retirement, just as Labour has done in the past—from the Wilson Government, who first formally linked the uprating of pensions to the higher of earnings or prices, to the previous Labour Government, who lifted 1 million pensioners out of poverty. Labour introduced pension credit, which is vital in topping up the incomes of the poorest pensioners, with women consistently making up the majority of those benefiting since we first introduced it in 2003. This Government are ensuring that more pensioners get that extra income with the biggest ever campaign to increase take-up, which saw tens of thousands more pension credit awards in the year up to November than in the previous year.
In addition, our commitment to the triple lock for this Parliament means that women will see their state pension rise by up to £575 this year, with incomes up to £2,100 a year higher by the end of the Parliament. Indeed, overall spending on the state pension is set to be more than £30 billion higher a year by the end of this Parliament than in 2024-25. We are also putting record investment into the NHS, meaning that thousands more pensioners are getting the operations and treatment that they need, rather than being left in pain on waiting lists. This is the positive difference our Government are making.
I believe it was right to review the evidence and that, having done so, we have made the right decision based on due process and the body of evidence. At the same time, looking to the future, we are taking important steps to support women in retirement and help them to build a better life for themselves and their families. I commend this statement to the House.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
As constituency MPs, we will all have met many campaigners from the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign group—the WASPI women. I am sure that many Members will have received a large amount of correspondence on this matter recently. If they are anything like me—I have had 150 emails recently about it—they will really feel the strength of opinion out there. It is safe to say that both our constituents and us as Members of Parliament have been left wanting by this Government.
In December 2024, the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), told this House that the Government would not compensate these women. Let me remind colleagues what her rationale was. She said that
“the Government do not believe that paying a flat rate to all women, at a cost of up to £10.5 billion, would be a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money”—[Official Report, 17 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 168.]
She also tried to argue that they could not afford it because of holes in the Government finances. However, as my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions rightly said:
“Government compensation should always be based on what is fair and just.”—[Official Report, 17 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 170.]
Before getting into government, it seems that Labour MPs did think that an injustice had been done. Let us remind our colleagues of what members of this Government have said in the past. The Prime Minister himself called this situation “a huge injustice”. The Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary slammed the “cliff edge” that he said faced WASPI women. The Foreign Secretary said that she was
“fighting for a fair deal for the WASPI women.”
The Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed to “want justice for WASPI women”. Even the current Secretary of State for Work and Pensions got in on the action, putting out a social media post with the caption:
“MPs campaigning for a better deal for WASPI women.”
It is therefore no wonder that the WASPI women, who were promised so much, are so angry; the people who used to stand beside them have now turned against them.
If the Government really believed that these women had faced a great injustice, they would have found a way to compensate them. They could have avoided a deal with Mauritius that will cost us all £35 billion, but they chose not to. They could have found savings on our country’s benefits bill, but they chose not to. They had 14 years to prepare for government and are messing up by doing nothing.
That brings us to the statement from the Secretary of State today. Is it not convenient that he should choose a sitting day when most MPs are not here? It is almost as if he does not want to hear the criticism from his own Back Benchers. In reality, all that the Secretary of State is doing is announcing that nothing has changed and that the Government will not be compensating WASPI women.
I have a few questions. Given that the Secretary of State previously campaigned for a better deal for WASPI women, does he think that today’s announcement provides that better deal? In his statement, he tried to argue that this issue is somehow the Conservatives’ fault. However, he forgets that the maladministration that the previous Secretary of State apologised for was committed under the last Labour Government, before 2010—the ombudsman’s report made that explicit. Can the Secretary of State hold up his hands and take accountability for those mistakes?
This is a really interesting point. The Secretary of State chose to mention the triple lock in his statement and to say that the state pension will go up by up to £575 this year, with incomes expected to rise by up to £2,100 a year by the end of this Parliament. We all know that there is no cap on the triple lock. [Interruption.] There is no cap on it, but he made the point that that would rise by “up to” £2,100 a year. Is he implying that the triple lock is about to be capped? Will he confirm that he is apparently U-turning on the Government’s policy on the triple lock by imposing a cap?
Is it not just a fact that, frankly, this Government resemble a bunch of joyriders pulling handbrake turns in a Tesco car park, when Labour should be a serious party of government? Their Back Benchers keep being marched up the hill, only to be told to march down again. The Government even take the Whip away from them for having a conscience, only to tell them later that Ministers are proud to support policies for which support was only recently a sackable offence. Does the Secretary of State really think that this constant back and forth is fair on WASPI women? I look forward to his comments.
Pat McFadden
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s questions. He is right that there has been a forceful and energetic campaign, which has resulted in lots of emails and contact with Members across the House, but his Government had this report from the ombudsman. They could have taken a decision before the election, but they chose not to, as with so many other issues. And perhaps the ombudsman had an inkling of how unlikely it would be to get a decision from the previous Government, because the ombudsman made the recommendations on remedy to Parliament rather than to his Government.
The hon. Gentleman refers to Labour, to me and to other MPs on this side of the House, and I remind him that we voted against the acceleration in the rise of the state pension age that was put through by the coalition Government.
On re-examining the decision, I thought it was right to do so, to make absolutely sure that we got this right, considering not just the 2007 report but a whole range of evidence and documents. I have repeated my predecessor’s apology for the maladministration found by the ombudsman. There is no change in our position on the triple lock, and the figures quoted reflect the estimates of the Office for Budget Responsibility throughout the Parliament.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
I am sure my right hon. Friend appreciates the enormous disappointment on this side of the House. Only two years before the general election, our now Prime Minister spoke in favour of a just settlement for WASPI women. I acknowledge that my right hon. Friend says that this was not in the manifesto on which we all stood, and that we did not make that promise, but he will recognise the real sense that an injustice has been done to these women. Today has not remediated that.
Pat McFadden
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question, and I understand what he says, but it is also important to consider exactly what is at issue here. Many people are unhappy with the rise in the state pension age and the decision to equalise it, and this decision does not deal with that. The decision deals with the specific issue of how it was communicated over a specific period of time. It is really important to separate those two things. I believe that, on that ground, we have considered it very carefully—not just once but twice—and given it due and proper process. It is right to apologise for the maladministration, but I believe the decision we have taken on remedy and compensation is the correct one.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I met the Secretary of State a few weeks ago, and we reflected on his being a fan of Celtic and Bruce Springsteen, but I was not aware that he is also a member of the Magic Circle. He is clearly trying to set up a number of illusions by saying that this is to do with particular issues and comments, but it is actually about whether these women were communicated with adequately.
I reflect on what other colleagues have said, and it is about injustice. Being elected as an MP—though, as a Liberal Democrat, I was somewhat disappointed not to be a member of the Government—is about seeking out and tackling injustice, yet the Secretary of State is putting this in the “too hard to do” file. The more than 3.6 million WASPI women across the UK will feel this as if it were a punch in the stomach. They will feel utterly betrayed, because false hope was given to them in the autumn. That hope has been dashed.
I thank the more than 100 MPs from across the United Kingdom who supported the letter I co-ordinated calling for justice for WASPI women, but sadly it fell on stony ground. What engagement did the Secretary of State have with the ombudsman before coming to his final conclusions, and will he please explain further why he has chosen to ignore the ombudsman’s recommendation to give justice to WASPI women and pay compensation?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Member is certainly right about my allegiance to both Celtic and Bruce Springsteen, but there is no illusion about the position of the Liberal Democrats. He says, with a tinge of regret, that he wishes that they were in government, but they were in government —and that is the point. In 2011, they took the decision to accelerate the equalisation and raising of the state pension age, so they were in a position to take decisions on it.
At the heart of this issue is something different: how the decisions were communicated and whether people could have done something differently. The hon. Gentleman asks about engagement with the ombudsman. I have, of course, looked at the report, and the current ombudsman recently met the permanent secretary. As I said in my statement, we will pick up the work that was paused on the action plan so that in future when we consider the state pension age we fully consider not only the policy but all aspects of communication and the period of warning—things which were distinctly not done when the decision to accelerate the state pension age was taken by the coalition Government.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State knows just how disappointing many will find this statement, particularly the WASPI women who feel so strongly the injustice that they have suffered. I appreciate that the he has set out the reasons in principle and in practice and explained how the Labour Government will support low-income pensioners, but I want to talk about the personal aspect. I suspect that the Secretary of State, like me and many other Members, started full-time work in his twenties that was not physically arduous. I think of a constituent of mine who started work aged 15—hard, physical work—and found herself required to continue working many years after she expected to have retired and as her health deteriorated. What help and support can the Secretary of State offer her?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right to say that as the state pension age has gone up, the way people have been affected is influenced by the kind of lives they have led and the toughness of the work that they have done. But that argument is about the raising of the state pension age, and while I appreciate that a lot of the correspondence has been about that, it is a different issue from the one that the ombudsman was looking at. In terms of our policy, the exactly reason why we have pension credit is to help lower-income pensioners; it is why we put it in place in 2003, and it is why we have put extra effort into making sure that the benefit is taken up by those who are entitled to it.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The Secretary of State is a fellow west midlands Member of Parliament, and he will know Shropshire very well. Many WASPI women born in the 1950s from my constituency will be very disappointed by today’s announcement. He talks about miscommunication and maladministration but, of course, says little about compensation, which means that the injustice continues. Could he give a little more detail on how the action plan will assuage some of the anger that will no doubt have come about as a result of this disappointing non-announcement? What real help can be given to WASPI women in different ways, including those who do not qualify for and are not entitled to pension credit?
Pat McFadden
I am grateful to my west midlands colleague for his question. He talks about disappointment. The shadow Minister could have, in the time allocated to him, promised to take a different decision were the Conservatives ever to return to power. They had the chance to take a different decision when they were in power, but they chose to not even respond to the report let alone outline what the decision might be.
On the action plan and specifically what it will cover, two things are at the heart of it: communications and the handling of complaints. If we are to raise the state pension age in the country over time, it is important that we get the communications right. That is what we want to do, and I will work with the ombudsman going forward.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
There are 300,000 WASPI women in Yorkshire and 6,500 in my constituency. In Yorkshire we believe that politicians should say what they mean and mean what they say. Labour opposed the proposal when it was first introduced. Our leading spokesman continued to say that Labour wanted to and would deliver justice to the WASPI women. This is not justice.
For the many women in my constituency and elsewhere who I have met and discussed this issue with, the idea that there would be an accelerated process of getting to a higher pension age came like a bolt out of the blue. They had no idea that it was coming so quickly. It disrupted families’ plans and the financial structures of their lives. It was a disgrace, and it was introduced by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. The Government still have a chance to put this right, and I say this to the Minister: he has not heard the end of this problem or of the voices of the WASPI women.
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that we were opposed to the acceleration. We voted against it and opposed many policies of the coalition Government and the Tory Governments who were in power over the past 14 years. He is also right to say that five years’ notice was not enough; that is why we voted to oppose it, and when it comes to our responsibilities now, it is why we have put such stress on looking after pensions properly and maintaining the value of the basic state pension. I outlined what that would mean for this Parliament in my statement. For poorer pensioners, we are making sure that there is maximum take-up of pension credit so that people can access the benefits to which they are entitled.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s apology for the maladministration and the Minister’s clarity today, but many Salisbury WASPI women will be very disappointed by the decision. Could the Secretary of State say a little more about what options he looked at to compensate the poorest, most vulnerable of the WASPI women? I recognise that the enormous cost would be too much overall, but what options did he pursue? When I was in government, the option to withdraw the winter fuel payment was one that I resisted, because of the impracticalities of doing it fairly. What options were put to him, and could he not have compensated the poorest? I think many would have been sympathetic to that.
Pat McFadden
I have great respect for the right hon. Member. He will have considered some of these issues in government because of his long service as a Treasury Minister. I like the right hon. Gentleman a lot, but I have to say that he could have taken decisions on this when the Conservatives were in power.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s question about the lowest-income pensioners, I repeat what I said in my statement: the problem with any flat-rate scheme is that it will compensate people who knew about the state pension age rise as well as those who did not. The reason we have pension credit is precisely so that pensioners who are living on particularly low incomes have access to another benefit. We introduced pension credit back in 2003, and since we came back into office in 2024 we have put extra effort into making sure that it is taken up. That has resulted in tens of thousands of additional pensioners having access to pension credit.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I should declare an interest as a 1950s-born woman. This is a disappointing statement, and I can only associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), which I do not always do. I take the opportunity to thank all the WASPI women who have been campaigning and working so hard on this issue with many of us. How has this decision been communicated to the WASPI group?
Pat McFadden
I agree with my hon. Friend that, as I have said, the WASPI women have run an energetic, sustained campaign that has made a big impact on Members. We can see that from the questions being asked. On the communication, as soon as it became clear that there was relevant evidence that had not been shown to my predecessor, I decided to retake the decision, looking not just at that but at a wider body of evidence. I came to the House in November to inform Members that I would do that. I also told Mr Speaker and the House that when I had gone through the process and reached a conclusion I would come back at the earliest opportunity and announce those conclusions. That is exactly what I am doing today.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
The ombudsman’s ruling in March recommended that some women should get a payout and an apology. Now the WASPI women in my constituency have another apology, but they have not received a penny in compensation for the maladministration found by the ombudsman. Why have the Government chosen to accept one half of the recommendations—I think it is probably the easy half—but not the other? At £1,000 to £2,950 for each woman, it is hardly a high cost for justice in the grand scheme of Government funding considerations.
Pat McFadden
As I say, we accept the finding of maladministration. On the difference earlier communications would have made, particularly to those who knew the least about the increase in their state pension age, all the survey evidence in the round suggests that a majority of women knew the state pension age was increasing. The hon. Lady minimises the up to £10 billion that it would cost for a compensation scheme. I do not want to be excessively partisan today, but it is the easiest thing to come here every day to call for billions for this and billions for that and then oppose all the revenue-raising measures that have to be put through in any Budget. This is not a situation where we should do that and simply add to that pattern. It is a substantial amount of money. If we were to go down that road, we would end up compensating a significant number of women who knew that their state pension age was increasing and to whom no injustice has been done.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
The Secretary of State said that the evidence shows that the vast majority of 1950s-born women already knew that the state pension age was increasing. I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist), am also a 1950s-born woman. Does the Secretary of State honestly think there would have been such a massive campaign over all these years by WASPI women and their supporters if they believed that that was true and that they knew about their pensions? With particular reference to the 1954 women who were treated so unjustly by the coalition Government, surely the Secretary of State believes that they deserve compensation for the terrible shock they received back in 2011.
Pat McFadden
A decision document relating to the evidence that I have considered has been placed in the Library of the House, which sets all that out together with various surveys, all of which are in the public domain and which were considered in the course of my reaching the decision. I think the campaign is understandable because of the steep acceleration that was legislated for by the coalition Government. We opposed that at the time. The lesson for the future is to give good notice and predictability about rises in the state pension age. That is at the heart of the action plan that we are working on with the ombudsman.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The Secretary of State’s colleagues stood with WASPI women holding boards saying, “We support the WASPI women” and “We support compensation for the WASPI women”. He now stands at the Dispatch Box holding his hands up and saying, “I am very sorry that the previous Administration forgot to send out a letter, but we are not going to do anything about it because it would not have made a difference anyway.” Has he listened to the voices of WASPI women who have come to every single one of us and said, “I did not get that letter”? They said, “I did not know that the state pension age was increasing and I found myself”—as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) said—“having to work in a physical job far longer than I ever expected because I was not given notice.” Is that the change that the Labour Government promised when they came in last year?
Pat McFadden
I will defend to the hilt our protection of the state pension, our increase in the state pension of £575 for the new state pension from April and our extra help for poorer pensioners. There was a wide range of communications about this matter. Letters are one, but not the only, part of that. When we take into account the survey evidence as a whole, we find that most people knew that the state pension age was increasing. If the hon. Lady wants to pledge compensation in some way, she is entitled to do that, as I said to the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt). We have looked at the evidence in the round. I repeat the apology for the maladministration, but I think we have reached the right decision today.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is a very serious individual and his statement was very serious. It helpfully enumerated that the majority of pensioners on lower incomes are women and that women make up the majority of those depending on pension credit. The anger that WASPI women feel about the steep increase in age is very understandable. Many of those women paid what my mother used to call “the small stamp”, which makes their situation even more vulnerable. I accept that the Secretary of State’s statement is largely about the ombudsman’s decision. Will he indicate what conversations he has had with the ombudsman, specifically about why he made that recommendation? Will he also tell the Chamber what communication he has had with the WASPI women about his decision?
Pat McFadden
We are often encouraged to make our statements to Parliament first and that is what I have done. When I announced in November that I was retaking the decision, I made that statement to Parliament first and pledged that when I had reached a conclusion I would come back to announce it in Parliament first. That is the right way to communicate this decision.
My hon. Friend talked about women who paid “the small stamp”. That is right, and that is why we have moved away from the old system to a new state pension for the future. For the majority of pensioners on lower incomes, I stress again the importance of pension credit and our efforts to make sure that those pensioners who are entitled to it, the majority of whom are women, take advantage of their entitlement and make the application. That is what it is there for: to help lower-income pensioners.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I have thousands of WASPI women in my constituency, which is already very deprived. I cannot express how angry and disappointed they feel today. I am afraid that I will have to use strong language: this is simply gaslighting by this Labour Government. They know full well that it was not about whether the letters were sent earlier; it is about whether they were sent at all. Does the Secretary of State not need to accept that point?
Pat McFadden
It is right to focus on exactly what this is about and what it is not. We opposed the acceleration of the change to the state pension age. The ombudsman looked at the specific issue of when letters were sent over a time period, so I feel that I have been accurate in the statement I have made today. If we go back to the 2011 decision, the lesson for the future is that increases in the state pension age should be announced in good time, so that people have the chance to prepare. That is a policy decision; that is not the specific decision about communication that the ombudsman examined.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
This Government have rightly taken action for Hillsborough victims and sub-postmasters affected by the Post Office scandal, and on the mineworkers’ pension scheme, yet this situation seems to have been put in the “too hard to deal with” box. Why does my right hon. Friend think that these women should accept this outcome, and why is it always women who seem to get the rough end of the deal?
Pat McFadden
I know that the equalisation of the state pension age has produced quite a lot of opposition. The 2011 decision was too quick; that is why we opposed it at the time. On the issue of compensation to which my hon. Friend refers, if we were to compensate everyone in this age group, we would end up compensating a significant number of people who knew that their state pension age was increasing. We do not think that would be the right and fair thing to do, and that is why we have reached the conclusion that I have announced.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On behalf of the 5,000 WASPI women in my constituency, I must register my deep concerns about the way that people are hiding behind the ombudsman’s report, and saying, “No, we can’t help the WASPI women.” The WASPI women back home speak to me every week about this subject. They ask, “Jim, what’s happening now? Where are we?” Unfortunately, the most vulnerable people, including the elderly and disabled people who have waited all this time, have nothing; I need to put that on the record. Some who are listening to the case that the Secretary of State has made will ask, “What does that actually mean?” The WASPI women need some explanation; is there some way of giving them that?
The last point the Secretary of State made was about the pension uplift, pension credit, and how they can help. Can I suggest one other way that the Government could help those people? It would not be in any way a fallback case, but it would be something. When it comes to self-assessment and letters, WASPI women and those over a certain age find it incredibly hard to go online. There has to be some methodology, so that elderly people can know that every penny they get will not be lost in tax beforehand. There must be a methodology and a system, rather than elderly people having to go online, which they cannot do.
Pat McFadden
I remind the House that by the end of this Parliament, due to our commitment to increase the basic state pension, we will be spending an estimated £30 billion a year more on the state pension. That is testament to our commitment to maintaining the value of the basic state pension and ensuring that people have a good and decent retirement. That is, of course, for the hon. Member’s constituents as much as for any other Members’ constituents.
On the full reasoning behind the decision, there is a full decision document, which I have deposited in the Library of the House today. That is available to the hon. Member. On online and face-to-face services, he is right that it is important that when people access a benefit, they can do so through a range of channels, so that people do not lose out for the reasons that he gave.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and the repeated apology on behalf of the Government, but like many Labour Members and other Members across the House, I have long supported WASPI women. I commend the WASPI women in west Lothian and Falkirk for their perseverance over many years. I have spoken to several women who have experienced significant financial hardship and emotional and physical strain, and I share their undoubted disappointment today. Has he considered the impact of the decision on perceptions and, indeed, the efficacy, of the ombudsman, which recommended that compensation be paid?
Pat McFadden
We take the role of the ombudsman very seriously. The report was fully and properly considered, but decisions on a compensation scheme of this scale will always, in the end, be for Ministers and Government to take, and I think that is the right and understandable approach.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
I have no doubt that my 6,000 WASPI women will be very angry about this decision. Will today’s announcement mean that the legal proceedings challenging the Government’s original decision will continue? What plans do we have, if any, to get round the table and try to avoid legal proceedings?
Pat McFadden
The initiation of legal proceedings is not a decision for me, and I cannot predict what will happen in future legal proceedings; that is a matter for others. My responsibility is to set out our decision to Parliament in the proper way, and I believe that in the statement that I gave in November, and in the one that I have given today, I have done that, and have given the House our reasons.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
In my constituency, I have 5,400 women affected by this decision. Not all of them know about it; my mum sort of shrugged her shoulders and went, “Oh, okay,” but some women do know, and they will be listening today and will be really disappointed. I was proud to put my name to, and campaign for, the brilliant support that the Government offered on the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the British Coal staff superannuation scheme—there were hundreds of beneficiaries in my constituency—but it looks like we are letting down women of a certain age, women who were so frequently on the back foot. The message sounds like, “It’s a little bit too tricky to address.” While I acknowledge that paying £10.3 billion in flat-rate payments might not be the right thing to do, is there not something we can do to acknowledge the campaigning of these women, whom we have supported for many years?
Pat McFadden
I mentioned the difficulties of a flat-rate scheme, but an individual scheme also would face great practical difficulties, which I set out in my statement. We would have to ascertain who did and did not get a letter, who can remember getting a letter, what they would have done differently, and so on. There are great practical difficulties in doing that, and there are difficulties in having a flat-rate scheme.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is an extremely significant matter to announce on a Thursday, when the House is usually light in attendance, with limited notice, and with a very detailed document having been lodged in the House of Commons Library. Through your offices, and through liaison with those on the Treasury Bench, can time be found over the next fortnight for a full and comprehensive debate on this issue? I know that when I get back to my constituency, there will be many very angry people who feel let down, if not betrayed. Members need the opportunity to reflect the concerns of their constituents here.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The timing of statements is a matter for the Government. However, those on the Treasury Bench will have heard his point of order. There is also the avenue open to him of applying for a Backbench Business debate.
Prison Capacity: Annual Statement
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on prison capacity.
Today, the Government are publishing the second annual statement on prison capacity, a copy of which will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The statement reflects this Government’s determination to be open and honest about the state of our justice system—not to hide the problems or downplay the pressure, but to face reality and act decisively.
Today’s annual statement sets out the latest prison population projections and supply forecasts, and the picture that it paints is clear: our prisons are still under severe strain. The risks that we inherited from our predecessors have not vanished overnight, and the figures show that, without this Government’s action, which was opposed by the Conservatives and Reform every step of the way, our law and order system would be in crisis today, with criminals allowed to roam the streets, and victims failed. For the first time in a very long time, we are no longer forecasting a chronic deficit in prison places. When the impact of this Government’s landmark sentencing reforms is taken into account, supply is now expected to keep pace with demand in our central projected scenario. That is real progress, but let me be absolutely clear: this is no time for complacency. The system remains under considerable pressure, the margin for error is slim, and the work to stabilise it is far from finished. The statement only furthers the Government’s determination to fix the system fundamentally.
Let us remember where we came from. This Government inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. At one point in 2024, there were fewer than 100 places left across the entire adult male estate. Had we allowed prisons to overflow—a risk the Conservative party was happy to take—courts would have been forced to suspend trials, police would have been unable to make arrests, and criminals would have been left to run amok on the streets of this country, as we would have been forced to release thousands of offenders as an emergency measure, the previous Government having left no proper plan in place. We were just one bad day—a protest turned ugly or a surge in defendants in custody awaiting trial—from a total collapse of the criminal justice system. This is not alarmism; that was a dangerously real possibility, and it was the direct legacy of 14 years of neglect by the previous Tory Government. In more than a decade, only 500 prison places, net, were added, while demand surged relentlessly.
The shadow Justice Secretary, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), whom I welcome to his place, had a role in this sorry mess. In 2016 and 2017, when he was chief of staff to the then Prime Minister, his Tory Government closed 262 more prison places than they opened. Now, in opposition, they oppose every action to fix the problem that they caused. In short, doing nothing—as advocated by the Tories and Reform—would have risked the total breakdown of law and order in this country. We know that the previous Government chose to stick their head in the sand and not face up to the crisis that they had created, but we cannot ignore this. The alternative—doing nothing—would have been a reckless gamble with public safety, which no responsible Government could countenance.
That is why, in September 2024, when we were faced with the immediate risk of gridlock, we took decisive emergency action. We changed the automatic release point for certain standard determinate sentences from 50% to 40%, to ease the intolerable pressure on the system. That was not an easy decision, but it was the responsible one. Emergency action bought us time, and, in December 2024, we set out our 10-year prison capacity strategy—the most ambitious prison-building programme since the Victorian era. We committed up to £7 billion towards the delivery of 14,000 additional prison places by 2031.
Today’s statement shows that that commitment is not just rhetoric, but a reality that the Government are driving forward. Since July 2024, we have delivered around 2,900 additional prison places, including by opening HMP Millsike in March 2025, and a new house block at HMP Fosse Way in December. Around 5,000 more places are now under construction, including new house blocks at existing prisons, and a brand-new prison in Leicestershire, HMP Welland Oaks, is due to open in 2029. [Interruption.] Major infrastructure projects always carry risk, but based on the latest assessments, the Government have retained our delivery target of 14,000 new places by 2031 —[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am interested in hearing what the Minister has to say, as are our constituents.
Jake Richards
I am very grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We cannot just build our way out of this problem. Without further reform, the prison population is projected to rise by around 3,000 people every year, outstripping supply even while the largest prison-building programme in generations is under way. That is why wholesale reform is essential. This Government had the courage to act. First, we launched the independent sentencing review, led by former Lord Chancellor David Gauke. Secondly, thanks to that work, we delivered the landmark Sentencing Act 2026, which will ensure that punishment works to cut crime and protect the British public.
Those reforms are about being smart, responsible and honest about what works. They will keep dangerous offenders off our streets, end the revolving door of less serious offenders going in and out of prison, and put victims first, with tougher and more credible punishments outside prison. The provisions in that Act include a presumption in favour of suspending short custodial sentences for less serious offenders, which we know do not work in many cases. Almost 60% of those jailed for less than a year reoffend within 12 months—that means more crime and more victims. This reform is expected to have a particular effect on women in prison. Nearly 80% of women who receive custodial sentences spend mere weeks in prison, which causes huge problems for their prospects of rehabilitation and costs the taxpayer millions. We can do much better.
For offenders who do go to prison, their release will depend on their behaviour while inside. Release at the earlier point will be theirs to lose, and those who behave badly can be kept in for longer, right up until the end of their sentence. That model is based on the one used in Texas, where crime is down, prisons are being closed and the taxpayer is saving money. When offenders are released, they will face a strengthened licence period, with swift recall to custody if they step out of line. New strict licence conditions, such as banning alcohol-fuelled offenders from pubs or keeping troublemakers away from football matches, will be tailored to risk. More offenders will be forced to pay back their debt to victims and the communities that they have harmed, through financial penalties or unpaid work. Taken together, those reforms are expected to reduce the prison population by around 7,500 places by 2028, while improving outcomes for victims and keeping the public safe. To take that further, the Act will also make it quicker and easier to deport foreign national offenders from our prison estate. We have already seen a dramatic increase in the number of foreign national offenders leaving our country under this Labour Government, and the Acts that we have passed will expedite that ambition.
Let us be abundantly clear: today’s figures also show that the Labour Government will keep more prisoners behind bars than ever before by the end of the Parliament—a sustainable system keeping the public safe. We cannot solve this capacity crisis if we do not support our Probation Service, which lies at the heart of these reforms. Probation officers supervise some of the most complex and challenging individuals in our justice system. If sentencing reform is to work, probation must be strong, professional and properly supported. That is why the statement also sets out the state of probation capacity—caseloads, workforce and the action that we are taking to strengthen it. The Government are investing up to £700 million more in probation and community services by the end of the Parliament—a 45% increase on current funding, and the largest ever investment in community justice. In so doing, we are delivering on Sentencing Act provisions, workforce growth and expanded electronic monitoring. At least 1,300 trainee probation officers will be recruited in 2025-26. By September 2027, probation officer staffing levels are expected to have risen to around 6,500.
There is no disguising the challenge ahead. There is an inevitable time lag before new officers can carry full, complex caseloads independently, but the Government are committed to rebuilding probation for the long term, and we are using innovative solutions to assist us. More than 30 digital and artificial intelligence initiatives are under way, including Justice Transcribe, which has already reduced the time spent on note-taking by around 50%, allowing officers to focus on the vital face-to-face work that turns lives around and protects the public.
As we promised in last year’s statement, the Government have, through the Sentencing Act, made the publication of this annual statement a statutory requirement. That locks in transparency, forces evidence-based decision making, and holds future Governments to account. Those steps mark a turning point. This landmark reform was never a choice; it was a necessity—doing nothing was never an option. We are increasing capacity, strengthening accountability and tackling problems in our criminal justice system that have been ignored for far too long. The Government are determined to ensure that Britain never again faces a situation in which there are more prisoners than prison places. Only this Government have been willing to take the tough decisions, invest at scale and reform the system to protect the public. We are facing this challenge head-on, and we will see it through. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
This is my first chance to speak about prisons as shadow Justice Secretary, and I want to get straight to the point: prison works. By taking dangerous and repeat criminals off the streets, prison works. By punishing people who have done wrong, prison works. By sending a clear message that if someone is thinking of committing a crime, they will face consequences, prison works. So when the Government produce sound plans to increase prison capacity, we will support them, but let us cut the spin from the substance in that statement.
The Minister seems to want a medal for letting criminals out of prison early, and what he said about the new prison places created since the election was utter nonsense. Those places were inherited from the last Government. All he and his colleagues are doing is turning up to new prisons to cut the ribbon. Millsike, Fosse Way, Welland Oaks and other prisons he did not boast about were all set up and funded before the Minister and I were even elected to this House.
The Minister pretends that the plan for 14,000 new prison places by 2031 is some radical new departure, but that number depends entirely on the thousands of places from new prisons and houseblocks started under the last Government. Let me read his answer to a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty):
“No new prisons have been (a) planned or (b) approved since 5 July 2024.”
It is a pity he was not so candid in his statement just now. What about the milestones in creating the new prison places? What will be the consequences if Ministers fail to reach them? Is the Minister satisfied that the planning framework, as changed by this Government, will mean no delays in construction? How many projects have been stopped since the construction company ISG went bust? If he cannot rule out delays, what is his plan B? Can he promise the public that there will be no extension to Labour’s early release scheme? The crime statistics out today show that sex offences are up by 8% and shoplifting is up by 5% compared with last year, but with Labour’s sentencing policies, many of these criminals will avoid going to prison altogether.
What about the performance of the Prison Service? For all the talk of transparency today, at no point did the Minister admit that prison officer numbers are down under this Government by 468. Will he confirm that fact? With reports today that record numbers of offenders are being recalled to prison, will the Minister comment on the serious allegation made by the Prison Officers Association that many criminals are breaching their probation terms so that they can return to prison to sell drugs?
On the deportation of foreign criminals, there was another statistical sleight of hand. Deportation numbers under this Government remain roughly in line with the average of the coalition and Conservative years in office and are lower in half of those years.
Nick Timothy
That is true. But I agree that those numbers remain too low, because we should be deporting all the foreign criminals in our prisons. Can the Minister confirm that that is also his aim, and can he tell us how he will stop the European convention on human rights getting in the way? The Opposition are clear that we will leave the ECHR. Will he condemn the actions of his boss, the Justice Secretary, who in opposition actively campaigned against the deportation of foreign rapists?
Finally, I want to ask the Minister a question of principle. He told a journalist this week:
“a pretty big chunk of the overall population… shouldn’t be in prison”.
His colleague Lord Timpson says that only a third of prisoners should be locked up. These are my most important questions, and the Minister needs to answer them clearly: is it true that only a third of prisoners should definitely be behind bars, and will he say very clearly that he agrees with me that prison works?
Jake Richards
I welcome the new shadow Justice Secretary to his place; I hope he can do a better job than his predecessor. Let me deal with his last question first. If he had read what I said in that interview carefully, he would know that I was talking about the Youth Custody Service; I was not talking about the adult estate. I urge him to go back and read that interview and perhaps come to the House to correct the record.
On the issue of whether prison works, prison can work. I was abundantly clear in the statement that at the end of this Parliament, under this Labour Government, there will be more criminals in prison than ever before, so prison can work. But I gently urge the shadow Justice Secretary to delve a little deeper and look at short-term sentences, for example. Is it the Conservatives’ position today, which it was not by the end of their time in government, that short-term sentences should not be reformed at all? It was proposed in legislation put forward by the Conservative Government in their final year in office that never saw the light of day because of the general election to make exactly the same changes we are making now—but now they oppose it. I am afraid that the Conservative position on sentencing is all over the place.
When it comes to prison building, the Conservatives expect to get some praise for panicking in their last year of government, realising that they had not done anything for 13 years, that they had underfunded prisons and that places were not keeping up with demand, so they started doing something about it. But none of those places was delivered under a Conservative Government. Unless I am hallucinating, I have been to these sites— I opened them; I put the shovel in the ground. It is a Labour Government who are delivering where the Tories completely failed.
On foreign national offenders, I do not accept the figures that the hon. Gentleman set out today. Foreign national offender deportations are up under the Labour Government. Through the Sentencing Act 2026, which the Conservatives opposed, we are making it far easier to deport foreign national offenders.
The Conservative Opposition have a real problem. They oppose every single step this Government are taking to solve the crisis they created, and then they step up and moan about it. They should support us. We are getting on with the job—we are reforming sentencing, building prison places and making sure the prison system is fit for the future. They should support us, rather than moaning from the sidelines.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The prison population is comprised in significant part of cohorts of prisoners who, for a variety of reasons, should not be there in current numbers. That includes prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for public protection, foreign national offenders, remand prisoners and, according to press reports today, record numbers of recalled offenders, only around 20% of whom have committed new offences. What more can the Government do to reduce the numbers in prison without any threat to public safety? Should the annual statement not also include statistics on rehabilitation, as the Justice Committee called for in its recent report? In the long term, stopping reoffending is the surest method of controlling prison numbers, so will the Minister comment on the hugely disappointing news in his response to our report that core education in prisons—one of the keys to rehabilitation —is being cut by an average of 20% to 25%?
Jake Richards
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Let me deal with the education point up front. There has not been a cut to the overall education budget, but it is right to say that there are challenges because the cost of the contract has increased. We are looking at making proposals about how we can ensure that education provision has the appropriate amount of resource. We will make further announcements in due course, and of course, we have an ongoing dialogue with the Select Committee.
On my hon. Friend’s central point about the number of people in prison who some people feel do not need to be in prison, as the provisions in the Sentencing Act—which received Royal Assent just last week—come into force, they will have an effect on some of that population. We have had a regular dialogue about IPP prisoners. Lord Timpson in the other place is leading on that issue and continues to take that cohort under review.
On foreign national offenders, as I have just said to the shadow Justice Secretary, this Government are taking more action than the last Government, and the legislation we have just passed will make it easier to take further action. We have conversations all the time with other nations about prisoner transfer agreements, which will make it far easier and safer to deport foreign national offenders. This is not the end of the way; the Sentencing Act is just the beginning. As I set out in my statement, we continue to work hard to ensure we are never again in the situation we were in 2024.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
This Government inherited a justice system in a shambles after years of Conservative complacency and mismanagement. Overcrowding, administrative failures and cuts to vital services mean the Ministry of Justice too often appears to be moving from one crisis to the next as it tries to fix an entire justice system that has been broken for a long time. We in the Liberal Democrats welcome the long-term provisions the Government have made to reduce pressure on the system, such as the presumption against short sentences and investment in capacity. It is clear from today’s statement that those provisions in the Sentencing Act will have a meaningful impact on demand for prison places in coming years, but I have some questions for the Minister.
The proportion of female prisoners serving less than 12 months is four times that of the male population. Given the presumption against custody introduced by the Sentencing Act, can the Minister outline what, if any, work is being undertaken to consider the capacity that may be freed up in the female prison estate?
The report outlines the Government’s ambition to secure new land for the provision of future prison builds. Can the Minister outline a timeline for that, and for when prison places that are currently under construction will come online?
The Minister laid out plans to increase the number of probation officers to 6,500 by 2027. The retention of officers has been a long-standing issue within the probation system, which has been compounded in recent years by the uptick in less experienced staff. Will he set out what measures the Department will take to improve retention, and whether the Government will meet the HM Prison and Probation Service staffing level of 7,114 officers by the end of this Parliament?
The Minister rightly said that reducing reoffending is key to easing long-term pressure on the system. Education is central to that ambition, as it provides prisoners with the skills they need to rejoin society after their sentences end and avoid making the same mistakes again. Yet prison education is being cut, not strengthened, as the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), said. In fact, last month the independent monitoring board wrote to the Prisons Minister outlining the impact that real-terms cuts beyond inflation rates were having on education. Will the Minister before us please explain how the Government expect to deliver a rehabilitative system and reduce reoffending while prison boards are being forced to make dramatic cuts to education budgets?
Jake Richards
I welcome the hon. Member’s questions. As I set out in the statement, the issue of short-term sentences disproportionately affects female prisoners. As I recall, the average sentence that a female prisoner faces when they are sentenced to less than 12 months is around seven weeks, which is often completely absurd and can affect the prisoner and her family detrimentally and not lead to rehabilitation. Our policies on short-term sentences are a massive part of what we trying to do around that cohort. Lord Timpson is leading on the women’s justice board, which is looking at provisions for us to assist that particular cohort, who often have very particular needs.
On prison places, of course there is always market volatility. As the House knows, the Government are trying to build 1.5 million houses, and we have a commitment to invest in infrastructure. That is always complex. It can be too difficult at times, and we are trying to change that. Part of the reason for having this annual statement is to make sure that any Government are held to account for the prison places to which they have committed. We have committed to building and delivering 14,000 by 2030, and I am confident that we will do that.
On probation officers, the hon. Member is right to raise the issue of retention. We are having regular conversations with the relevant trade unions, and of course meeting probation officers on a regular basis is a very important part of my job and that of all Justice Ministers. That work is ongoing and we hope to be able to update the House on it shortly.
I understand the hon. Member’s point on education. We are undertaking a lot of work in this area, often working with the third sector. There is no point in pretending that there is no fiscal pressure in the justice system at the moment. Our twin focus is on ensuring that we solve the prison capacity crisis and deal with the court backlog, but we will make sure that we support educational provision in our prisons wherever possible.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I support the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) about there being too many people in prison who should not be there. Part of the problem with prison capacity is that our laws on joint enterprise mean that someone can be convicted of a serious crime without having made a significant contribution to that crime, often leading to multiple people serving mandatory life sentences when only one person was guilty. Locking up multiple people results in a lack of prison capacity, so does the Minister agree that we need urgent reform of joint enterprise laws so that only those who make a significant contribution to a crime can be found guilty?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend has been a champion on this issue for a long time. I am very happy to meet with her and the group to discuss the complexities of the issue, because it is very complex. I will get my office to arrange that in due course.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement. He said that the release of prisoners will depend on their behaviour while inside. Can he confirm that his definition of good behaviour will include mandatory attendance at education and training, which should result in reduced reoffending, and can he advise the House how he will achieve that, given that the Government will commission 25% less education in the coming year? He says the reason for that is that the price has increased. Well, that is because the Government only contract very large quantity contracts. Were he to delegate those budgets to prison governors and give them the freedom to use local suppliers, rather than relying on two or three enormous providers that have the Government over a barrel, the price would fall.
Jake Richards
I am sympathetic to the argument that the hon. Member makes. We need to look at how we involve third sector and private sector organisations wherever possible, and we are looking at that. Clearly the adjudication process will be developed and implemented over the coming months, now that the Sentencing Act 2026 has received Royal Assent, but to my mind it is a welcome reform, based on the Texas model, which showed that it was possible to close prisons, reduce crime and save the taxpayer billions of dollars. We hope to achieve a similar outcome.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I remind Members of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a member of the POA.
I want to back up what the Minister said in retaliation to the shadow Justice Minister. Prison can indeed work, but words alone are not enough, and when a party is in office, it has to back them up with action and actually run the prison estate properly. I cannot convey in words just how dangerous the overcrowding got leading up to July 2024. I, for one, will never forget it, as I have said in this House many times. I think it is pretty brazen to come to this Chamber now and claim that all these places were a result of decisions taken in the Conservatives’ last year in office. [Interruption.] Those decisions should have been taken a decade before. Having rushed them in the last year and literally left prisons at the point of collapse, the Conservatives have no jurisdiction to talk on this matter in the House today. [Interruption.]
I thank the Minister for his statement and ask whether he will meet me to discuss what more can be done to increase safety for staff in our prisons. I welcome the decision to introduce PAVA into the youth estate—another decision that was delayed by the Conservative party. I also ask him to look at the national care leavers strategy, because they are grossly overrepresented in our prison system. If we are to reduce the population, we need to look at that in the next 12 months.
Jake Richards
I always welcome my hon. Friend’s contributions on this issue. I gently say to Conservative Members that perhaps when a former prison officer, who has worked on the frontline, is speaking in the House, they should listen rather than chunter and shout. [Interruption.]
I welcome what my hon. Friend said about PAVA. She will know that the former Justice Secretary introduced PAVA into the youth estate, it was challenged in the courts, and the High Court gave a judgment on that last week. There are absolutely no plans to change the current position, which under statute we will review in the summer of this year in any event. I am very happy to meet her to discuss care leavers and prison leavers, and how we can make sure that the system properly supports offenders as they re-enter society.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Almost one in six of the prison population is on remand, and more than 2,500, which is the population of all three prisons in Dorset plus the prison in Wiltshire, have been on remand for more than the custody time limit, including my constituent Liam. Many of them are not a flight or reoffending risk, and some may be innocent. Dealing with the backlog will help, but that will take time. Curfews and tags can be used for some of these people, which will create space more quickly but will require court capacity to hold more bail hearings. Will the Minister look at that option?
Jake Richards
The hon. Member will know that decisions on individual cases about remand and bail are for our independent judiciary. She is right that fundamentally this is about the backlog in our Crown courts. I look forward to the Liberal Democrats supporting legislation that will solve that issue in due course.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for updating the House with this important annual statement. Unfortunately, the Jailhouse Café, which is a fantastic rehabilitation initiative for both prisoners and ex-prisoners on Portland, is set to close its doors in the next few days. Expia, the brilliant charity that runs the café, is currently not in a financial position to carry out essential repair works. The funding that it needs to fix up the café requires a 10-year occupancy agreement for the café building, which so far it has been unable to secure. I know that we can find a practical solution to this, so will the Minister work with me and Expia to find a simple solution that supports the Jailhouse Café to reopen later this year?
Jake Richards
My hon. Friend is a brilliant champion for his constituency, and in particular for its cafés, including this one—he has been telling me all about how important it is to the local community. I am very happy to meet him, and we will do everything we can to keep that café open.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
A Crown court judge in Shropshire recently referenced the county’s “shoplifting epidemic”. Page 6 of the Minister’s statement says that
“more credible punishments outside prison…include a presumption to suspend short custodial sentences for less serious offenders—because we know these do not work.”
Does the Minister accept that shoplifting is a crime; that it is not victim-free; and that in many circumstances, a custodial sentence might still be relevant? Despite the Sentencing Act 2026, the retailers and shopkeepers of Shropshire should know that when they go to work in the morning—getting up early, working hard and going to bed late at night—the profits they make are not going to walk out of the door with somebody who is shoplifting, getting away scot-free and getting a free pass from this Government.
Jake Richards
I was going to say that I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, but he sort of ruined it at the end. Shoplifting is a crime, and the Home Secretary made an announcement earlier this week about ensuring that we prosecute it. There is a presumption against short-term sentencing, but clearly we are not banning short-term sentences; they are vital in lots of cases, particularly in domestic abuse cases and for prolific offenders, which many shoplifters are.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. He has said that the number of extra prison places created since July 2024 is 2,900, but can he say how many cells have been temporarily or permanently closed due to fire safety concerns and other maintenance issues? Can he also state what his Department anticipates will be the result of the Leveson review? Will the Justice Committee—on which I sit—receive his updated modelling, which includes these reforms, and will he come and speak to the Committee about these things?
Jake Richards
I am very happy to come and speak to the Justice Committee as and when invited. The hon. Member raises an important point about fire safety; I do not have the exact figures to hand, but there are definitely issues with fire safety across the prison estate—of course, safety is the primary focus, but that has an effect on capacity and maintenance more generally. I am happy to write to her with those figures. As for the effect of part 1 of Leveson’s report and the forthcoming part 2, the modelling and assessments will be set out as and when the legislation comes before the House, and I am sure they will be sent to the Justice Committee as well.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Regarding prison capacity, my understanding is that none of the 14,000 prison places that are planned is category A. Can the Minister confirm how much remaining capacity there currently is within the prison system at category A, and is he confident that there will be enough going forward?
Twelve prison projects, including the new prison in Buckinghamshire, were due to be delivered by ISG Construction Ltd before it went into administration, and both the major project portfolio programmes it was working on are red-rated within that. Can the Minister confirm that all 12 of those projects have recommenced, and that a new contractor is now delivering them?
Jake Richards
I will write to the hon. Gentleman on his last question—I just do not have the details, and I do not want to mislead him or the House on that particular case. As for high-security prisons, there is an ongoing workstream within the Department to look at the future of that estate, and we will update the House in due course.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement. Does he accept that in their rush to free up space, the Government have missed the rehabilitation aspect that is essential to any real reform? How can the Government show prisoners a different way, teach them new skills and give them confidence in their ability to change when sentences are cut regardless of where they are in the rehabilitation process? Bearing in mind that Northern Ireland is similar to England and Wales, reoffending there is significantly higher among those serving short sentences, with approximately 51% of adults released from sentences of less than 12 months reoffending within a year.
Jake Richards
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He said that there was a rush to free up space —that was because we absolutely had to. If we had not freed up space in our prison system, the criminal justice system would have collapsed, so there definitely was a rush.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned rehabilitation. This Government are absolutely committed to rehabilitation —that is a thread throughout the Sentencing Act, which has just received Royal Assent. Thinking about my diary over the next few weeks, I am going to visit a literacy project in Doncaster and colleges that are linking up with prisons. We have to look at this issue creatively and holistically to make sure we have the services and resources in our prisons to offer educational and work programmes. As I said to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), there is no point pretending that there are not fiscal pressures in the criminal justice system at the moment. There are, and we have to think a bit creatively and work with partners to overcome those pressures.
First 1,000 Days of Life
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Health and Social Care Committee. Paulette Hamilton will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair and not the relevant Minister. Front Benchers may, however, take part in questioning.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
On behalf of the Health and Social Care Committee, it is a pleasure to present to the House our fifth report of this Parliament, which is on the subject of the first 1,000 days of life. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this statement. We chose this subject because this period of life is crucial for long-term health, educational outcomes and life chances, and because child health in this country is in an alarmingly poor state. As the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has stated, our children have some of the poorest health outcomes in Europe. That is why this report is so important, and why it is essential that we get this right.
We know that investment in early intervention is highly cost-effective, yet we continue to see rising obesity, uneven vaccination coverage and persistent inequalities. We therefore welcome the Government’s expansion of the family hub network. However, we must be clear about the scale of the challenge those hubs are being asked to address—supporting a much broader range of children than the previous Sure Start system with fewer resources. That is why we have called on the Government to go further by ensuring access to family hubs in every community, underpinned by reliable, long-term funding. A single hub per county is simply insufficient and will leave families isolated. This must be matched by urgent action to restore the health visitor workforce, which is the backbone of early years care. Since 2015, numbers have fallen by 43%, leaving a shortfall of 5,000 posts. Caseloads remain dangerously high, sometimes exceeding 750 children. We have therefore called for a funded plan to recruit at least 1,000 additional health visitors.
The wider workforce is also critical. Health visitors are not the only key professionals involved in supporting children and their parents during that first 1,000-day period—midwives, children’s nurses, general practitioners, early years practitioners, speech and language therapists, paediatricians and others all play incredibly important roles. The Government’s forthcoming NHS 10-year workforce plan must include specific, funded targets for increasing the number of professionals working in early years roles, underpinned by updated modelling of future demand. However, we cannot focus solely on the NHS, as many of these professionals work outside it. That is why we have supported the call of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health for a children’s health workforce strategy to address the staffing needs holistically.
Our report also addresses the serious decline in vaccination uptake. Vaccination is one of the most effective public health interventions, yet rates have fallen since 2012, with stark regional and ethnic disparities. It is indefensible that one child died of measles and 11 lost their lives to whooping cough in 2024. The Committee was also unimpressed by the Government’s unwillingness to revisit their vaccination strategy. The Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), told us the strategy was “stabilising” vaccination numbers, but we need a strategy capable of reversing current trends. We have called on the Government to develop a new plan to reverse the decline and to reinstate the target of 95% coverage in the NHS planning guidance.
Finally, we need to ensure that the many agencies involved in supporting children at the start of life are all working towards the same goal and that it is easy for them to work together. Challenges in sharing data and the absence of a shared outcomes framework undermine accountability and strategic planning across local systems. We look forward to the Government’s plans to publish a shared outcomes framework in April this year, which they must use as a tool to drive better integration and joint working, including between the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education.
Every child deserves the best start in life. Failing to support children and their parents properly during those first 1,000 days is short-sighted, as it merely stores up problems for the future. However, if we get it right, we will create a generation that is healthier, better educated, ultimately wealthier and, most importantly, happier. I hope that this report and its recommendations can play a part in making that happen. I commend the report to the House.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
It was a pleasure to serve under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend during our Committee’s inquiry into the first 1,000 days of life. I was particularly struck by how, at this crucial period in a child’s lifetime—for those who are not aware, the 1,000 days begins at the moment of conception and goes up until they are two years old—so many services that should basically be placing a hug around the family and around the child have instead been decimated. Those services come at a critical stage. I am grateful that the Minister for Early Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey), is on the Front Bench to hear the statement.
Does my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) agree that if the Government does not grasp the scale of this challenge or accept our Committee’s recommendations—I urge them to do so in full—we run the risk of undermining some of our reforms in special educational needs and disabilities? By investing in the early years and by taking the action that that my hon. Friend has outlined—we must ensure early intervention and that we rebuild the health visitor network, so that the families who need extra support and care are identified early and can be got into the network of family hubs to receive that support—the rest of our reforms, including to the SEND system, can go ahead. Without that investment, and without the Government taking heed of what our Committee has recommended, we run the very real risk of all that work being undermined.
Paulette Hamilton
I thank my hon. Friend for all the hard work she put into this report. It could not have been achieved without everybody on the team working so diligently. Family hubs are an incredibly valuable resource, and they deal with all the issues that she raises. The problem is that we just have not got enough of them. One per county will not do. If we are really talking about early prevention, working with families and raising standards of care, we need more family hubs and more healthcare professionals and paediatricians within those services. We need to ensure that we are looking at this holistically, and not just as a preventive measure.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her statement and the Health and Social Care Committee for all its work on this vital stage of childhood. Last year, the Education Committee published our report, “Solving the SEND Crisis”, which highlighted the following: the importance of early identification of special educational needs and disabilities; the absence, all too often, of health from the network of support that children with SEND need; the lack of accountability around these services; and, inconsistent access to expertise on SEND in early years settings. I welcome the Health and Social Care Committee’s call for a children’s health workforce strategy. Will my hon. Friend say more about how the Government can help to ensure that we have the early years workforce we need? Did the Committee look specifically at the question of accountability for health services in delivering support for SEND?
Paulette Hamilton
My hon. Friend raises a crucial point. These services are just not joined up. We have got young children who, from birth to two and a half years old, are not getting the health services they need. They then go into the education system and are falling behind. The strategy is just not appropriate, as has been highlighted. As the Committee highlighted, we need a new strategy, and it must be joined up. We need a strategy that takes into account not just health issues, but education and care issues. Through that, we will incorporate all the professionals who are needed for that wraparound service to be delivered.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for today’s statement and for her excellent work in chairing the Committee’s important inquiry. It is much appreciated. There is much to welcome in this report. Colleagues have already touched on a number of the measures, so I will focus in particular on vaccination.
The state of vaccination rates in this country shocked me during the inquiry. I think we all came to accept the success, the prevalence and the uptake of vaccinations, but now, for a number of reasons—including disinformation, some of which comes from elements in this Chamber—vaccination rates have been declining across the board for many years. This week, the UK lost its measles elimination status, which is shameful and an indictment of the situation in which we have got ourselves.
In the light of that, does my hon. Friend agree that we need to accelerate things such as the health visitor pilot for delivering vaccinations? We heard positive things about that in the Committee, but progress has been slow. Does she agree that we need to accelerate those actions already in train? Does she agree that we should restore the World Health Organisation target of 95% vaccination uptake nationally? Finally, does she accept that the last Government’s vaccination strategy, developed in 2023, has clearly failed, considering where we are today? Does she think that the Government need to look again at a new national vaccination strategy so that we can get back to where we once were and then make more progress, ensuring that every child has the vaccination they need to protect them and to live a healthy and fulfilling life?
Paulette Hamilton
My hon. Friend is passionate about the administration of vaccinations, and he has asked quite a lot of questions. I absolutely agree with them all, but I will focus on his questions relating to health visitors and to having more of a strategy on vaccinations. I hope that everybody present has read the report, which states very clearly that health visitors have massive caseloads of over 750. That means they are not able to give children the time that they need. We have recommended that we employ 1,000 extra health visitors, but we have also noted in the report that health visitors have a statutory right to visit children five times until they get to the age of two and a half. We have said that we should increase that to a minimum of six visits, which is what already happens in Wales. The minimum number of visits in Scotland is 11, and I think it is nine in Northern Ireland—I apologise if I have got that figure wrong. England has the lowest number of visits in the United Kingdom, and it needs to be increased.
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that we need to have more of a focus on vaccine levels, and to get the new strategy in place. Without a strategy, we are not going to get what we need in this area as quickly as we need it to happen.
Holocaust Memorial Day
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Peter Prinsley, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an honour to be able to open this year’s Holocaust memorial debate.
In The Sunday Times of the week before last, the Chief Rabbi described the dilemma of the teacher faced with the question of what to do on Holocaust Memorial Day. Given the polarising impact of the events of October 2023 and the terrible loss of life in Gaza, it may be simpler not to have an event at all this year. In 2023, 2,000 schools held events to mark Holocaust Memorial Day. Some 1,200 schools did so in 2024, 854 did so in 2025, and almost certainly there will have been fewer this year. The Chief Rabbi asked the question that we are all asking: as we lose the last survivors—the eye witnesses of the Holocaust—how will we keep our oft-repeated promise to them that we will never forget?
The Chief Rabbi speaks of the moral foundation of our society, and of how the Holocaust did not start from nothing. It started with a normalisation of division, prejudice and hatred, building on the oldest hatred of all. There is a warning here for all of us: do not imagine that it can never happen again in our time. That is why it is so important to remember, why I believe it is so important for us to build a national Holocaust memorial, and why I am so pleased that that was included in the Government’s legislation. Let us get it done before the last eyewitnesses pass into the history books.
I have lived with my family in East Anglia for 30 years. I am a part of the Jewish community of Norwich, a member of the synagogue and a past president of the community. There is a beautiful restored synagogue and a small thriving community. The community was established in the 19th century following the arrival of Jewish people from Europe, who were largely fleeing discrimination and persecution. I am delighted that Mrs M. Leveton, aged 80-plus, and her husband Mr B. Leveton, aged 90-plus, were both awarded the British Empire Medal in the new year’s honours for their lifelong service to the community.
However, ours is not the first Jewish community in Norwich. Jewish people came to England with the Normans. Communities formed in many cities under the protection of the Crown, at Norwich, Bury St Edmunds, King’s Lynn and Thetford—all over the successfully growing economy of East Anglia. Moneylending was forbidden to Christians, so Jews began to work in finance and moneylending. A special Exchequer of the Jews was established by the Crown to collect taxes. Great chests with multiple locked clasps were made to keep Exchequer rolls and documents. There were five locks, with the keys held by Crown agents and local citizens so that they could only be opened together, to prevent any disagreements. Lately I discovered just such a chest in a church at North Creake.
The county archive in Norwich contains hundreds of medieval property leases and documents, many of which are written in Hebrew. They have curiously wavy and crenelated margins, for they were written in duplicates to enable matching copies and ensure that there were no forgeries. These are called indentures. The leases have allowed a detailed map of the ancient city centre to be drawn, showing the location and the ownership of the houses, and the location of the synagogue, the school and the physician, for there were Jewish doctors in Norwich 1,000 years before I was appointed.
On King Street there is a great merchant’s house, which still stands. It was the house of Isaac Jurnet. It is the oldest house of Jewish habitation in England, and the vaulted crypt is unaltered since the time of Jurnet, who was the financier of the cathedral and much else besides. The house is presently in need of restoration, and there is a plan to create a centre for the study of antisemitism with the department of Jewish studies at the university. Never has this been more essential.
Which country in Europe was the first to expel the Jews? It was right here in Parliament, in 1290, that King Edward decreed that the Jews must leave. They were not allowed to return until the time of Oliver Cromwell, hundreds of years later. We should not imagine that this is a uniquely German idea; this is an ancient hatred and, with the leave of the House, I will tell Members something about it. It was in Norwich, in 1140, that the Jews were falsely accused of murdering a boy called William to use his blood for sacrifice—something that Jews never do. This is the infamous blood libel, which sparked antisemitic hatred all over England and echoes throughout the ages, even to this day.
Some 20 years ago, a shopping centre was under construction. A medieval well full of skeletons was revealed—17 skeletons from three families, including children. A BBC “Hidden History” documentary brought the story to our attention when it was revealed that they were almost certainly Jewish skeletons. The bones were handed to the local community, and here I must name my dear departed friend, Mr Clive Roffe, who insisted that the bones be given a dignified Jewish burial. I held the bones in my hand, and there was a large hole in the side of a skull. Even after all these years, it was obviously not a natural hole. DNA studies by the Natural History Museum here in London showed that there were genetic matches to contemporary British Jews. Here we have scientific evidence of an English pogrom in 1190. Antisemitism is not new.
Holocaust Memorial Day is so important. This year, the theme is “Bridging Generations”. Last weekend, I was privileged to attend the Holocaust Memorial Day events at Wells-next-the-Sea. A small group of non-Jewish people have established a regular series of cultural events at the Maltings arts centre. Diana Cook spoke about her mother, Margot, who escaped in the days before the outbreak of the war to become a nurse and who lost all her family in the Holocaust. Diana is part of an oral history initiative called G2G—Generation 2 Generation—which carries the story of the Holocaust down the generations. Margot spoke little of her childhood, and only after she died did Diana fully appreciate the crucial importance of oral history and of Generation 2 Generation. I thank her from my heart and soul.
On Monday, I attended a most moving service at the Foreign Office, and I must thank the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the embassy of Israel and the chargé d’affaires, Daniela Grudsky Ekstein, for the invitation. We heard the extraordinary testimony of Marla, who with her brother Ben Helfgott, were the only members of a large family to survive. I have heard Marla speak before, but her haunting testimony only amplifies in significance as one hears it again. We heard the quite incredible voice of Cantor Turgel, the grandson of Gena—the bride of Belsen—who married the British soldier who liberated her. He sang the prayer for the departed, “El Male Rachamim”—“God full of compassion”—the prayer which asks God to grant rest to the souls of the deceased.
On Holocaust Memorial Day itself I was so proud to stand in the cathedral of Bury St Edmunds, alongside local Jewish citizens and the schoolchildren of Suffolk, and to make the declaration of remembrance as the first Jewish MP for this ancient town, for we are living in a time of increasing polarisation and division. This is our struggle. I have seen the marches, and they fill me with foreboding. We have seen the protests, and we have seen the rise of far-right, so-called populists all over the world, including right here on Westminster bridge. Too often, the legitimate street protests against the actions of the Israeli Government have simply degenerated into shocking antisemitic chanting. The murderous attacks on Jews on Yom Kippur in Manchester and in the attack in Australia did not arise from nowhere. This is our real and present danger, and we must not underestimate it, for it is pervasive.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a fascinating opening speech, and I congratulate him on securing this debate. Could I ask him to re-emphasise the point he has just made, which is that such a grouping of an entire religion, race or ethnicity with the actions of a Government is an entirely antisemitic act?
Peter Prinsley
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Member: that is exactly the case. He makes the point extremely well, and I thank him for doing so.
The banning of a Jewish MP from a local school in Bristol was simply an outrage. We receive messages from families of isolated Jewish pupils in rural East Anglian schools where there are persistent taunts and worse, and the schools are simply unable to cope. Resources must be found to address this problem, because this is urgent.
Antisemitism, which never disappeared from this country, exploded after the events of 7 October 2023, even before the actions of the Israel Defence Forces. There has been a terrible war in Gaza, but the origins of the political problems are ancient and complex, and it is not the responsibility of the law-abiding Jewish citizens of this country, who have been intimidated and vilified. I welcome the measures that our Government have announced to address this.
I am a Jewish MP for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, and the very first Jewish MP for the town that was the first to expel its Jews in 1190 following the slaughter of 53 Jewish citizens—commemorated with a steel teardrop in the abbey gardens—so history has come full circle. There is no greater honour in my life and no greater duty than to ensure that we will always remember them.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is an honour to follow an excellent opening speech from the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley). I congratulate him on the way he has introduced this debate. I declare my interests as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on the Holocaust memorial and education centre, co-chairman of the APPG on Israel and sponsor of this year’s Holocaust memorial reception in Portcullis House, on behalf of the Holocaust Educational Trust.
We gather today to mark Holocaust Memorial Day, which commemorates the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau on 27 January 1945. That moment exposed to the world the full horror of the Nazi regime’s systematic murder of 6 million Jewish men, women and children—for the benefit of the BBC, I say Jewish men, women and children. However, Holocaust Memorial Day is also a moment to remember the millions of others who were persecuted and murdered by the Nazis, such as the Roma, disabled people, political dissidents and others. We remember not only to honour the victims, but to understand how such an atrocity became possible and how we must never allow it to happen again.
The Holocaust did not begin with the gas chambers and the death camps, and too often we forget the context. In the decades before, hatred was allowed to grow in Germany; prejudice became normalised; and language, institutions and social norms were slowly corroded. In the great war, Germany was defeated, and afterwards it was economically shattered. The treaty of Versailles imposed territorial losses, military restrictions and severe reparations, the burden of which fell heavily on ordinary people in Germany. The Weimar republic, although democratic in structure, was fragile, and economic catastrophe soon followed. In fact, hyperinflation in the early 1920s left Germans burning paper money to keep warm, because the currency’s value had fallen away. Widespread poverty took hold, and in times of despair, many people searched for simple explanations—and for scapegoats.
It was in that climate that the Nazi party rose to prominence. Hitler and his supporters offered simplistic answers to complex problems. They promised national revival, strength and unity, while identifying enemies within. Jews were portrayed not as fellow citizens, but as outsiders. They were dehumanised and blamed for Germany’s defeat, its economic hardships and the perceived decline of society. Hatred was not accidental; it was systematic, deliberate and relentlessly reinforced. When the Nazis came to power in 1933, antisemitism became state policy. Just imagine that: it was state policy to outlaw a particular religion. Persecution began not with mass violence, but with exclusion. Jewish civil servants were dismissed, Jewish businesses were boycotted and Jewish professionals were barred from practising law and medicine, and from teaching. Those measures were designed to isolate, humiliate and impoverish an entire community.
It is important to stress that while most people did not actively participate in persecution, most chose to look away while it happened. Silence, passivity and indifference allowed injustice to become embedded and, ultimately, unstoppable. Persecution soon escalated. The Nuremberg laws of 1935 stripped Jews of citizenship and basic rights, reducing them from equal members of society to subjects of the state. Violence became overt. In November 1938, Kristallnacht marked a decisive turning point. Synagogues were destroyed, Jewish homes and businesses were attacked, and thousands were arrested by the state—not by mobs acting alone, but by authority itself.
With the outbreak of the second world war, persecution turned into annihilation. Jews were forced into ghettos, and we will no doubt hear about harrowing testimonies of overcrowding, hunger, disease and despair. From 1941 onwards, death camps such as Auschwitz-Birkenau, Treblinka and Sobibor were constructed for one purpose alone—mass murder. Trains arrived from across Europe, and people were selected, exploited and killed on an industrial scale. There were some who resisted, often at immense personal risk, and they remind us that choices are always possible, but they were the exception, not the norm.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
Again, my hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. Does he share my horror and disgust that yesterday, a member of the public thought it was entirely appropriate to dress as a prisoner of one of the concentration camps? Surely this is the hatred he is describing.
Bob Blackman
Indeed, I condemn that action, and all actions that seek in some way, shape or form to glorify or justify the Holocaust.
The lesson matters profoundly today. Holocaust Memorial Day plays a vital part in educating the public on the dangers of prejudice, discrimination and hatred—dangers that, if left unchecked, can escalate once again into violence and even genocide. It honours survivors and preserves their testimony, particularly now that the number of first-hand witnesses is sadly diminishing—a point to which the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket alluded. The theme for this year, “Bridging Generations”, is therefore a powerful call to action. The responsibility for remembrance does not end with the survivors. It must be passed on to their children, grandchildren and all of us, so that memory becomes responsibility. That matters, because antisemitism in the UK remains at alarmingly high levels. Following the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on 7 October 2023, antisemitic incidents surged dramatically. According to the Community Security Trust, 1,521 antisemitic incidents were recorded in the first half of 2025 alone—the second highest total ever recorded for that period. Although that is lower than the number in the record year of 2024, that still represents a sustained and deeply troubling level of hostility that is far above the pre-October 7 averages.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I do not always agree with him, but I very much agree with the case that he is making today and what he is saying. He mentioned the surge in antisemitism in the UK. Would he agree that Ofcom needs to crack down on online hatred—particularly antisemitism, but also Islamophobic tweets? The Jewish community and those of many other faiths are subject to a terrifying amount of online hatred.
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, for that intervention. The sad reality is that following my question to the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday, my social media accounts were loaded with antisemitic tropes. It is a disgrace, and Ofcom has to take action. It is our duty to ensure that hate speech is never allowed to continue. I believe in free speech, but I do not believe in preaching hatred to one another, regardless of religion, and action has to be taken on that.
Greater London and Greater Manchester remain hotspots of antisemitism; there was an attack on the synagogue in Manchester during Yom Kippur. Online antisemitism, to which the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) just referred, now accounts for well more than a third of all incidents. Holocaust-related abuse appears with disturbing frequency, and there has been a sharp rise in the glorification of the Holocaust. Behind these statistics lies a chilling reality: many Jewish people in Britain feel unsafe, unwelcome or forced to hide their identity in public. Surveys suggest that around half have considered leaving the UK due to antisemitism. That should trouble every one of us.
We must be honest about the ways in which contemporary antisemitism often disguises itself. Increasingly, anti-Israel activism functions as a Trojan horse for antisemitism, allowing ancient prejudice to re-enter public discourse under the cover of political critique. Legitimate criticism of any Government is entirely valid, but when Israel becomes uniquely demonised, Zionism is used as a slur and Jewish institutions and individuals are targeted, regardless of their views, we are no longer in the realm of political debate. CST data shows that a significant proportion of antisemitic incidents now blend anti-Zionist language with classic antisemitic tropes: claims of secret control, collective guilt or global conspiracy. On campuses and online platforms, and in public demonstrations such as yesterday’s, Jewish students and citizens are increasingly made to feel responsible simply for who they are. That not only undermines free speech; it poisons it.
We must confront the disturbing rise of Holocaust inversion: the grotesque distortion that portrays Jews or Israel as the new Nazis. That is not merely offensive rhetoric; it threatens and trivialises the Shoah, inverts reality, and inflicts profound harm on survivors and their families. Equating the Star of David with the swastika or accusing the Jewish state of genocide is not historical analysis; it is antisemitism. We must be clear and unequivocal in condemning it.
On Holocaust Memorial Day, we should acknowledge the historical link between the Holocaust and the modern state of Israel. Zionism long predates the second world war, but the genocide of European Jewry underscored with devastating clarity the need for a Jewish homeland—a place of refuge and self-determination. Many Holocaust survivors helped build that nation, carrying the scars of the camps with them. Attempts to de-legitimise Israel ignore that history and risk erasing the fundamental lesson of “never again”.
Finally, I want to turn to the future. Last week, the Holocaust Memorial Act 2026 received Royal Assent, paving the way for the national Holocaust memorial and learning centre to be built in Victoria Tower Gardens, beside this very Parliament. Proposed by a cross-party commission more than a decade ago, the memorial will honour the victims and educate generations to come. The proposal was started by Lord Cameron and was supported cross-party. As the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket said, we must get that memorial built before the last of the survivors is no longer with us. Its location matters. It will stand as a permanent reminder, at the heart of our democracy, of where hatred can lead when left unchallenged.
As we remember the victims today, we also reaffirm our responsibility to challenge antisemitism wherever it appears, defend democratic values and human dignity, and ensure that history is neither forgotten nor distorted. When we see demonstrations and attempts to blockade Jewish businesses, restaurants and synagogues, we must call it out for what it is: antisemitism, pure and simple. Remembrance is not only about the past; it is a warning for the present, and a duty that we owe to future generations. I and, I believe, the whole House will recommit to carrying out that duty.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The theme for Holocaust Memorial Day 2026 is “Bridging Generations”. That recognises that as the remaining survivors who can directly bear witness to the atrocities of the Holocaust pass away, living memory must become collective memory. As Jews, we know all about collective memory. The late Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, of blessed memory, said:
“One of the most important halachic responses to tragedy is the act of remembering, Yizkor. More than it has history, the Jewish people has memory. There is no word for history in the Tanach, and modern Hebrew had to borrow one, historiah. But the word zachor (remember), occurs no fewer than 169 times in the Hebrew Bible. The difference between them is this: history is someone else’s story; memory is my story. In history, we recall what happened…so that it becomes part of us and who we are… We cannot bring the dead to life, but we can keep their memory alive.”
This Shabbat, Jews around the world will be reading Parashat Beshalach. The Torah portion opens with the Pharoah pursuing the Israelites into the desert and the miracle of the splitting of the Red sea. It ends with victory over the Amalekites, the first enemy that the Israelites face upon escaping Egypt. There are so many biblical teachings through which we can approach the Shoah in Beshalach. In particular, we can approach it through grappling with the evil of Amalek and the Pharoah, and we can contemplate the act of remembrance through how we are commanded to commemorate these events. This year, I came across a perspective that is both subtle in the closeness of the reading of it, and also completely striking in its depth.
I have been reading “Esh Kodesh”, written by Rabbi Kalonymus Kalman Shapira, of blessed memory, the Rebbe of the Warsaw ghetto. Composed between 1939 and 1942, it is a truly astonishing body of work. Reflecting on Parashat Beshalach, he notes that in the text, Exodus 13:21 begins:
“And God goes before them by day with a pillar of cloud to guide them along the way, and by night with a pillar of fire providing them with light to travel day and night”.
This is the first place where the text uses the present tense. With extraordinary faith and courage, and recognising the “bitter reality” that people were living through, he concludes:
“we must use the judgments and suffering we endure properly, utilising them to worship God, to keep going day and night”.
That this present tense speaks of the presence of God in their midst at a time of unimaginable privation, and is a source of strength for them to draw on, is profoundly moving as a contemporary reader. Later on in the parashah, Exodus 15:1, it reads:
“And they spoke, to say, I will sing to God for his great victory”.
Noting here the future tense, Rabbi Shapira says:
“Already, when still in Egypt, they could see God’s salvation, and so they were able, in their minds, to ‘sing in the future’—‘to say’ implies that they succeeded in establishing this for future generations”.
Rabbi Shapira did not live to see this victory, to sing in the future. He was murdered in Aktion Erntefest—Operation Harvest Festival—at Trawniki concentration camp on 3 November 1943. Jewish prisoners were separated from non-Jewish prisoners, and up to 43,000 Jews at the Majdanek, Poniatowa and Trawniki concentration camps were killed in two days—the single largest German massacre of Jews in the Holocaust. In all three camps, Jews were forced to strip naked and walk into dug trenches, where they were shot dead. Loud music was played to cover the sound of the gunfire.
Rabbi Shapira’s writing, however, survived to inspire future generations, buried in milk cannisters as part of the Oneg Shabbat underground archive, established in 1940 by Emanuel Ringelblum and a secret group of scholars and writers, to document the suffering, resistance and daily life of Jews in the Warsaw ghetto, ensuring their story was not lost. They said:
“It must all be recorded with not a single fact omitted. And when the time comes—as it surely will—let the world read and know what the murderers have done.”
We mourn the 6 million Jews murdered in the Holocaust. We mourn the lives cut short, the lives never lived, the children and grandchildren never born; the art, music and literature never written; the enormous loss to humanity itself of a tragedy at a scale we can barely fathom that reverberates through modern history and into our present. But as we mourn, we remember. As Jews, we can take forward our cultures, teachings and traditions to future generations, as we have always done, from the Exodus onwards, denying Hitler what the theologian Emil Fackenheim called “a posthumous victory”. Many Jewish communities around the world read and learn Torah from Czech scrolls from the desolated synagogues of Bohemia and Moravia, honouring the communities who were killed and keeping the flame of their memory alive.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful and educational speech; I thank her so much. Will she join me in thanking John Hajdu MBE, who came to Brent yesterday to share with us his story of how he survived the Holocaust? As a young boy, he survived only because a non-Jewish family hid him in a cupboard for days on end. Will she join me in thanking him for sharing his story, so we can keep it alive?
Charlotte Nichols
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and share her thanks to the survivor she mentions, but I also send our thanks to that generation of survivors who were so determined to ensure that their stories were carried forward so that we can learn from them.
Right hon. and hon. Members can visit the museum not far from here at Westminster synagogue, home of the Czech Memorial Scrolls Trust, to see the scrolls I referred to and artefacts from those communities.
Remembrance of the Holocaust is, however, a society-wide effort that Jews cannot undertake alone. At a time of rising antisemitism globally, when Jews in Manchester and in Bondi Beach are killed just for being Jews, this same antisemitic poison is again taking root and must be confronted. We should remember the evils of the past to fight the evils of the present, taking strength from the everyday acts of resistance, large and small, and bringing their stories with us to secure for us all a safe and secure future. Eight decades on from the Holocaust, that is more important now than ever.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
I am honoured to be here for this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for leading the debate, and opening it with such an incredibly moving speech.
Genocide does not just happen. There is always a path: there is always a terrifying and evil journey towards it. The intention to destroy a group of people is an unspeakable idea. It is difficult to comprehend and yet it has happened not once but multiple times across the globe. Remembering the Holocaust is not just a Jewish issue; it is a human one. Education, reflection and, crucially, action become more and more important each day as we face increasingly fractured communities, inflammatory online rhetoric, and the casual othering of minority groups. Recent events both in the UK and abroad reiterate that “never again” cannot rest on remembrance alone; it needs conscious action.
The Nazi regime systematically murdered 6 million Jews, including 1.5 million children. That is 6 million stories, 6 million people who loved, 6 million people who added immeasurable value to this world. That murderous regime also killed Roma and Sinti people, disabled people, gay men, political opponents, Jehovah’s Witnesses and others that they deemed undesirable. In total, around 10 million people were murdered. But the Holocaust was not carried out by mobs and Nazis alone. It was enabled by the systematic involvement and compliance of institutions, including the police, civil servants, universities, courts and local authorities—the very institutions that were created to protect and serve. Instead, those institutions enforced discriminatory laws, facilitated deportations, and normalised othering and, eventually, murder. Prejudice becomes policy when institutions fail to act against hatred.
We are talking about a scale of suffering and terror that is beyond comprehension, and that is why personal stories are so crucial to our learning and reflection. I would therefore like to share some stories of my constituents who survived.
In 1939, Leonard Kaufmann’s uncle managed to secure a place for him on the Kindertransport, leaving behind his siblings and parents who later died. At four years old, Leonard remembers sitting on a barstool on his arrival to the UK, all alone and waiting to be collected, not able to speak English, scared and completely unsure of what was to come. Leonard went on to lead a successful career and have a happy family home in Gatley, despite experiencing one of the hardest starts to life anyone could imagine. He was a proud administrator at Yeshurun synagogue, which sits proudly in the heart of Gatley.
Peter Kurer was taken in by a Quaker family in Manchester with his brother and parents after they learned the SS were coming for his father. Later, Peter selflessly volunteered considerable time towards the establishment of a retirement home in Didsbury for Jewish refugees.
Martin Hyman shared with me the story of his mother who grew up in 1930s Vienna and was expelled from school simply for being Jewish. Aged just 13, she was sent alone to Britain on the Kindertransport. She never saw her parents again.
Sadly, these stories are not unusual. Martin said to me:
“In 1938, 272 Jews were recorded as having lived in the street in Vienna where my mum grew up. She was one of only 13 who survived the Holocaust.”
They reflect the experience of thousands of children whose lives were saved only because others acted. I am asking everyone in this House today to imagine the pain and suffering inflicted from just these singular stories and multiply that by 1,000 and then multiply it again.
I would like to pay tribute to Paul Porgess, a survivor of the Holocaust who was not only my friend, but a mentor to me. Paul was born in Czechoslovakia to parents Victor and Olga. During the second world war, his family were deported to the ghetto in Warsaw. After falling ill, Paul was separated from his parents, but was helped to escape by the Polish resistance. He eventually made it to England, where he earned a doctorate in chemistry at the University of London, before moving to Cheadle with his wife Joan. He was one of the first Liberal councillors to represent the Cheadle area and did so for four decades.
During his time on the council, Paul held a many positions, including on the equal opportunities special panel and the social inclusion and community cohesion working party. His experience so early on in life drove his passion to prioritise inclusion and community in Cheadle, and he also fought tirelessly for refugees in our region. Paul knew more than anyone just how important it was to be the voice for those who could not defend themselves. I was deeply honoured to replace Paul on Stockport council, and still to this day I try to ensure that I live up to his legacy. I miss him dearly.
It is no secret that hate crimes have risen year on year, misinformation continues to spread like wildfire online, and politics is becoming increasingly polarised. I visited the Community Security Trust earlier this week and heard directly about the work and resource that goes into ensuring that Jewish communities are protected. But heartbreakingly, the Heaton Park synagogue attack on Yom Kippur just three months ago shows that despite every effort to ensure people are safe and secure, the evil of antisemitism poses a real and murderous threat to our Jewish communities.
The latest statistics, published in October, showed that Jewish people had a higher rate of religious hate crimes targeted towards them than any other faith group. We have a duty today to remember, reflect and take action to stamp out this hatred now. Martin Hyman highlights that his grandparents, like many others, believed that civilisation, culture and the rule of law would protect them. But that was not the case. The Holocaust was not a sudden collapse of morality, but the end point of an insidious process in which discrimination was legalised, exclusion enforced, and dehumanisation made routine by ordinary people.
Education plays a critical role in responding to that. Organisations such as the Northern Holocaust Education Group and the My Voice project work to ensure that survivor testimony and lived experience continue to reach schools and communities. The Holocaust Centre North provides a permanent exhibition, learning programmes and an archive rooted in local survivor and refugee stories, helping young people and the wider public understand how a global atrocity unfolded through ordinary lives.
When people feel connected and invested in common values, they are better able to work together to address division and tackle hatred. The Common Ground award is an important initiative that goes some way in supporting that aim, and I hope that the Government will keep on funding it. The Government must also publish the community cohesion strategy that was promised last year, so that communities can work together to confront all forms of extremism by building understanding and trust.
Britian is a country of shared values and it has a history of being a nation that offers a hand to those in need. We must never forget that and must continuously pursue that aim. We celebrate the idea that people in our country should be able to live free from discrimination, and that no one’s rights or dignity should ever be taken away or compromised because of who they are, where they come from or what they believe. We must not lose sight of that, even though there are some who seek to undermine it.
A Jewish man in Manchester recently said to the Manchester Evening News,
“My daughter, she wears the Star of David but she puts it away…Ours are the only children that go to schools behind fences with guards.”
That cannot continue, so we must revert to our shared values, celebrate our differences and call out all forms of hatred and bigotry. “Never again” cannot rest on remembrance alone. It requires conscious action, every day. Holocaust Memorial Day offers an opportunity to reflect on not only what happened, but the responsibility we all have to ensure that the legacy of people like Paul Porgess never fades.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) and for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for their powerful and moving testimony. They are a credit to their community and their constituents.
Holocaust Memorial Day is a time when we remember the 6 million Jewish men, women and children murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators during the Holocaust. The theme of this year’s memorial day is “Bridging Generations”. It is the solemn duty of all of us, in this place and beyond it, who have had the privilege of meeting Holocaust survivors, to pass on their testimony to younger people so that we all may bear witness, collectively, to their suffering and their memory.
On that note, it was a real honour last week to meet 95-year-old Mala Tribich MBE in Parliament, and to hear her very moving testimony of how she and her brother were the only members of her family to survive the Nazi Holocaust, following her imprisonment in Ravensbrück and Bergen-Belsen camps. Many Members will agree how heartbreaking it was to hear of her pleading with the SS guard not to put her on a train. Mala told me afterwards how proud she was of her brother Ben, who went on to represent Britain at the Olympics as a weightlifter. Ben, who passed away in 2023, was one of the 700 Jewish youngsters taken to Cumbria from the death camps.
Ike Alterman, who passed away at age 97 in December last year, was the last surviving Greater Manchester member of that group of so-called Windermere children. I mention Ike because his story is well known by the children of Rochdale, particularly in Falinge Park high school, which he visited three years ago to share his experiences. Ike recalled picking sprouts in the bitter Polish winter for the SS officers’ Christmas dinner. He and the other Jews had no proper clothing and no shoes—Ike strapped straw to his feet to walk in the snow. The SS officer said that if he and fellow children sang “Silent Night” they would get a bonus: a ladle of warm water to put sprout skins in. Ike said:
“To this day I've never touched sprouts again.”
Ike was just 13 when his family were lined up in the town square alongside other Jews. He saw his mother, sister, and brother led away by men with rifles. Later he found out they were likely sent to Treblinka, an extermination camp. At Birkenau, Ike’s job was to take bodies from gas chambers to the crematoriums. He said,
“At Birkenau they had four chimneys and they were glowing 24 hours a day, day and night.”
That is invaluable testimony to the children of Rochdale from someone who was there. Someone whose story cannot be denied, and someone who we still remember with great fondness. Despite his passing, Ike’s testimony lives on because his talk to the students was captured on video and is shown by the school every year, thanks to the great efforts of the excellent teachers, such as the Holocaust education lead at Falinge Park, Adele Turner.
Falinge Park has legacy beacon status as one of the schools under the umbrella of the University College London Centre for Holocaust Education, and has developed a special Holocaust ambassadors and youth champions programme. Its youth champions are year 9 pupils who design and lead the extracurricular lunch time and afterschool sessions on the Holocaust for younger children in the school—beautifully bridging generations even within their school, which is the theme of this year’s memorial.
Last week, Greater Manchester’s commemoration of Holocaust Memorial Day featured a video of Falinge Park high school pupils Abiha Imran, Willow Greenwood and Dylan Ogden, as they joined Andy Burnham to interview Tomi Komoly, another Holocaust survivor. Tomi revealed he had spoken to 27,000 students in his 10 years of work with the Holocaust Educational Trust—27,000 students who will remember his story. His advice to the next generation was simple. He said,
“the one word that immediately pops into my mind is tolerance. Just look at other people in the world and accept that we each have our own way of living and habits…just be respectful of that, and live peacefully side by side.”
This year has shown that antisemitism is not just the world’s oldest hatred, but very much a current one, fed by extremists that blame Jews across the globe for the actions of Israel’s Government. The Bondi Beach attack was truly appalling, but in the north-west, we will never forget the Heaton Park synagogue attack on the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, Yom Kippur. We remember Adrian Daulby, 53, and Melvin Cravitz, 66, who were killed in that attack on that dark day.
Marc Levy, who many of us in this place know, is Manchester’s Jewish Representative Council leader, and his father Alan, is a chairman of the synagogue. They were deeply affected by that incident and the loss of their friends. Alan recently recalled how Adrian Daulby leapt up from his seat and ran the length of the synagogue to help them hold shut the front doors from the terror attack, before he was shot and killed.
It is truly disgusting that within hours of that attack, a local councillor in Rochdale shared on his Facebook page an article called, “False flag…could the Manchester synagogue attack be orchestrated?” which is an antisemitic dog whistle, as clear as day. But there are glimmers of light amid the darkness. Marc Levy told me that his children marked their B’nai Mitzvah at Heaton Park recently—a very powerful moment of resilience and remembering.
Teaching about not just the Nazi Holocaust but genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur has been part of the national curriculum for 35 years. Hatred based on race or religion, with victims scapegoated for sins they never committed, demonised, blamed, and punished for things that had nothing to do with them, becomes a narrative that curdles into deadly extremism. Our school children are taught of that danger. But with young people online more than ever, it is not what happens in the classroom that really worries many of us, but what happens outside it. The potential for them to come across antisemitic content and Holocaust denial and distortion—conspiracy theories that the Holocaust never happened or antisemitic theories that it was orchestrated and faked by Jewish people or Israel—is greater than ever.
Meanwhile, we have had regular debate on xAI’s Grok in this House in recent weeks. The AI tool has not only denigrated and degraded women, but generated multiple antisemitic comments, including praise for Hitler, denying the scope of the Holocaust and using so-called Jewish-sounding surnames in the context of hate speech. I hope that Ministers will engage with the Antisemitism Policy Trust to see how the Online Safety Act 2023 can actually crack down on such memes on Reddit and other online platforms.
As others have said, Holocaust Memorial Day is also a time to remember all the Roma and Sinti people, gay men, disabled people, political opponents and others murdered by the Nazi killing machine. We also remember all those affected by the subsequent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur and Bosnia.
Speaking of Bosnia, it was a truly humbling experience to visit the Srebrenica memorial centre and cemetery in Bosnia last year. In July 1995, more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys were murdered by Serb paramilitaries driven by religious, nationalist and ethnic hatred to commit the worst genocide on European soil since the Holocaust. I went to pay my respects and meet the incredible Mothers of Srebrenica campaign group, and to see the very moving testimony in the memorial centre itself.
Charlotte Nichols
I want to add my voice to my hon. Friend’s comments about the Mothers of Srebrenica and Žepa Enclaves association. I had the real honour of meeting them myself around a decade ago, and their work is absolutely extraordinary. Will my hon. Friend join me in encouraging all Members of the House to take the opportunity to learn from them about what we can do to ensure that we do not carry into the future the hate that caused them to lose their husbands and sons?
Paul Waugh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I encourage all Members of the House to take a trip to Srebrenica to see for themselves the mass graves, the cemetery and the museum. It is incredibly moving. The centre director, Emir, and the head of oral history, Hasan, were encouraged to hear that Rochdale schoolchildren are taught about the Srebrenica genocide as part of their Holocaust education.
As the MP for Rochdale, it is my duty to remind everyone in my constituency of the horrors of 7 October, the worst pogrom of Jews since the second world war. It is also my duty to call out the deaths of the men, women and children in Gaza that followed. The need for testimony, evidence and accountability is as important as ever.
I signed the Holocaust Educational Trust’s book of commitment in Parliament, which is part of the trust’s ongoing effort to educate children about past and present atrocities across the globe. It is only through education that we can tackle the ignorance that fuels hatred. The responsibility of remembrance does not end with the survivors; it lives on through their children and grandchildren and, of course, through all of us.
I will finish with a poem sent to me by Zeeshan Shafqat, a 17-year-old student at Rochdale’s Hopwood Hall college:
“In ashes of pain, where names were erased,
We stand together now, face to face.
Muslim and Jew, hand in hand,
Guarding the truth that history demands.
Never again, our shared vow remains—
To honour the lost, and break hatred’s chains.”
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I think it is important that I start with some of the realities as vividly as I can. Six million Jews were murdered in a deliberate attempt at the extermination of European Jews. I think it is shameful that the BBC did not speak about Jews in its opening report about Holocaust Memorial Day.
One million of those Jews were children. One million were killed in the forests by bullets. In order for the Nazi regime to save bullets, they would make mothers hold their babies to their heads so they could shoot both at the same time. One of the reasons the gas chambers were put in place was not just to mechanise mass murder, but because the German authorities recognised that there was a large psychological impact on the soldiers who were getting covered in brain matter and blood from murdering children. They decided that they must stop the people doing their bidding feeling like that; it was far simpler to herd the Jews into gas chambers and then get Jews themselves to remove the bodies and put them into the furnaces.
Dehumanisation happened in order for millions of people to accept what was going on, and I very much doubt that there were a great many people in Germany who did not have an idea of what was going on—none truer than in Bavaria, the region where Nazism had its roots. As has been described, there was a long history of growing antisemitism; with those decades and decades of hatred, when Germany faced tough economic circumstances coming out of the first world war—feeling that it had been punished by the whole of Europe, despite not losing any territory—and Adolf Hitler looked for a scapegoat, one was easy to find.
Germany paid a price for that—not just in terms of the price of the war and what happened, but because it led to an incredible brain drain of academic talent. Albert Einstein is one example. It drove huge intellect—scientists, engineers, doctors—out of Germany, because among those who were murdered, as has been mentioned, were academics and anybody who might challenge the regime. I am afraid that we are now seeing levels of hostility in the United Kingdom that mean that many people are thinking that they might be better off leaving. Beyond the absolute moral outrage of the issues of 80 years ago happening in front of our eyes today in the 21st century, our country will be far poorer for that.
Leeds has a large and proud Jewish population. They are strong and resilient. Jews have been in Leeds for more than 150 years. They have added hugely to the businesses, community and fabric of society that Leeds has become. I am proud that I have so many friends in the Jewish community, including, I am proud to say, the Lord Mayor of Leeds, Councillor Dan Cohen. However, they are frightened. They find it difficult to go into Leeds city centre on Saturdays during protests. They want to stand up to what is being said, but get pursued down the street and have vicious abuse thrown at them.
I stand here today not just to remember the Holocaust, but to say that remembrance is not enough. Speeches today, including the opening of my speech, have outlined what happened in the Holocaust; other Members have outlined the causes that led up to the Holocaust. But we are sitting back and not naming and shaming those who are encouraging the root where this started.
I have said this before in this Chamber and I am going to say it again today. There is a councillor in my city of Leeds, Councillor Mothin Ali—who has now become the deputy leader of the Green party—who put out social media on 7 October 2023 praising Hamas and what they had achieved. He was not a councillor at that point, but he was a candidate. There is a complex issue between what is freedom of speech and what is agitation, but there can be no doubt, frankly, that he agitated a mob that forced the Jewish priest of the University of Leeds, Rabbi Deutsch, into hiding. The leader of the Green party on Leeds city council, Councillor Penny Stables, who is a councillor in my constituency, brushed that aside. She said that it did not matter what he had said before he was elected, as he was not a councillor. I really have to take issue with that. As we have heard, it is the acceptance of people making these comments that eventually leads to history repeating itself.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) made some very important points. He talked about fake news and how things are twisted. I cannot remember who it was, but another Labour Member said that Ofcom must take a much stronger view with regard to content being put online. We know what is poisoning children’s minds, but that is a different debate. I was knocking on doors and I met a gentleman, who must have been retired. He started off by absolutely laying into me for my support for Israel defending its security and saying what a disgrace of a human being I was, and then he said to me, “You know as well as I do, because you will have seen the video footage, as I have, that Hamas had nothing to do with 7 October. It was the Israelis who murdered their own people so that they could invade Gaza.” He said that to me as a fact, with absolute conviction. That is the level of hatred being generated because the Israelis are Jews. Let us call this out. This is beyond politics; this is Jewish hatred.
Huge protests have been taking place. People have a right to protest and to condemn what they see going on in the world, but where are the protests about what is happening in Sudan or against the Iranian regime, which may well have murdered a five-figure number of people?
Peter Prinsley
The right hon. Member is making a really powerful speech. Does he agree that there is a strong suspicion that some of the hate marches we have seen on the streets of Britain have been orchestrated by Iranian agents?
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
There is a lot of evidence to back that up. The phrase passes me by, but there is a sphere of influence that Iran wanted to put in place through Iraq and Syria, with Hamas and Hezbollah as its proxies to run things, and we have debated in this Chamber so many times the malign influence of Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the proscription of that body that that is undoubtedly true.
We have tolerated things for too long. We tolerated streams of cars along Marylebone Road, many years ago, beeping their horns and claiming that the Jews should be murdered and the women should be raped. That did not get the crackdown that it needed. On the flipside—I will not go over this again, because we know what happened—we see West Midlands police deciding that it was far easier just to ban Israelis. Let us remember that the fans were not all Israelis; there were plenty of British citizens who are fans of Maccabi Tel Aviv who wanted to go to that football match. Rather than protecting the laws that fans who go to a country should respect, people in authority thought, “It is far easier just to stop them.” How did we get to that point? For an easy laugh, we decided, “The Jewish community is so small, and there are lots of people who hate it, so it is easier just to say, ‘You can’t come’.” That is shameful.
I have given notice that I am going to name the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). When he led the Labour party—a great and highly respected political party in our country, with much history —I am afraid that he gave a safe space to antisemitism. I praise the Prime Minister for the action he took in driving antisemitism out of the Labour party.
I look around, and I look at the agitation of the councillor I have named and of the people associating themselves with some political parties, and I say this: it is the responsibility of the leadership of the Green party to follow the example of the Labour party in how it addressed the creeping in of antisemitism into its party. I am not saying that it is the policy of the Green party to be antisemitic—I am not saying that at all—but it must address the issue far more seriously than it has done, because I see a repeat of the years from 2015 to 2019.
As I bring my comments to a close, I want to mention the actions of Leeds city council. The protests that take place in Leeds are one thing—the police give permission, and we have powers in place so that when there is hate speech and laws are broken, people can be arrested and prosecuted—but West Yorkshire police has made it clear to Leeds city council that when protesters want to use its land, it should charge them rent. The reason West Yorkshire police wants that is that it attaches an organisation to what is happening. Leeds city council has refused to do that; it is giving permission to bodies to protest, but it is not using the system, which is in place, to charge for the use of land. West Yorkshire police has said that it will be able to crack down on hate speech, violent speech and incitement to violence if it has somebody held accountable. That accountability on its own may temper what is happening.
There was a speaker called Dr Rehiana Ali—quite frankly a vile individual—at one of those rallies, and she called for the targeting of the Jewish schools in Leeds. That has nothing at all to do with the war in Gaza. Schoolchildren—let alone British citizens or anybody, quite frankly, who is not running the Israeli Government—have nothing to do with the actions of the Israeli Government. That is antisemitism as raw as it gets, but it was difficult to bring her to justice, because it was difficult for West Yorkshire police to be able to prosecute directly. I believe that the Met Police prosecuted in the end.
Let me finish on a point about Sudan, Iran and the Russians in Ukraine. The one thing that they all have in common is that they are not Jewish. That shows the level of antisemitism in this country. If we are dealing with a Jewish community, people think, “Let’s whip up a mob. Let’s say what we like. Let’s watch authorities like West Midlands police stand back and think it is easier to just stop the problem happening.” The road to hell is paved with alleged good intentions.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you advise me on what course I can take when a Member of this House repeatedly uses speeches to misrepresent members of the public, who are not able to be present to speak for themselves?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The hon. Lady will be aware that that is not a matter for the Chair. At any point, she would have been able to seek to intervene on the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke).
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a privilege to speak in this important debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for opening it in such a powerful way. I was struck by his earlier reflection on whether it is sometimes easier not to commemorate and remember. That testimony is combined with the moving speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) about the words for history and the words for remembrance. I want to make the case that it is important to remember, and that how we remember, and the actions that remembrance brings to us, are hopefully what will matter most today.
As has been mentioned, the theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day is “Bridging Generations”. Every day, the recollection of survivors passes from memory into history. Like most hon. Members here today, I have had the privilege of hearing my constituents’ recollections and memories, and those of Holocaust survivors, of what this means to them. Passing down their experience is increasingly vital to preserving our understanding as a society of the atrocious crimes committed in the Holocaust. We must never allow ourselves to forget or minimise these horrors, and bridging the generational gap is more important than ever.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
In talking about the events that happened, we have spoken about the dehumanisation. The Holocaust Educational Trust runs visits to Birkenau-Auschwitz, as part of which, at the end, family photographs and things like that are displayed to rehumanise people. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has been able to attend, but I think it is one of the most exceptionally moving things anyone could witness.
Rachel Blake
I thank the right hon. Member for recalling that exhibition for us. What we have seen in Parliament over the last few weeks has been incredibly powerful.
A key part of bridging the generational gap are the very youngest generation of survivors, many of whom first arrived in the UK on the Kindertransport. A memorial to that stands in my constituency at Liverpool Street station, where many of the children met their foster families. Most of them remained in the UK, and they and their descendants are our neighbours, our families and our friends.
This week, I joined City residents and workers in the congregation at Bevis Marks, the oldest synagogue in continuous use in Europe, for the Holocaust Memorial Day service. Bevis Marks is a testament to London’s history of tolerance, openness and pluralism. I pay tribute to the work of the local community in creating the Jewish Square Mile project, which is bringing together the community and recording this long and deep history.
The City of London’s Jewish population dates back to the time of William the Conqueror, and it has long held a stake in the City’s civic life. This early history was a painful one. London’s Jewish population was falsely accused of practices such as coin clipping, and it was barred from the coronation of Richard I and subjected to multiple massacres across the middle ages. However, moving into the 18th and 19th centuries, as pogroms swept across the continent, it was to London that hundreds of thousands of European Jews fled. Many of their descendants later hosted the refugees from the Kindertransport.
The Kindertransport is a reminder not just of what Britain and its people can achieve when we work together, driven by compassion, but that we cannot be complacent that good intentions are enough on their own. That complacency has too often been the case when we, as politicians, have failed adequately to address the rise in antisemitism in recent years. We have condemned and lamented hate crimes, but have we done enough to prevent them from recurring? We have spoken with Jewish leaders, but have we truly heard their concerns? I know that many of my Jewish constituents do not believe we have made the progress that is needed.
I am not the first today to mention last October’s horrific attack in Manchester. In the months leading up to it, we will all have spoken to or heard directly from community leaders who warned that something exactly like that might happen. I have spoken to young constituents who are fearful of walking to shul. Jewish people across the country are experiencing prejudicial antisemitic hate. It needs to end, and we need to end it. Every Member of this House has a role to play in bridging generations and communities. We are leaders in our neighbourhoods, villages, towns and cities. At a time when relations between and within communities remain so broken, our time to act is now. I ask each and every one of us: what is next? What are we doing to convene leaders of all faiths and none? What are we doing to ensure that our children are being taught about the reality of the Holocaust in school and online? What are we doing to address the hatred and violence of the past few years head-on? Will we remain determined to tackle online hatred and antisemitism?
The road to ending hatred sadly takes years to travel, and the results will take longer to show than many of us would like, but we have gone down the road of detoxification before, so a way exists. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) for his suggestion on how to proceed. It centres on the human contact, recognition of shared values, empathy and respect that was shown to the 10,000 Jewish children whose lives the British public were able to save.
We must remember the Holocaust alone in deep reflection, but we must also come together to remember the extremes of good and evil that regular people are capable of. If we leaders recognise that we can shape things through our empathy, compassion and respect, we will stop it happening again.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
It is an honour to be here, representing my Dwyfor Meirionnydd constituents and Plaid Cymru, to remember, first, the 6 million Jewish children, women and men murdered in the Holocaust, and also the millions more murdered in the Nazi persecution of other communities, which many other Members have mentioned.
I hand my greatest congratulations to the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) on his excellent introduction, and to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols). We will bear in mind those words:
“history is someone else’s story; memory is my story.”
Of course, there has also been reference to our history in the United Kingdom. When we look abroad, it is very important that we know what has happened here.
As we commemorate the victims of the Holocaust, we remember other atrocities: the Holodomor in Ukraine, and genocide against the Armenians, and in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur. Forgive me, but that is not, and cannot be, an exhaustive list. There have been, there are and there will be other crimes of genocide. We cannot comfort ourselves by presuming that these events are consigned to history.
The convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide is the treaty that criminalises genocide. The definition is deliberately narrow:
“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
We know that this is happening now, and that it will happen in the future. We need international bodies and the rules-based order to hold people to account for genocide, to define it, and to take criminal steps as necessary. We know that we need that, because we can look back and learn that from history.
In the noise and confusion of present events, we are required to call out genocidal actions, wherever and by whomever they are committed. It is our duty to be the watchdogs warning against genocide, be it in Myanmar against the Rohingya Muslims, in China against the Uyghur Muslims, or in Gaza against the people of Palestine.
The International Court of Justice is, as we speak, deciding on the application of the convention of genocide to Myanmar. This decision will be of immense significance in relation to forced displacement and Myanmar’s military attacks on the Rohingya. If the Court rules that mass deportation was a motive, not a defence, for genocide, that may become a precedent for a similar ruling against the Israeli Government; it is important that that is said today.
The theme for International Holocaust Memorial Day this year is “Bridging Generations”. It is a reminder that the responsibility of remembrance lives on through not only survivors, but their descendants, and all of us. It is also a reminder of our fragile link to the Holocaust. A 2026 study from the Claims Conference shows that approximately 196,000 Jewish holocaust survivors are still with us. They are a living testimony to the horrors imposed by Nazi Germany, and a lesson from history to never repeat those horrors. They are also ageing. The median age of Jewish holocaust survivors is 87. By preserving the link with our past, we can ensure its retelling. It is vital that we keep listening to and sharing their testimonies, so that future generations can understand how distortions of truth can lead to the greatest crime of all: genocide.
The manipulation of truth is a vital component of genocide. The Nazis played on prejudice and stereotypes to scapegoat and dehumanise people they regarded as subhuman. The Nazi regime also practised a propaganda of deception by hiding details about the “final solution”; there were press controls to prevent the public reading statements by the allies condemning Nazi crimes. One booklet printed in 1941 glowingly reported that in occupied Poland, German authorities had put Jewish people to work, built clean hospitals, set up soup kitchens, and provided Jewish people with newspapers and vocational training. The authority of the written word and the broadcast word was abused to manipulate the truth.
Carla Denyer
The right hon. Member is giving a most powerful speech. On her point about false narratives, I wonder whether she agrees that it is so important to distinguish between legitimate criticism of the actions of a state, and hate directed towards people because of their religion. It is worrying to have heard remarks in today’s debate—a debate on the Holocaust, of all things—that seemed to blur the line between those two things.
Liz Saville Roberts
The hon. Member makes an important point. I think that we can be sophisticated enough to call out the horrors of Hamas while criticising actions that may well be found in future to comprise genocide. We have not reached that point in law yet, but we in this place should be open to questioning received narratives.
Most Members here are trying to phrase our arguments in the measured way that the debate deserves. We are talking about horrific crimes against humanity in the past, and possibly in the present. That needs to be done in a balanced way. All of us are horrified by the actions of Hamas and the attacks in Manchester last year. At the same time, there are wider questions—how we find a balance, and how we, in our privileged position, use the language at our disposal to make sure that we are not pushing truth further and further into the undergrowth.
Jan Karski was a Polish Catholic diplomat who brought eyewitness reports of the true scale of Nazi atrocities to western leaders as early as 1942. He risked his life to alert the world to murder. Largely ignored at the time, Karski argued that
“the common humanity of people, not the power of governments, is the only real protector of human rights”.
His memory is a challenge to all of us who speak as public leaders.
If this year’s theme teaches us anything, it is to be alert to those who would distort the truth for their own ends. We must listen to genocide survivors and support those who shine a light on grave injustices, wherever they are. It is only through listening to testimony, and through our common humanity, that we can learn from the past and secure genuine justice for victims. We must stand against actions such as the terrible attacks in Manchester last year.
In an increasingly troubled world in which the rules-based order is threatened, we would all do well to remember that the genocide convention obligates state parties to pursue the enforcement of the prohibition on genocide. Though the promise of “never again” has been ignored time and again, we must all play our part in listening and learning from the stories of the victims of genocide.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for opening the debate, and everybody else who has spoken so compassionately, with clarity and authenticity. The feeling that has come out is clear for everyone to see.
The Holocaust inflicted pain on a scale that most of us will never truly comprehend—pain that did not end in 1945, and that still echoes through families, memory and generations of the Jewish community. This is not history at a distance; this was cruelty by design. It was mass murder, carried out deliberately on an industrial scale. Its trauma did not disappear; it was inherited.
Today, I will speak about one survivor—one voice that we must listen to while we can. Her name is Susan Pollack. She is a Holocaust survivor who recently turned 95, and whom I had the privilege of meeting and interviewing. Susan was born in Hungary. Long before the camps, hatred crept into her life: graffiti on walls, Jewish students barred from universities, and her brother being beaten at a boy scout meeting. Each sign carried the same message: “You do not belong.”
Then came the order. Susan’s family were forced from their home. They were told that they were being resettled. She clung on to that word, because hope—even false hope—was all she had. A letter followed; all Jewish fathers were ordered to attend a meeting. Susan’s father went, desperate to protect his family. He was beaten, forced into a lorry and taken away. Susan never saw him again. To this day, she does not know how or where her father died.
Then came Susan’s turn. In May 1944, she and her family were transported by cattle trucks to Auschwitz-Birkenau. She was 15. Somebody whispered to her, “Don’t say you’re younger than 15,” so when she was asked, she said, “15 and a half.” She later learned why. Children under 15 were sent with their mothers directly to the gas chambers. Susan lost her mother, and with that loss came horrors beyond language: mothers watching their children die; children searching for protection that could not come; entire families murdered in minutes. That is what hatred looks like when it is given power.
The cruelty did not stop. Susan’s hair was shaved, she was inspected—yes, inspected—starved and silenced. She watched people die, not by accident but by policy. She was later sent to Bergen-Belsen. By then, she said,
“dehumanisation killed any thoughts in our heads.”
For an entire year, she did not speak. She once recognised somebody from her village. The next day, that woman was dead.
When liberation came, Susan told me something that must never be ignored: there was no joy at being liberated. She had lost her parents, 50 members of her family, her entire community. She did not even know whether her brother was still alive. Liberation could not undo what had been destroyed. That was Susan’s experience, and it was the experience of 6 million Jewish people and millions of others, systematically murdered because hatred was allowed to rule. The Holocaust did not begin with the gas chambers; it began with words—with lies repeated until they sounded like the truth, with people labelled as “other”, with hatred normalised, and with silence excused. That is why remembrance alone is not enough, because “never again” is not a slogan; it is a test—a test of whether we challenge antisemitism when we see it and when it is inconvenient to do so, whether we confront fascist rhetoric when it masquerades as opinion, and whether we defend human dignity when it costs us something.
Six million Jews were murdered not because the world did not know, but because too many looked away. Susan Pollack survived Auschwitz. She survived Bergen-Belsen. She survived an attempt to erase her humanity. But survival alone was not justice, and silence was never safety, so the lesson of the Holocaust is clear: when hatred is tolerated, it grows; when lies go unchallenged, they spread; when humanity is divided into us and them, violence is never far away.
That is why this House must be unequivocal: we will not excuse antisemitism. We will not tolerate fascism. We will not stand by while people are dehumanised, in our politics, in our communities or in our public life. Because remembrance demands resolve—resolve to speak when others stay silent, to act when others hesitate and to defend our shared humanity every time it is threatened. We owe that to Susan Pollack; we owe it to the six million; we owe it to the future. If “never again” is to mean anything at all, it must mean now and it must mean us.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate once again. There have been some profound, passionate, emotional and informative contributions, as is so often the case when we put our political exchanges to one side. As Members have mentioned, this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day theme is, “Bridging Generations”. Every year we move further away from the horrific events of the Holocaust, it becomes even more distant, and every year more of our Holocaust survivors pass away. I understand that the median age of Holocaust survivors globally is 87. It is becoming harder and harder for those few remaining survivors to share their testimonies in person. Nothing compares to the raw shock of hearing the horrors of the Holocaust spoken from the mouth of someone who experienced it. When those voices pass away, who will pick up the mantle?
That is why this year’s theme is so important. We have to bridge the gap between the generations. We must begin the process of passing on the responsibility of remembrance from survivors to the next generations. Sadly, as a global society, we have not learned the lessons, and we know there have been many examples of genocide since the Holocaust.
Last year, I spoke in this debate ahead of the 30th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide, which the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) mentioned— I apologise if I make some of the same points. I have taken a particular interest in the western Balkans because when I studied for my politics degree, one of the units was the break-up of Yugoslavia. When I arrived here in Westminster, I became involved in the various all-party groups that focus on the region, and I subsequently served as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to the western Balkans.
The Srebrenica genocide took place in July 1995 during the Bosnian war. As has been said, 8,372 Bosniak Muslim men and boys were murdered, and it is legally recognised as the first genocide on European soil since world war two. It was a campaign of war crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide against the non-Serb population. The war cost over 100,000 people their lives and caused the displacement of more than 2 million men, women and children.
Like others, I had the privilege of meeting some of the Mothers of Srebrenica, a group that represents the mothers, wives, daughters and families of those who perished. It does magnificent work in keeping the world focused on the terrible events of July 1995.
Today, as we look back on three decades since that darkness fell over Bosnia, we can ask the same question about the Srebrenica genocide. When the voices that speak of that genocide finally fall silent, who will speak for them? Sadly, as with our Holocaust survivors, in the coming years and decades the direct testimonies of Srebrenica survivors will be merely written ones.
I have before spoken in the Chamber about my visits to Srebrenica. As with visits to military cemeteries in Belgium and France, or indeed to country churchyards where a handful of graves are maintained by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, the sacrifice of so many people hits home on those visits to Srebrenica. Like any location where tombstones stretch for row upon row, the harrowing sight and silence of the Potočari battery factory stirs the emotions.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the gravestones that mark massacres in Bosnia and elsewhere. They emphasise the importance of Holocaust Memorial Day and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, because millions of people were cremated so that there was no evidence of genocide.
Martin Vickers
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend.
Srebrenica is located in Republika Srpska, a semi-autonomous region of Bosnia and Herzegovina controlled by Serbs as part of the Dayton peace agreement. Many perpetrators are still at large, and genocide denial is widespread among some groups of Bosnian Serbs. Had it not been for the involvement of the international community, the Potočari memorial may never have come into being at all.
The decision to locate the Srebrenica-Potočari memorial and cemetery and to secure its funding was made by the UN High Representative. Much of the funding came from foreign countries. The village of Potočari was chosen by survivors and bereaved relatives because it was where many of them last saw their loved ones. The Srebrenica-Potočari memorial complex was subsequently established in May 2001. Beginning as a cemetery, the site was officially opened by former US President Clinton on Saturday 20 September 2003.
The lesson we learn from Srebrenica is that hatred and intolerance can flourish if left unchallenged. In Bosnia, people of many faiths lived as neighbours for generations, and yet in a short time those neighbours were viewed not just as the enemy but as an enemy so threatening that they must be ethnically cleansed. Not only were 8,372 men and boys massacred, but thousands of women and girls—some estimates are as high as 50,000—suffered sexual violence. Thousands of women and children were forcibly deported. For children born today, Srebrenica is as much a historical event as the Holocaust was to my generation. And that is the worry: there is danger in distance as it can lead to detachment, and detachment can allow the seeds of division to grow once more.
That leads me to my next point, on addressing the issue of genocide denial. Sadly, we see a rising tide of genocide denial across the western Balkans today. To bridge generations, we must arm our young people with the truth. We cannot allow the history of 8,372 murdered men and boys to be debated into non-existence by those who seek to revive the same nationalist hatreds that led to those murders in the first place. We must ensure that our schools teach not just the dates of the Bosnian war and the genocide in Srebrenica, but the mechanics of them. How does the slow drip of dehumanising rhetoric turn a neighbour someone has lived alongside for many years into an enemy they are willing to destroy? It is young people we must reach; it is for them that the lessons of Srebrenica, the Holocaust and subsequent genocides are most important. They are our future, and it is they who we will rely on to avoid the mistakes of the past.
We live in an increasingly dangerous world—one in which human decency is sometimes in short supply; one that is forgetting the lessons of the recent past. Let us state today that the story of Srebrenica, the Holocaust and other genocides will not fade into the archives and that we will never forget how stripping people of their humanity can lead to some of the worst crimes in human history.
As is often the case, we can turn to the words of our forefathers who wrote the religious texts of the many faiths that are represented here and throughout our country. The service of Compline in the Book of Common Prayer says that we must
“be vigilant, because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour”.
It is vivid, stark language, but sadly the devil can enter the hearts of people, especially when propaganda and evil leadership are involved. We must never forget the brutality of which man is capable, and it is right that we use parliamentary time to commemorate these horrific events.
To the young people watching this debate today or taking part in Holocaust education events in their schools or communities, I say: pick up the mantle. Do not let these testimonies fade away and be forgotten. Bridge the gap between the generations and carry the lessons of the Holocaust forward. When my daughter was in her late 20s, she went on a social project to Rwanda, where she met people who had survived the genocide there. That had an enormous emotional impact on her, which is why I believe it is particularly important that young people are involved. I attended a Holocaust memorial event in the town of Brigg in my constituency last Sunday, and one of the highlights was the readings from pupils of a local school at the short service. We rely on our young people to succeed where past generations have failed.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) who, as so often on topics like this, speaks with great authority.
I rise once again this year to remember the Holocaust, one of the darkest chapters in human history. The industrial-scale extermination of 6 million Jewish people and millions more prisoners of war, political prisoners, Poles, disabled people, members of the LGBT community, Roma and others is a horror so bleak that we must ensure the memory of what was done and those whose lives were taken never fades.
The theme for this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day is “Bridging Generations”. In last year’s debate, we marked the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. Like a number of other Members, I shared some of my own family’s story and spoke about my Jewish great-grandfather. In the intervening year, we have lost more Holocaust survivors who were determined to let the world know what happened to them, their friends and their family in that horrific place. Holocaust education is not just teaching history; it should play a crucial role in combatting antisemitism and hatred, and preventing future genocides. As we are able to hear from fewer and fewer survivors each year, there is an additional duty for all of us to educate future generations on the atrocities that were committed on European soil.
In my constituency just last month, a group of masked young men were photographed giving the Nazi salute and brandishing the symbol of the SS on the steps of our town house in Kirkcaldy. It was so shocking that at first, I thought the image must have been generated by AI, because things like that don’t usually happen round our way, but the local police confirmed that it was real. It was honestly frightening that those men felt comfortable participating in such an act in broad daylight, not 400 yards from our Holocaust memorial or the war memorial, which commemorates the hundreds of Kirkcaldy men who died fighting the Nazis.
Acts like this are a warning to us all: hatred spreads in plain sight. There are those among us, including some who sit in this place, whose purpose is to sow and stir hatred and division in our communities. It is fostered and spread online, in the presence of vulnerable young minds. This is an eradication of historical record and memory in favour of misinformation. I am grateful to my local police force in Kirkcaldy for its swift action in identifying, arresting and charging suspects, as well as to the many Fifers who expressed their outrage that such an ignorant, offensive and dangerous act had taken place in our midst. I have said to my constituents that, in the months and years ahead, sadly we—and they—must all be prepared to take a visible stand against hate.
Some of the people in that photograph were not men but boys, who apparently said that they had not understood what the gesture of the Nazi salute meant, nor understood the SS symbol on the flag that they held, but that is why the theme of “Bridging Generations” is so crucial. As the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, education and memory must become a responsibility. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), in a profound speech, spoke about the difference between history and memory.
We in Kirkcaldy are proud of our Holocaust memorial, designed by students from three Fife schools who visited Auschwitz-Birkenau in 2005. The sculpture is in the shape of a doorway, and has symbols carved into it that were used across Europe and America in the 1930s to tell others, “This is a safe place.” The UK, and towns like mine in Fife, has long been a safe place for minorities and those fleeing persecution. It is incumbent on all of us to call out racism and antisemitism and those who seek to divide us. I know that the vast majority of my constituents—indeed, of our country—agree with that, but we can take nothing for granted in today’s uncertain world.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) so eloquently said, we cannot assume that it will not happen again. Indeed, in the wake of the antisemitic attacks on Heaton Park synagogue and Bondi Beach, we must be clear eyed about what is happening. In the aftermath of the Holocaust and world war two, international law and the rules-based order were created, to put lines in the sand about right and wrong and to learn the lessons of what had taken place. Now, as the rules-based order is increasingly trampled on by nations that should know better, we the UK must do more to prevent mass atrocities. There must be better prediction, prevention and response to mass identity-based violence.
Data suggests that since 2012 there has been an increase in the number of countries where mass atrocity crimes are occurring, and action is needed to stop it. There is a gap in global leadership on this agenda, and it shows. The UK has never had a strategy for the prevention of mass atrocity crimes. Given the state of global affairs, surely we need one now more than ever. Surely, too, we should seek to build a coalition with like-minded countries to monitor the warning signs and act together to prevent the mass murder of citizens who are targeted simply because of who they are. I ask the Minister to take that away.
In the aftermath of the Holocaust, humanity was determined to prevent genocide, mass atrocities and identity-based violence from taking place ever again, but the warning light is flashing red and it is time for renewed domestic and international action, alongside education. Holocaust Memorial Day is often marked by the lighting of a candle. It is now up to us to light that candle, and carry the memory of those who perished with us always.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is an honour to represent the SNP in today’s debate on Holocaust Memorial Day. Six million Jews were murdered. I was trying to think about what words to use to describe it. The word “tragedy” was one of the first I thought of, but a tragedy is something that is unavoidable—in my head, anyway, it is something that was going to happen. This was evil perpetrated by humans. The hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) talked about the brutality of which man is capable. That was the phrase that stuck with me from today’s debate. It is about the brutality that human beings are capable of inflicting on one another.
The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) talked about othering. The ability that human beings have to begin to “other” humans by grouping them together because of some perceived difference is horrific, and something that we should all be aware of and think of when we talk about the lessons of the Holocaust and learning from what happened in Nazi Germany.
The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) talked about what happened, and a number of other Members have also talked about what did not happen. Not every single person in Nazi Germany was a Nazi, responsible for taking Jewish people to the camps, but enough people in Nazi Germany were willing to turn a blind eye to that. I am not blaming individuals for their actions—maybe their family were being threatened, maybe they were terrified, maybe they had circumstances that we cannot contemplate today—but every one of us who has moments when we do not stand up against hatred and othering needs to think about why we are not doing so. Whether we are Members of Parliament, members of the public, community leaders or faith leaders, we need to think about whether we would be able to sleep at night if we knew people would be looking back through history at our actions and considering us to have been bystanders, rather than people who took action when it was needed—when that othering was happening.
Every human being has value. A person’s value is not based on their religion, their country of birth, the colour of their skin, which town they currently live in, how much money they make or what job they do. Every human being inherently has value, and we all have a responsibility as representatives to ensure that whatever differences exist between us, we recognise and stand up for the value of every one of our constituents and every one of the people across these islands. We have a responsibility to stand up to anyone, whether they are a Member of this place, a politician at a different level or a member of the public, and say to them, “No, somebody is not less because you have put them in a box—because you have suggested that they are somehow other. They have just as much value as you do; it does not matter what country they were born in, who they worship, or what religious text is sitting on their bedside table.” We all have value just because we are human beings, and we all have that responsibility.
I want every one of us, whether we are in this Chamber or outside of it, to be able to sleep at night because we know that we have done the right thing—that we have stood up against that drip, drip, drip of the beginnings of hatred that can culminate where we ended up with the Holocaust. I find it very difficult to comprehend how someone can go from being slightly negative about somebody, or about a group, to the mass industrial murder that we saw, because I am not in that situation. I find it very difficult to contemplate how that can happen, but we know that it has—it happened not just in Nazi Germany, but in Srebrenica and Darfur.
The hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) talked about the international rules-based order and the reason why it was set up. None of the international organisations that we have relied on and listened to was set up simply as a trading organisation. The genocide convention was put in place because every country needed to ensure that we had learned those lessons, and were collectively resolved to never do it again. Some comments are being made about international organisations, saying, “We can step away from that trading organisation,” but that is a bit misinformed, because it is not just about that. We must ensure that we are working together to prevent genocide, not by policing one another, but by assisting one another to ensure that every country sees the value of every human and that we never “other” people like that again.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady on her speech. One way to start to address the issue is in schools, at an educational level. Some of the history teachers back home tell me that they struggle to include the Holocaust in the history curriculum. Politics students can come to Parliament and learn all about it and then take it back to their school. I think of my son and his friends from Glastry college back home. They went to Auschwitz as children, and their attitude and life changed dramatically. Does the hon. Lady agree that helping educationally by funding trips to Auschwitz would be a way of addressing these issues?
Kirsty Blackman
I absolutely agree, and I know that a number of schools in Scotland take part in trips to Auschwitz. It is important that that continues, particularly given the theme of “Bridging Generations”. Fewer and fewer individuals can talk about their experiences, and it is incredibly important that we remember that history and that this was a real thing that happened. There is too much Holocaust denial of all sorts. We need to be showing people, so that they can tackle that disinformation and misinformation with the evidence of their own eyes.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. This Sunday, I went to our Holocaust Memorial Day event in Leeds and met Trude Silman, my former constituent from when I was a councillor. She is 97 years old, and we have fewer and fewer of these Holocaust survivors. I pay tribute to the children of Holocaust survivors—the second generation—including my father, who gave oral testimony to the Holocaust Centre North. I hope that by next Holocaust Memorial Day that will be transcribed and available to the public, not just so that my children and I can understand our family’s history, but so that everybody can learn from that and understand our link in the UK to the Holocaust and how it can echo through the generations.
Kirsty Blackman
I hope that we see that testimony shared more widely. I have a conflicting thought, however: while it is important that we hear testimony, listen to testimony and amplify that testimony, forcing people who may not necessarily want to relive that trauma to continually relive that trauma for us to learn is not always the best way forward. We have to find a balance between how we can educate people and not retraumatising survivors.
I am contacted by a number of people expressing deeply wrong views—not necessarily teenagers, but older adults in some cases. They are “othering” in their minds and putting ethnic or religious groups in some sort of box. Dealing with disinformation and misinformation is not just about young people, but every generation. We must do more to tackle that.
I do not want to take up too much of the House’s time, but I thank everybody who does stand up, whether in this place or not. It is appreciated when people take a moment to tackle and challenge those false narratives and are willing to say, “This is wrong. It is wrong to dehumanise people. It is wrong to put people in a box based on their religious convictions, their sexuality or the colour of their skin.” Anyone who is willing to do that in any circumstance is appreciated. It is not easy to do, but we all need to do it, because none of us wants to end up in a situation where we are bystanders as atrocities are committed. I thank everybody who does stand up. I thank all those people at the Holocaust Educational Trust and all those involved in Holocaust Memorial Day for bringing the information to us, so that we can make speeches and talk to our constituents about this and so that we can do our best to listen and to challenge those horrific, untrue narratives.
Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for not just his opening remarks but his commitment to this cause, both in this House and outside it. The Holocaust was a unique event in human history in which the state waged external war with expressly genocidal aims, combined with the industrialisation of killing as a transcontinental enterprise.
The Holocaust matters to us today because we owe it to the dead, and to the living who went through that horror, to commemorate their suffering; because we should pay tribute to those still with us, as well as those who have gone before us and who brought an end to the Hitler regime, whose raison d’être was the mass murder of Jews and others whom they saw as less human; and, perhaps most importantly, because we owe it to ourselves to remind each other of where the poison of racist hatred takes humanity.
Holocaust Memorial Day matters more this year, because there has undoubtedly been an appalling rise in antisemitic violence and in the public and private abuse of Jews. If the Holocaust teaches us anything, it is to stand up and call out hatred and racism. There is now a barely hidden campaign to drive Jews out of public and civic life in Britain—a campaign, I am sad to say, in which Members of this House are active participants or complicit. The eruption of antisemitism in Britain since 7 October 2023 has underlined how supposed progressives and anti-racists are fine to speak out, unless it is about hatred of Jews. Campaigners have marched alongside open supporters of fascistic Hamas and shouted slogans advocating a global war against Jews. They have done all this because they believe that their new-found allies are merely “anti-Zionist” and not actually antisemites at all.
The arguments that dominate today’s antisemitic discourse are superficially more sophisticated, and are increasingly shaped by the melting pot of extreme ideas that is provided by social media, but the reality is that the far right, the far left and the Islamists still rely on the old tropes of hidden Jewish power and manipulation, Jewish blood lust, and Jews as the killer of Christ. They now hide this behind the words “Zionism” or “Israel” and hope that people will not spot the difference. Through social media, many of these ideas have seeped into the discourse of what is supposedly mainstream.
In 2019, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) told the Bruges Group of the supposed threat of “cultural Marxism”, an idea that has direct Nazi roots. It is a phrase that the former MP Andrew Percy warned others against using. In 2024, Liz Truss was forced to remove a bogus and antisemitic quote attributed to Mayer Rothschild from her memoirs. Then there is the case of Reform’s recently announced candidate for Gorton and Denton, who, like the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), appears not to believe that ethnic minority children born here can ever be British or understand British humour. This is the antisemites’ baseline argument about the otherness of Jews, retooled for the use of today’s insurgent far right and far left.
It behoves all of us to call out the issues in our midst, and there has been too much silence in this regard. Members of this House have been involved in stoking the fires of Islamist hatred, antisemitism and Holocaust inversion. Perhaps some will make very fine speeches about Holocaust memorial, as they did last year, but we should not allow ourselves to be fooled. One Member of this House, writing about the middle east on social media, invoked images of the gas chambers, a barbaric creation used for the industrialised and systematic murder of Jews—Jewish men, women and children. That trivialises the Holocaust.
However, there is not only Holocaust inversion; there are outright antisemitic tropes. Members of this House have shared posts on social media of images of political leaders being “dog-walked” or controlled by Israeli politicians or the Zionist lobby. This draws on stereotypes of Jewish power and control, and alludes to some kind of malign Jewish influence. These classic antisemitic tropes have existed for thousands of years, but are continually being repackaged and updated to fit the contemporary political context.
In the Budget debate, the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) talked about her constituents “bleeding…dry”, because of our Government’s support of Israel, and we also heard a Member of this House talk about Israel’s—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I want to make sure that protocol has been followed. First, we obviously do not mention Members by their names, not that the hon. Member has done that. She has, however, referred to a few Members by their constituencies, so can I have her assurance that she let them know that she would be referencing them in the Chamber during this debate?
Joani Reid
Madam Deputy Speaker, I can confirm that I have written to all the Members I have included in my speech.
Another Member talked about Israel’s “blood-soaked tentacles”. There is no safe limit of antisemitism that we should tolerate, and no requirement for us to apply weaker moral tests of what is an acceptable opinion because of the religious heritage of our interlocutor. Human rights apply universally, and so do human responsibilities. We need to enforce those responsibilities before it is too late. The warning lights are already flashing. We do not have to look back to the 1930s to see how democracies can crash under the burden of political extremism and contempt for the rule of law, because we see that in the news every day.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is an honour to speak in this debate and to follow such passionate speeches, including that of the hon. Member for East Kilbride and Strathaven (Joani Reid). I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) not only on such an eloquent introduction to this debate, but on such an interesting history of the persecution of Jews in Britain for the best part of 1,000 years. That was very informative and provided a much-needed context for our discussion.
Many Members spoke about the individuals, charities and organisations working tirelessly to ensure that the nation and schoolchildren in particular are educated about the Holocaust and will not forget it. As the average age of Holocaust survivors is 87, it is very prescient that the Holocaust Memorial Day theme is “Bridging Generations”. The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust plays a vital role in ensuring that remembrance is not limited to those whose families were murdered in the Holocaust, but includes those who, having been mercilessly killed by the Nazis, were left with no one to speak their names. The legacy of victims with no surviving family or relatives must be safeguarded through education, remembrance and memorial.
If the words “never again” are to mean anything, they must represent a shared commitment to challenge hatred wherever it appears. Sadly, this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day comes against a backdrop of rising antisemitism. Jewish people in the UK are facing unacceptable and rising levels of hatred and violence—and I know from speaking to my constituents in Winchester just how isolating and frightening that can be. No one should feel anxious or scared when going to their place of worship and no one should be denied the freedom to express their religious beliefs. It ought to be a national shame that we need security measures outside places of worship, but with the murder of two members of the Jewish community just last year outside their synagogue, those measures are, unfortunately, necessary.
For so many British Jews, Holocaust Memorial Day is deeply personal. It is a day of grief, of remembrance and of resilience. Primo Levi wrote:
“The story of the death camps should be understood by everyone as a sinister alarm-signal.”
While hatred and division persist, that alarm signal must be in our minds today, and must remain in our minds for generations to come. On my way to the Chamber today, I walked past the very moving exhibition in Parliament of the replicas of the shoes of people who were killed in those death camps. Some of those shoes are of little children. That is a stark and haunting reminder of what the Holocaust required. The Holocaust depended on the systematic dehumanisation of its victims, casting human beings as non-human to justify the unjustifiable. To murder millions, the Nazi state had to treat even little children not as children with names, families and futures, but as something less than human.
In this Chamber and in our communities, schools and neighbourhoods, let us all stand with Jewish communities, because antisemitism has no place in our country or abroad. We must do all we can to ensure that Jewish people can practise their faith freely, live openly and participate fully in our society without fear. We remain today, and will always remain, committed to creating a society that never stops learning from the lessons of history.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a genuine pleasure to speak as a shadow Housing, Communities and Local Government Minister in a debate where Members across the House have been frank, honest, open and emotional. Debates such as this, about our history and our future, often bring out the best in Members, and I pay tribute to all the speeches this afternoon.
I particularly pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), who opened the debate. I do not think that I am alone in saying that he is one of the most gentlemanly and honourable Members of the House in conducting his business. He gave us some beautiful words that we all must learn from, as well as a wonderful history tour. His speech brought our history closer to home, and showed what this country was intrinsically involved in. His honesty in that is admirable.
Notwithstanding the serious nature of this debate, I think that the hon. Gentleman should consider audiobooks, because his dulcet tones should be heard far and wide across the country. They are incredibly soothing. He did a tremendous job today, and I pay tribute to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) reminded us that the Holocaust was not the start or end of antisemitism. His speech was a stark reminder not just of the need to remember, but to acknowledge what is happening now in this country and the world.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) spoke in graphic detail, and he was right to do so. Having been to Auschwitz and to the Holocaust museum in Jerusalem only last month, I know that we must not become desensitised to our history. His graphic speech reminded us of the horrors of the past. He outlined some local issues to do with councillors at Leeds council, and he had every right to do so on the Floor of the House. It is a shame that the leadership of any political party did not feel the need to vet people properly or act on an incredibly serious incident. I remind the House and my right hon. Friend that Hamas is a proscribed organisation, and I hope that the police will take action following his speech to bring that person to justice. He is absolutely right that we need to call out antisemitism and challenge those who look the other way not just by making points of order, but by making substantive contributions in this Chamber, as he did this afternoon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) said that we must arm young people with knowledge about genocide, despite the dehumanisation and nationalism we have seen in the parts of the world that he mentioned. He is absolutely right. That is just a short peppering of the excellent contributions we have had from across the House today.
Holocaust Memorial Day invites us to pause, reflect and recommit ourselves to ensuring that the darkest chapter in human history is never forgotten. This year’s theme, “Bridging Generations”, is a powerful reminder that the responsibility for remembrance does not end with the survivors. It lives on through their children and their grandchildren, and through every single one of us. As a nation, we must never allow the history of the Holocaust to fade from our collective consciousness. As the events of the 1930s and 1940s move further from living memory, our duty becomes even more urgent. We must ensure that future generations know and understand the horrors, traumas and lessons of the Shoah, for remembrance is not a passive act; it is a conscious commitment to education, and to the memory of those killed in barbarous cruelty.
Holocaust Memorial Day plays a vital role in sustaining that commitment. On this day, we commemorate the genocide of 6 million Jews—men, women and children—murdered by Nazi Germany and its collaborators. We also remember the millions of others persecuted and killed: Roma and Sinti people, the disabled, gay men, political opponents, and countless others targeted by a regime built on hatred and dehumanisation. The focus on bridging generations reminds us of our collective role in ensuring that the Holocaust remains a lesson for all those in positions of influence and responsibility. We in this place have a special obligation to ensure that the stories of those who came before us continue to be told accurately, compassionately and courageously to future generations. As we reflect, we must also remember that the Holocaust was not the final genocide of the 20th century. The world has witnessed unspeakable brutality again and again. We all, in this House, send our thoughts to those affected by antisemitic terror, particularly those in Australia, whom many Members across the House mentioned.
The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust reminds us that commemorating these tragedies is not only a moral duty, but a hope that through memory we can build the vigilance needed to prevent these horrors recurring, yet remembrance alone is not enough. We must also confront the reality of antisemitism today. Any discrimination or intimidation based on religion or race is deplorable and must never be tolerated. In 2016, the United Kingdom became the first country in Europe to formally adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism—an important step, but one that we must build on with action against a rising tide of antisemitism.
I am afraid to say that data from the Community Security Trust shows deeply troubling trends. In the first half of 2025 alone, 1,521 antisemitic incidents were recorded across the UK—the second highest total ever reported over such a period. The surge in antisemitism that followed the horrific terrorist attacks of 7 October 2023, before there had been any major military response in Gaza, is a stark reminder that antisemitism remains a persistent, poisonous force. In that context, initiatives to strengthen Holocaust education and public memory are more important than ever. That is why the Holocaust Memorial Act 2026, which received Royal Assent just last week, marks a historic and meaningful milestone. It will finally bring to life the vision first announced in 2015 by Lord Cameron of a national holocaust memorial and learning centre beside Parliament, in Victoria Tower Gardens. It will serve as a lasting tribute to the 6 million Jewish victims, and to all victims of Nazi persecution. It will stand as an enduring educational resource, and a totemic reminder of the consequences of unchecked hatred and the vital importance of resisting it.
At the very moment when education is most urgently needed, we face a worrying decline. As the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket mentioned, in 2023, more than 2,000 secondary schools across the UK took part in Holocaust Memorial Day commemorations, and the number had grown each year since 2019; but in the wake of the 7 October attacks, participation fell to under 1,200 in 2024, and to just 854 in 2025—a drop of nearly 60%. This is alarming, to say the least. Holocaust education should never be seen as political, nor should it be treated as contingent on world events. The Chief Rabbi expressed this with clarity and moral force when he said:
“Holocaust Memorial Day is not a platform for political debate. It is not an endorsement of any Government, perspective or conflict. It is an act of human memory. To insist that it must justify itself by reference to today’s headlines is to fundamentally misunderstand it.”
The Chief Rabbi also reminded us of another essential point:
“The Shoah was not inevitable. It was the end of a road paved with normalised scapegoating, constant disinformation, violent autocracy and a culture of the most extreme hatred. It began not in concentration camps but in classrooms, newspapers and public squares where people learned to look away.”
Holocaust education, then, is not a parochial concern, and it is right that by law children are taught about the Holocaust in the key stage 3 history curriculum. I welcome the Government’s commitment to ensuring that the Holocaust remain a compulsory topic in the reformed national curriculum, which will be required teaching in academy schools, when it is implemented. It is only through education that we can honour those who were killed. To reference the Chief Rabbi once more,
“Honouring Jewish victims of genocide does not diminish compassion for any other people. On the contrary, it enlarges it, because collective memory is not a finite resource.”
Today, as we work to bridge generations, and connect the testimonies of survivors to the responsibilities of our children and grandchildren, let us ensure that the horrors of the Holocaust are never forgotten, and most importantly, never repeated. Let us, across all generations, all parties and both sides of this Chamber, stand together in remembrance, but also united in hope.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) for opening the debate with such a poignant and thoughtful contribution. He set the tone of the debate impeccably. This debate has shown, powerfully and painfully, that the past few years have not been easy for British Jews, or for Jewish communities across the world. Many colleagues have spoken today with a frankness and empathy that reflects the deep concern felt across the House.
Britain is rightly proud of being one of the world’s most successful multi-faith and multi-ethnic democracies—it is part of who we are—so it is with a particularly heavy heart that we recall the attack on Heaton Park synagogue in Manchester on Yom Kippur, one of the holiest days in the Jewish calendar, and the shocking attack at Bondi Beach in Sydney. These events remind us that antisemitism is never a problem for someone else to solve. It is a threat to all of us—to our values, our cohesion, and our shared sense of safety.
This debate, however, is not only about confronting rising antisemitism; it is first and foremost about honouring the 6 million Jewish men, women and children murdered in the Holocaust, and the thousands of Roma and Sinti, disabled people, Jehovah’s Witnesses, gay men and political opponents who were also persecuted and killed. It is also about remembering the genocides that have happened, tragically, in more recent times.
More than 80 years have passed since the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, yet the lessons about where hatred, dehumanisation and violent bigotry can lead remain painfully relevant. Many of us in this House have had the immense privilege of hearing directly from Holocaust survivors. This year’s Holocaust Memorial Day theme, “Bridging Generations”, feels especially poignant. The survivors, who have carried the heaviest of burdens, and who have shared their testimony with extraordinary courage, are fewer each year. We owe it to them to ensure that their voices never fade.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) spoke incredibly powerfully of the memories and stories of that dark period, the profound impact they have, and how sharing them is more important today than it has ever been. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for sharing the heart-wrenching story of Susan Pollack, which is a harrowing reminder of where hate and othering can lead us.
Over the past two weeks, colleagues will have walked through the atrium in Portcullis House and seen “In Their Footsteps”, an extraordinary exhibition of ceramic shoes. It is a quiet but powerful reminder that trauma and memory echo across generations, and that remembrance is not passive, but active, creative and deeply personal. The exhibition also pays tribute to Danny Herman. Danny and his family arrived in the UK on the eve of the second world war, eventually settling in Liverpool, becoming British citizens and contributing to this country in ways large and small, in everything from wartime industry to professional sport. In the atrium, the shoes created by his family speak of love, survival and legacy. They remind us that every survivor’s story is unique, and that everyone deserves to be remembered. The message today is clear: we cannot remember the victims of the Holocaust while ignoring antisemitism in our own time.
Despite the words “never again”, we continue to see violent conflict across the world, and civilians are caught in its path. That underscores the urgency of the work we are discussing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) set out so effectively, we all know that social media can be an extraordinary force for connection, but it can also be a vehicle for spreading Holocaust denial, hatred and division faster than ever before. That is why we must remain vigilant, and why it is so important to safeguard our children—not only to protect them, but to equip them with the critical skills and confidence that they need to challenge hatred when they encounter it.
The Department for Education launched the tackling antisemitism in education innovation fund on Holocaust Memorial Day to address misinformation, improve media literacy and encourage tolerant, informed debate. Some £7 million has already been allocated to tackling antisemitism in our schools, colleges and universities. That includes £500,000 for the University Jewish Chaplaincy, and further funding for the Union of Jewish Students and Palace Yard to train staff to recognise and address antisemitism.
Many Members have spoken today about the importance of testimony. The Prime Minister has made a clear pledge that every student in the country should have the opportunity to hear recorded survivor testimony. Testimony 360, a free digital education programme from the Holocaust Educational Trust that uses virtual reality and digital eyewitness accounts, will help to deliver that promise and ensure that survivors’ voices remain accessible long after they can no longer speak in person.
This Government continue to support high-quality Holocaust education through the University College London Centre for Holocaust Education, and the Holocaust Educational Trust “Lessons from Auschwitz” programme—programmes that have transformed the understanding of thousands of students and teachers, and will continue to do so. This education is vital. As Members have said, it is more important now than ever.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) provided powerful testimony about the rising tide of hate and division, both at home and abroad. She is right to demand that we be vigilant, and that we do better. I will take away her call for a strategy to prevent the mass murder of innocent people simply because of their faith, race, ethnicity or identity. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) was right to remind us that we all have a responsibility to tackle the antisemitism and the rise of hate and division in our communities, and that we must use our empathy, compassion and respect to bridge and hold our communities together. I echo the words of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman): we must all stand up against this hate, and thank everyone who does stand up against it.
I finish by paying tribute to Karen Pollock, the chief executive officer of the Holocaust Educational Trust, whose leadership and passion continue to inspire so many; to Olivia Marks-Woldman and the team at the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, who deliver the national ceremony and countless local events across the country; and to the many other organisations whose work enriches and protects the memory of the Holocaust: the Holocaust Survivors’ Centre in Hendon, the Anne Frank Trust, the Wiener Holocaust Library, the Association of Jewish Refugees, Generation 2 Generation, the National Holocaust Centre and Museum in Newark, the Holocaust Centre North in Huddersfield, and the UCL Centre for Holocaust Education.
I ask the House to take a moment to remember the survivors who shared their testimony with us and who are no longer here. Their courage, generosity and determination to educate others, despite the unimaginable trauma that they endured, is a gift to this country. We honour their memory, and wish their families a long life.
Peter Prinsley
It has been an immense privilege and honour to listen to the many brilliant speeches in the House this afternoon. I thank anybody who said anything kind about me.
I have made some notes about what people said—there is no time to go through all of them, but I must mention one or two. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) spoke with such gravitas; I think she has a future as a distinguished rabbi, should she ever wish to go out of politics, which she perhaps will not. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) spoke about Peter Kurer BEM, who is my sister-in-law’s father. He will be so chuffed to learn that he was mentioned here in Parliament, and I thank the hon. Member for that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) spoke about the Windermere children. We all know that story, but Samantha, who was a University of East Anglia student, became a close friend. She is one of the granddaughters of a Windermere boy, so it was great to hear about that. We will never forget the Heaton heroes.
If there is time, let me quickly explain Bevis Marks, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake). Bevis Marks in the City of London should actually be “Bury Marks”, but I have to stop.
Peter Prinsley
Oh, there is time! In that case, I will tell hon. Members the story. The great Abbey of Bury St Edmunds had large landholdings all over the country, including land in the City of London. Wooden stakes were put out each year to define the land, which were called the Bury marks. “Bevis Marks” is simply a spelling mistake.
Rachel Blake
My hon. Friend may know that Bevis Marks synagogue is very close to Bury Street. I wonder if that is part of his story.
Peter Prinsley
I thank my hon. Friend for that information, which I was aware of.
If I have a little time, let me thank the leader of Plaid Cymru, the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts)—I simply cannot pronounce the name of her constituency. She was correct that we must remember the other genocides, some of which really are a memory for me, not history; many of us can remember several of them.
I was particularly taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal), who spoke about the expression “never again”. As he correctly said, “never again” is a test for all of us. What will we do to ensure that it will never happen again?
Finally, I would like to say something about my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride and Strathaven (Joani Reid), who is the most powerful advocate for the Campaign Against Antisemitism. If it were up to me, I should appoint her as a righteous gentile.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Holocaust Memorial Day.
Education on methanol poisoning
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
On 21 November 2024, Simone White lost her life, aged just 28, following a mass methanol poisoning incident. She was one of six tourists who died after consuming contaminated drinks served at a hostel in the tourist town of Vang Vieng in Laos.
Alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) and the hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson), I have met members of Simone’s family who live in our respective constituencies. The incident has prompted them to campaign for increased awareness and education about the dangers of methanol poisoning abroad.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Orpington,
Declares that bootleg alcohol poses a considerable danger to tourists and has, tragically, resulted in deaths in countries including Laos, Turkey and Vietnam.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that children and young people are taught about the dangers of consuming bootleg alcohol as part of the PSHE or biology curriculum in schools.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003160]
Non-league Football
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the importance of non-league football and the vital role it plays in communities across the country.
Non-league clubs are often more than football clubs. They are community hubs, employers, charities and a source of deep local pride. Nowhere is that clearer than in Hartlepool. Hartlepool United acts as a veterans hub, supporting those in our borough who have served, and it was the first professional football club in England to sign the armed forces covenant. It was also the first to receive a bronze award from the armed forces covenant employer recognition scheme, an achievement that speaks volumes about the values of our club and our town.
Fans are closer to the players in non-league football than at any other level of the game. In towns such as Hartlepool, football is not just entertainment; it is part of who we are. The fortunes of our club are felt right across the community, well beyond the turnstiles. As a proud season ticket holder, I take my children along to Pools at every possible opportunity. I did so before I was elected, and I will continue to do so long after I leave this place, because Hartlepool United belongs to Hartlepool, and Hartlepool belongs to its football club.
While I deeply appreciate the many colleagues who have come to intervene in support of this debate, and I am sure to plug their local teams, I must say that as this debate is in my name, any suggestion that their team is better than Hartlepool United will be given robustly short shrift.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I bow to my hon. Friend’s preference when it comes to Hartlepool, not least because Rochdale were recently subjected to an awful defeat at the hands of the Pools, and I was there to witness it. Hopefully that will not prevent us from winning the national league. He makes a powerful case for the community links of non-league clubs. Will he join me in praising the Dale Trust—the supporters trust—and Dale 1907, which do so much for our local community? Will he also join me at the end of the season, when we put the up into “Up the Dale”?
Mr Brash
Of course I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to those organisations, which exemplify why non-league clubs are so important to their communities. He pre-empts me, because I was going to remind him of our recent match on 30 December, when we beat you 2-1.
I will focus my primary remarks on the national league’s 3UP campaign and what it would mean for non-league clubs such as Hartlepool United. The campaign is simple: it calls for three promotion places from the national league into league two, bringing it into line with the rest of the professional football pyramid. It is supported by all 72 national league clubs, by the Football Supporters Association, by fans across the country, by more than 50 Members of this House—on a Thursday afternoon, I appreciate why they are not here—and by respected voices across the game, including Hartlepool legend Jeff Stelling. I take this moment to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns), who asked me to make special reference to her support for the campaign. I will not mention the result last time Hartlepool met Carlisle.
This would not be a radical restructuring of football; it would be a straightforward reform to make the system fairer, more competitive and more sustainable. As it would simply mirror the structure of the English football league, it can hardly be regarded as a major upheaval. There are 72 clubs in the national league system, and many clubs currently in the EFL have benefited from time spent in the national league, yet only two clubs are promoted each season. That imbalance limits opportunity, suppresses ambition and places enormous financial pressure on clubs that are striving to succeed. At a time when clubs higher up in the leagues are struggling financially, it does not take much imagination to see how that pressure is felt even more sharply at our end of the spectrum.
I fully recognise that the Government do not directly control promotions and relegations—and probably just as well. Those decisions sit with the EFL, but the Government do have influence, particularly at a time when football governance is under greater scrutiny than ever before. With the introduction of the Independent Football Regulator, there is a clear expectation that fairness, sustainability and the long-term health of the game must sit at the heart of decision making. That is why I was proud to walk through the Lobby in support of the legislation that introduced it.
Too often, our game has been overtaken by vested interests, with as many headlines about ownership and governance as there are about the football itself. Pools fans know that only too well. That is why I want to place on record my thanks and welcome to Hartlepool United’s new owner, Landon Smith. His recent takeover has given us our club back. I was delighted to welcome the journalist Robbie Stelling to Parliament. Disgracefully, he was banned from home games by the previous owner, but he is now, quite rightly, welcome once again at Victoria Park. That moment mattered, because it symbolised something bigger: Hartlepool United returning to its supporters, town and values.
Real fans want to see their teams given every possible opportunity to succeed. Real fans want the hope that exists at every other level of the football pyramid. Real fans want 3UP. This change has been stalled for years. It has now been 23 years since the national league was awarded a second promotion place. In that time, the business of football has changed beyond recognition, yet the basic question of parity remains unresolved. The EFL has argued that 3UP should be considered as part of wider reform, but that may take years. National league clubs cannot wait years, and neither can the communities that stand behind them week in, week out.
The EFL board will meet early next month to set the agenda for its annual general meeting, which takes place in early March. This is a critical moment at which a decision could be taken with all member clubs present. If this opportunity is missed, national league clubs face waiting yet another year to be treated as equal partners within the football pyramid.
I ask the following questions of the Minister. What steps will the Government take to encourage constructive engagement between the EFL and the national league? How will the Government ensure that fairness and opportunity are central to the future governance of the game? How will the new regulator support a pyramid that rewards sporting merit and gives ambitious clubs a genuine route upward?
This is about putting football first. It is about fairness and recognising the enormous contribution that non-league clubs such as Hartlepool United make to our communities. I urge the Minister to use the voice of the Government to support that principle. I will finish by simply saying, “Up the Pools!”
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) on securing this important debate. I hope he is not too intimidated by the size of the crowd in here this afternoon. [Laughter.] He is a passionate advocate for non-league football and his own club. He is a dedicated supported of Hartlepool and is a season ticket holder.
Hartlepool United is a club that has seen the highs and lows of the professional and non-league game over its history. As a Scot, I feel a bit of a fraud responding in this debate, because I do not know much about English non-league football. I do know a lot about Scottish non-league football. My own club, Heart of Midlothian, is at the top of the Scottish premiership this season, four points clear of Rangers and flying high.
Paul Waugh
Speaking of clubs that are at the top of their league, Rochdale are at the top of the national league right now. Despite that, we do strongly support the 3UP—and three down—campaign, because although we may well benefit this year from going straight up, we know all too often that clubs can sometimes rack up lots of points but still not go up, as York City did last season even though they were 20 points ahead of Oldham.
As a season ticket holder, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), it is really important that we reward the loyalty of fans and footballers who play for clubs such Rochdale, Hearts and Hartlepool. I also want to pay tribute to Ian Henderson, who marked his 41st birthday last weekend with a goal and an assist and who plays for Rochdale as our record goal scorer.
Ian Murray
With Ian Henderson’s age, maybe there is still time for my hon. Friend to score a hat trick to take the Dale up. He mentioned in his previous intervention the Dale Trust and Dale 1907, and I pay tribute to them. We tend to forget that, right across the country, all our football clubs have strong community spirit and strong charities and trusts attached to them that do so much in the local community—Big Hearts is attached to my football club. Indeed, the reason I mention my club is not just to get it on the record, as we always like to do, but because it is the largest fan-owned club in the UK. That fan ownership was born out of ownership crisis. The club was owned by a Russian-born oligarch from Lithuania, but when it went into administration and liquidation, the fans bought out the club and now it is riding high.
When we see what has been done at Hartlepool— I pay tribute to Landon Smith for taking over the club—hopefully it will have a bright future with that settled ownership. Clubs such as the Pools—or the “monkey hangers”, a nickname which my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool did not mention—are not just sports teams; they are part of the very identity of our towns and the communities within them. They are the institutions that provide pride in place, which is a concept that I know my hon. Friend champions, and they play a vital role in the social and economic fabric of all our communities. Without our football clubs, our communities would be hollowed out, so congratulations to everyone who runs a non-league club.
British and English football is a global success story. Of course, it was invented in Scotland, and Scotland won the world cup in 1967 by beating England at Wembley. [Laughter.] This Government are committed to ensuring that football’s foundations remain strong, sustainable and supported for generations to come, and crucially, that fans are put first. That is really important.
As my hon. Friend has highlighted, the influence of non-league football extends far beyond the pitch. Clubs are frequently the beating heart of our communities, serving as hubs for social cohesion, education and physical activity, and bringing people and our communities together. Department for Culture, Media and Sport research has shown that the sport and physical activity sector contributes £53 billion to our national economy. We must also look at the major social value: the £8 billion of wellbeing value created by grassroots and non-league football and the £43 million saved for our NHS every single year from fans’ involvement in their clubs. Whether it is Hartlepool United’s work with local youth or the thousands of smaller clubs across the country run by volunteers, the Government recognise that every pound invested in non-league football is an investment in the health and happiness of our nation and our communities—and my goodness, don’t we need a bit of that in our communities?
A key pillar of our support for the game is ensuring long-term sustainability through the Football Governance Act 2025, which received Royal Assent in July last year. That historic legislation establishes the Independent Football Regulator, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool mentioned. For the first time, we have a statutory body with the powers to ensure that clubs are run sustainably and to protect the heritage that the fans hold dear—the very lifeblood of the game. Importantly for today’s debate, the regulator’s remit includes the top five tiers of the men’s game, of which Hartlepool and Rochdale are part. That means that clubs in the national league benefit from oversight that demands financial resilience and meaningful fan engagement.
We have also given the regulator backstop powers to intervene in financial distributions. If football is unable to reach an agreement, we want to see a fairer share of the game’s wealth flowing down the pyramid system, ensuring that the prosperity at the very top of the game supports the sustainability of those further down. Non-league football provides the stars—the premier league players—of the future.
The sustainability of non-league football was fundamentally challenged during the covid era and, indeed, post covid. The sport survival package, which was worth £13.4 million in loans, supported 35 non-league clubs when their need was most acute in response to unprecedented circumstances—I know that that has been a huge issue for Hartlepool. We understand that for many clubs, the legacy of that turbulent period remains a challenge. That is why the Department continues to work closely with Sport England, and its loan agent, which regularly engages with borrowers to monitor their financial position.
Physical infrastructure is important and is often a substantial overhead for grassroots community clubs. That is why we are continuing our investment through the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme, which is delivering £98 million this year alone for community clubs below step 6 of the national league system. I am pleased that we have recently confirmed that £85 million will be committed for 2026-27 as well, building on the huge success of the grassroots programme. We understand that for the clubs that are climbing the tiers of the national league system, the requirements for stadium infrastructure become more intensive. That is why we work so closely with the Football Foundation, which my hon. Friend mentioned, that also delivers the Premier League Stadium Fund. Although that is the Premier League’s own fund, its delivery through the Football Foundation ensures that it is aligned with our shared goals for a sustainable pyramid.
I will touch on the 3UP campaign, which is the main thrust of the debate—maybe we will only need “one up” this season if the Dale end up at the top of the division. The Government recognise the strengthen of feeling on the 3UP campaign. It was a major debating point in both Houses during the passage of the Football Governance Act. However, decisions about the structure of football competitions, including promotion and relegation arrangements, are rightly a matter for the footballing authorities, as my hon. Friend says. Otherwise, if we had the power to do so, I would be standing here announcing an extra three or six points for Heart of Midlothian football club. It is not in the power of Ministers to deal with the footballing authorities in that way.
Mr Brash
I should probably point out that my father was a Hibs fan as a child—I hope that does not act against me in this debate. The Minister mentioned that the Football Governance Act requires meaningful fan engagement. Given that fans are so unanimously behind the 3UP campaign, would he see it as a failure of engagement if we do not see that change coming forward?
Ian Murray
After my hon. Friend’s confession about his father being a Hibs supporter, I do not know whether he has gone from being my hon. Friend to just a hon. Gentleman. He is right, and fan involvement in the game was the key driver in the Football Governance Act. One of the key drivers of fan ownership at my own club was to have fan’s voices heard. Fans are the lifeblood of the game. Whether it is ticket prices, the colour of the football club, the name or where they play, all those issues are key because they make football what it is and are why we support the clubs that we do. I hope the EFL listens to the fans on this and sees the strength of feeling on what needs to be done.
The EFL—of course, my hon. Friend knows this—is a membership organisation, and therefore vested interests take hold on whether a club may be advantaged or disadvantaged by 3UP and, of course, all the connotations around that. The EFL and, I hope, its member clubs have heard this, and the fan voice is strong on this campaign. I say from this Dispatch Box that I hope the EFL hears that strength of feeling at its meetings in March.
My hon. Friend mentioned the regulator, and I am pleased that the Independent Football Regulator recently launched its consultation on the terms of reference for its state of the game report. I appreciate him saying that things need to move quickly, but this comes ahead of the report’s publication in 2027, which will be a huge milestone for the regulator. The report will provide unparallelled insight into the structural issues facing the game and the wider football ecosystem, informing the regulator’s approach and decision making. The debate around restructuring leagues and football has been there since time immemorial, and if we put four football fans in a room to debate football reconstruction, we would get eight different answers for how that should go. These are complex negotiations. There will be financial distribution, organisational and scheduling challenges across multiple leagues, and it is ultimately a matter for the EFL.
I hope I can spend a few minutes talking about the women’s game, which is hugely important in this context. As we strengthen the foundation of the men’s game, we are equally committed to the continued transformation of women and girls’ football. Edinburgh South FC in my constituency has 1,200 young people playing every single weekend, many of them girls. The number of girls who want to play is exploding, and I am incredibly proud of the progress we have seen.
As the major independent review led by Karen Carney rightly noted, we must work to raise the standards across every level of the game, including in non-league and grassroots football. Our investment is already delivering gold-standard provision through the Lionesses futures fund—I think England might have won a tournament somewhere. We provided £30 million to deliver state-of-the-art 3G pitches, dedicated female facilities, proper changing rooms and accessible toilets. We have ensured that this infrastructure is not just built but is accessible to all, with reserved peak-time slots and priority booking for women’s teams. These vital learnings are now hardwired into our main facilities programme.
The Government’s support for non-league football is multifaceted. It is about financial regulation, modern facilities and sustainability, but mostly it is about social opportunity. I want to thank the thousands of volunteers who keep our non-league clubs running, the tens of thousands of fans who go every week for their pie, their Bovril and their entertainment. They are the unsung heroes of our national game. This Government will continue to work with the Football Association, the Premier League, the EFL and the new independent regulator to ensure that our non-league clubs remain at the heart of our communities for years to come. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important debate to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Water Quality on the River Yare
Monitoring reason and monitoring summary | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Agency Chemical strategy monitoring | Locally commissioned issues monitoring | Oslo Paris convention monitoring | Monitoring for water company periodic reviews | ||||
Point code | Point name | NGR | Frequency | PBT substances, i.e. metals, pesticides, solvents, PFOS etc | Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphate), phys chem (temperature, pH. conductivity, dissolved oxygen) | Phys chem, nutrients, metals, PCBs | Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphate), phys chem (temperature, pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen) |
YAR003 | Blackwater River US Shipdham | TF94822OG562 | Monthly (12 times/year) | X | |||
YAR110 | R.Yare Earlham bridge | TGI890008200 | Monthly (12 times/year) | X | X | ||
YAR120 | R.Yare Cringleford old bridge | TGI998505957 | Monthly (12 times/year) | X | |||
YAR180 | R.Yare Trowse Mill | TG2430006800 | Monthly (12 times/year) | X | |||
YAR200 | R.Yare Bramerton woods end | TG2910006200 | Monthly (12 times/year) | X | |||
YAR230 | R.Yare Buckenham Ferry | TG3500004400 | Monthly (12 times/year) | X | X | X | |
YAR230 | R.Yare Buckenham Ferry | TG3500004400 | Quarterly (4 times/year) | X | X |
Finance (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting)
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food and drink are permitted during the sittings, other than the water provided. Hansard will be grateful if Members email their speaking notes or pass them to Hansard colleagues in the room.
Members are reminded to bob to catch my eye if they wish to participate in a debate. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website; it shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped for debate.
Clause 55
Winter fuel payment charge
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 41, in schedule 10, page 395, line 28, at end insert—
“(1A) The Treasury must, each tax year, amend the amount specified under section 681I(1)(b) by the change in the level of the consumer prices index in the previous tax year.”
This amendment would provide for the £35,000 income threshold for implementation of the winter fuel payment charge to be uprated annually in line with the consumer prices index.
Schedule 10.
New clause 10—Review of uprating of Winter Fuel Payment charge cap—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within 12 months of this Act being passed, lay before the House of Commons a report on the impact of uprating, by reference to the consumer prices index, the level of the winter fuel payment charge specified under Schedule 10.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must in particular assess the impact of such uprating on—
(a) households liable to the winter fuel payment charge, and
(b) Exchequer receipts.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report on the impact of uprating the winter fuel payment charge cap in line with the consumer prices index on liable households and on Exchequer receipts.
New clause 27—Report on winter fuel payment charge and related compliance and collection measures—
“(1) The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs must lay before the House of Commons a report on the operation and effects of the charge applied to winter fuel payments where an individual’s income exceeds the relevant threshold, including the compliance and collection arrangements introduced under section 55 and Schedule 10 in relation to that charge.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must in particular consider—
(a) the effect of the charge on people whose income exceeds the threshold by a small amount, and any resulting behavioural impacts,
(b) the administrative complexity and proportionality of introducing a tapered abatement for winter fuel payments,
(c) the potential effect of updating section 7 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 so that a winter fuel payment charge becomes a notifiable liability for tax assessment purposes, including the operation of penalties for failure to notify, and the interaction with existing exceptions for liabilities reflected in PAYE tax coding adjustments or where a taxpayer has already been issued a notice to file a self-assessment return, and
(d) the operation and effectiveness of any new PAYE regulation provisions that allow winter fuel payment charges to be collected via tax code adjustments in year, and which allow HMRC to repay any overpaid income tax related to the charge via the tax code within the same year.”
This new clause would require HMRC to report to Parliament on the operation of the winter fuel payment charge, including its effect on people whose income exceeds the threshold by a small amount. The report would also cover the implications of updating section 7 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 to make winter fuel payment charge liabilities notifiable for tax assessment purposes.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
Clause 55 and schedule 10 will provide a mechanism to recover the winter fuel payment from those who are not eligible, to balance support for vulnerable pensioners with responsible use of taxpayer money. Historically, the winter fuel payment has been near universal for pensioners over state pension age. In June 2025, however, the Government announced that only those with incomes up to £35,000 or receiving certain means-tested benefits will benefit from a winter fuel payment in winter 2025. Parliament has already legislated to make the payments to all pensioners who have not opted out. To ensure that the support is targeted, HM Revenue and Customs will recover payments made to pensioners with a total income above £35,000 via the tax system.
I turn to the non-Government amendments. Amendment 41 aims to uprate annually, in line with the consumer prices index, the threshold above which an individual is liable to repay the full value of their winter fuel payment. New clause 10 aims to require the reporting of the impact on households and on the Exchequer of uprating the income threshold for the charge annually in line with CPI. The Government believe that those changes are unnecessary at this time. The £35,000 threshold has been set at a level such that more than three quarters of pensioners will still benefit from the payment at the end of this Parliament. The cost of benefits is already published regularly by the Department for Work and Pensions through the benefit expenditure and caseload tables.
New clause 27 aims to require HMRC to report on the operation of the winter fuel payment charge, including its effect on people whose income exceeds the threshold by a small amount. The £35,000 threshold, above which an individual is liable to repay the full value, has no impact on those whose income exceeds the threshold, as prior to its introduction they did not benefit from a winter fuel payment. The Government believe that the new clause is unnecessary. This measure will be monitored through HMRC’s compliance and reporting systems, including pay-as-you-earn and self-assessment data. I commend clause 55 and schedule 10 to the Committee; I urge the Committee to reject amendment 41 and new clauses 10 and 27.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see the Exchequer Secretary in his place. Some Committee members may have felt that his ministerial colleague the Economic Secretary dealt with some clauses rather briefly in our earlier sittings, so we look forward to the loquaciousness that the Exchequer Secretary displayed on the Floor of the House the other day.
I shall speak to clause 55 and to amendment 41 and new clause 10 in my name. The clause is about clawing back the winter fuel payment from anyone whose total taxable income is above £35,000. According to the Budget costings, this measure will cost about £1.8 billion in 2025-26, settling at £1.3 billion the year after, but overall the changes that the Government have made with the removal of winter fuel payments will save £450 million.
However, the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group have raised concerns about the potential complexity of the clause; about how it could cause anxiety for people who have not had to navigate tax rules before; and about how the £35,000 per year cap will only diminish over time as inflation eats away at it. I have therefore tabled new clause 10, which would require the Government to review the case for uprating the £35,000 threshold by CPI each year, ensuring that it retains its value. I have also tabled amendment 41, which would go further and put that commitment squarely on the face of the Bill so that there can be no ambiguity about whether the level will increase.
The Minister skated over a bit of the background to the clause. The measure flows from one of the Chancellor’s first political choices, which was to remove the winter fuel payment from all pensioners except those in receipt of pensioner credit. That meant that pensioners living on incomes of around £13,000 a year lost their winter fuel support. Vital support was pulled from millions of pensioners across the country. In my constituency, 22,000 pensioners lost their entitlement overnight; the figure may have been similar in your constituency, Mr Efford. It was a deeply damaging move, which is why organisations such as Age UK and my party campaigned against it, and the Chancellor was forced to come back to the Dispatch Box to perform one of her U-turns. In response to the pressure, the Government announced that everyone would get the payment but that it would be clawed back.
I turn to the points that the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group have raised about the clause and the schedule. If a pensioner’s income is £1 over the threshold, they will lose the entire winter fuel payment; there is no taper. Unlike other income-related charge-backs, such as the high-income child benefit charge or the tapering of the personal allowance, the winter fuel payment is based on total income, not adjusted net income. It will affect pensioners who are seeking relief on their charitable contributions. Will the Minister explain why the Government have opted for a system that measures income in inconsistent ways, with different rules from similar income-dependent clawback schemes?
The Bill sets out that the Government’s approach relies heavily on data sharing between the DWP, devolved social security bodies and HMRC. There are some exemptions, for example for those who have been on means-tested benefits during the qualifying week or who have opted out of receiving the payment, but if that information is not shared swiftly and accurately, instances may occur of administrative issues causing distress and financial loss. Pensioners could also see an unexpected tax code on their pay slip, clawing back money that they should never have been charged. That might lead them to have to fight through an appeals process just to claim what is rightfully theirs.
The plan to collect the charge through PAYE, as is set out in the clause, brings its own issues. From 2027-28, HMRC will move to in-year coding, meaning that pensioners could start paying back a benefit that they have not even received yet, based on HMRC’s best guess at their income. As we all know, the winter fuel payment is a one-off payment that is usually paid in November, but PAYE collection is spread throughout the year, so pensioners could be having money clawed back that they have not yet received. If that estimate turns out to be wrong, they will have money taken off and refunded later. That is a recipe for potential confusion and hardship, and it could lead to more calls to HMRC that may go unanswered. In the year of transition, some pensioners could face being charged twice in a single tax year. That is not a minor administrative issue. It needs to be addressed.
We all know that any fixed monetary threshold in legislation loses its real value over time, but if Ministers believe that £35,000 is the right level today, surely they accept that uprating in line with inflation is only fair. If the Minister will not support that principle outright, perhaps he will commit to supporting new clause 10, which simply asks for a review of the impact of doing so. Schedule 10 allows for the alteration of the limit, but there is no obligation on Ministers, as there is for other benefits, to review the level or uprate the limit.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend talks about fairness in relation to amendment 41 on uprating in line with CPI. Is it also worth considering the importance of certainty, particularly for people on fixed incomes who will benefit from this measure? Uprating by CPI would give them certainty into the future that they are not going to fall into fuel poverty.
James Wild
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. We want more certainty within the system, as far as possible. On earlier clauses, we debated the uncertainty that can come from having administrative rules that HMRC can interpret. Our amendment would give people confidence that their income and the benefit they receive would continue in real terms.
Nobody disputes the need to focus support on those who need it most. Where the Chancellor got it wrong was in taking it away from people who are just over the £13,000 income threshold. If the Government insist on recovering payments, they need to get the fundamentals right, with clear definitions, robust data sharing and a simple route for challenging any mistakes that may have been made.
Let us be clear. We welcome the Chancellor’s latest U-turn, reversing the very first decision she took in office. She was wrong to remove the benefit from millions of pensioners. This clause helps her to correct her poor political choice.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman, and I know he is trying his best, but I am surprised at the tone that he is taking and at his language around the winter fuel allowance. He can correct me if I am wrong, but the 2017 Conservative manifesto outlined stripping this benefit completely—and that was from the Government in which he served as a special adviser to the Deputy Prime Minister. Why does he not tell us what he really thinks?
James Wild
I may not have read that manifesto as closely as the hon. Gentleman. [Laughter.] For the record, I did not say that. I think the record will also prove that that measure was not put into effect. We continued the winter fuel payment. The issue is that the Chancellor came along. She was given advice by Treasury officials—no offence to the Treasury officials in the room—suggesting this was a simple way to save some money and fill a fictional black hole. Foolishly and regrettably, she went along with that advice; happily, she is now correcting her mistake in part.
I am looking to press amendment 41 to a vote, because it is important that we give pensioners certainty that the threshold will be protected.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
I rise to speak to clause 55 and new clause 27, but I can tell the hon. Member for North West Norfolk that if he does press amendment 41, he will have the support of the Liberal Democrats.
Countless pensioners were forced to choose between heating and eating last year while the Government buried their head in the sand for months on end, ignoring those who really were suffering. The Government’s changes to winter fuel payments only added to those people’s worries. The delay to the warm homes grant scheme has meant that no household has benefited from support that could have made their homes more sustainable and cheaper to heat over the last winter.
The Liberal Democrats opposed the announcement to cancel winter fuel payments, which caused many millions of the most vulnerable residents in our society to lose out on vital support. We welcome the fact that those over state pension age in England and Wales with an income of £35,000 or less will now receive their winter fuel payment. However, as new clause 27 lays out, we have some serious concerns. Quite simply, it aims to review the practical impact of the winter fuel payment changes, especially on those individuals who exceeded the income threshold by only a small amount.
The cliff edge of £35,000 means that someone on that income will keep the entire payment, but someone at £35,001 will have the entire amount clawed back. We would like to examine the behavioural effects and whether the charge and cliff edge will discourage additional work, savings or income reporting. Would it be fairer to have the amount tapered so that we can get to a fairer place?
We also want to consider the implications of making the charge a notifiable tax liability, including penalties for a failure to notify, and how that would interact with PAYE and self-assessment rules. Right now, most people, especially pensioners, do not have to actively tell HMRC about certain things, because tax is sorted through PAYE or the benefits system. If winter fuel payments become notifiable, individuals would be legally responsible for reporting to HMRC. Evaluating the effectiveness of these measures will help to ensure that we have a smooth and fair process for taxpayers overall.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Members for North West Norfolk and for Maidenhead for their remarks and my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley for his enjoyable intervention.
In response to the point made by the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, we believe that total income is a reasonable way of assessing income. There are other ways of making that assessment, but we think that in this instance total income is appropriate.
Blake Stephenson
The Minister says that the measures that the Government are using are appropriate, but can he explain, in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk, why adjusted income was not used and why it is not appropriate?
Dan Tomlinson
There are different ways of measuring income. In this instance, the Government’s decision is that total income is an appropriate way of measuring it. We keep all taxes and all thresholds under review. We are legislating for the threshold to remain at £35,000 but, as hon. Members with experience in government in the run-up to Budgets will know, all things are always considered in the round. Other thresholds in the tax system were frozen by the previous Government and, as was debated in Committee of the whole House a few weeks back, income tax thresholds were frozen as well.
On the point that the hon. Member for Maidenhead made about tapering, the Government’s view is that that would add complexity to the system. We think that a simple threshold is a preferable approach.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
The Minister mentions that our suggestion would add complexity to the system, but the system, in and of itself, is becoming overly complex. It started very simply: “Here is a winter fuel allowance for a harsh winter.” Every winter is harsh. Would it not be much simpler and more efficient to wind this into the main pension in future years? Will the Government consider that?
Dan Tomlinson
The Government’s view was that it was right to put a threshold in the system. Labour Members do not think that it is right for the super-rich to continue to receive the winter fuel payment. On the hon. Member’s broader point, the Government’s policy is to continue with the payment as it stands, as a stand-alone payment for those who have a total income below £35,000 a year.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 55 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 10
Winter fuel payment charge
Amendment proposed: 41, in schedule 10, page 395, line 28, at end insert—
“(1A) The Treasury must, each tax year, amend the amount specified under section 681I(1)(b) by the change in the level of the consumer prices index in the previous tax year.”—(James Wild.)
This amendment would provide for the £35,000 income threshold for implementation of the winter fuel payment charge to be uprated annually in line with the consumer prices index.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 11.
New clause 11—Impact assessment on carried interest reforms—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within 2 years of this Act being passed, lay before the House of Commons a report on the impact of implementation of the provisions of section 56 on—
(a) the UK’s competitiveness in attracting and retaining fund managers,
(b) the level and composition of investment into the UK, and
(c) revenues collected compared to forecast revenues.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report on the impact of section 56 on the UK’s ability to attract and retain fund managers, on investment into the UK and on realised revenues compared with forecasts.
Dan Tomlinson
Clause 56 and schedule 11 reform the tax treatment of carried interest—a form of performance-related reward that is received by individuals who work as fund managers.
At the autumn Budget 2024, the Chancellor announced that the Government would reform the way that carried interest is taxed, so that its tax treatment is in line with the economic characteristics of the reward. Following an initial increase in the capital gains tax rates applying to carried interest to 32% from 6 April 2025, the clause introduces a revised tax regime for carried interest that sits wholly in the income tax framework. The revised regime takes effect from 6 April 2026. The package of reforms announced at the 2024 Budget will raise almost £300 million by 2030-31.
The changes made by clause 56 and schedule 11 will establish the revised tax regime, under which an individual who receives carried interest will be treated as carrying on a trade. The carried interest will be treated as the profits of that trade and will therefore be subject to income tax and class 4 national insurance contributions. That reflects the Government’s view that carried interest is, in substance, a reward for the provision of investment management services.
New clause 11 would require the Government to publish a report within two years of the legislation passing, covering various issues in connection with the impact of the reforms introduced by clause 56 and schedule 11. The Government recognise the vital importance of the asset management sector in supporting growth. As set out already, we are delivering a revised tax regime for carried interest that ensures fund managers pay their fair share of tax, while maintaining the UK’s position as a world-leading asset management hub.
We have engaged closely with the sector to understand the impact of the reforms at every step. We published a call for evidence in July ’24, a consultation at the autumn Budget ’24 and a technical consultation on draft legislation in July 2025. We therefore do not consider new clause 11 to be a necessary addition to the Bill. I commend clause 56 and schedule 11 to the Committee and ask that new clause 11 be rejected.
James Wild
I will speak to clause 56, the schedule and new clause 11, which is tabled in my name. The Minister talks of reform; indeed, clause 56 fundamentally changes how carried interest is taxed. New clause 11 proposes a thorough assessment, given the significance of those reforms.
Until now, carried interest has been taxed as a capital gain up to 28%. Under clause 56, however, a full 72.5% of qualifying carried interest will be treated as trading income and taxed at income rates that could reach up to 45% plus class 4 national insurance contributions. The effective rate, therefore, would be around 34%. The Minister spoke about competitiveness, but that rate is far above other jurisdictions in Europe—for example, 26% in Italy and 25% in Spain. The precise rate will vary depending on the average holding of the underlying investment; longer holds will receive slightly fairer treatment. Does anyone think that sounds like a measure that is likely to attract talent and investment into the country? As we have discussed in previous sittings, those are things that everyone is signed up to, but many measures in the Bill do not deliver on them.
Carried interest is not some mysterious perk; it is a share of profits that fund managers receive only when their investments do well. It is long term, risk based and uncertain. According to UK Private Capital, in most cases it takes seven years or more before a fund pays a penny of carried interest, and quite frequently it never does.
This measure is a substantial tax rise designed to reclassify carried interest as remuneration, rather than a general return on capital. That may sound tidy in theory, but it misunderstands what carried interest is. As UK Private Capital puts it, carried interest is “fundamentally different” from a salary or a bonus because it is paid only when investments succeed, often many years later and quite often not at all—that is the nature of risk.
The famous tax information and impact note expects the measure to raise £145 million in 2027-28 and £80 million in the following year, but there is a risk of driving talent and investment abroad. Can the Minister share his assessment on what happens if fund managers start relocating to other tax regimes such as Dublin, Luxembourg or New York? What would that mean for wider tax receipts, for the thousands of jobs that funds support and those who rely on them, and for the UK’s standing as a global financial hub? TheCityUK and PwC published a significant report at the beginning of this week about measures that need to be taken to ensure that London remains a pre-eminent finance hub. The measures in the clause run counter to that.
That is why I have tabled new clause 11, which would require a review of the clause’s impact on UK competitiveness in attracting and retaining fund managers, the level and composition of investment into the UK, and the revenues collected compared with forecast revenues. For the Minister’s benefit—because he was not in the Committee’s earlier sittings—we have tabled new clauses that would require reviews because a TIIN is a prediction of what might happen, not a review. We are assured that the Treasury keeps all measures under review, so if those reviews are happening, what is the problem with publishing them and giving that information to Parliament?
As well as on the principle, we need answers on the implementation. HMRC will now be expected to verify the average holding period of thousands of complex investment portfolios. What additional resources and guidance will be provided to HMRC to do that? How will it cope if receipts are lumpy and unpredictable? UK Private Capital has warned that the measure will be challenging to manage. I think that is an understatement; it could be a recipe for disputes and confusion.
A further danger is double taxation. The sector has warned that under the rules, some managers could be taxed twice on the same carried interest in different jurisdictions. Can the Minister assure fund managers and the sector that the Treasury has appropriate double taxation agreements and treaties in place to ensure that their concern is ill-founded? If the Government get this wrong, we risk losing capital to countries that do offer such clarity.
In debates on earlier clauses, we have spoken about wanting to encourage enterprise and investment, to compete internationally, and to support growth in high-value businesses, but clause 56 sends the opposite signal. It will leave us with one of the highest rates of tax on carried interest among competitive and competitor jurisdictions.
We can see why some Labour MPs may be happy about having some of the highest levels of tax on fund managers, but these measures will fundamentally dampen the animal spirits in our economy at a time when we need to be unleashing them. That is why I contend that new clause 11 is essential to ensure that Ministers measure the real-world consequences of their choices before lasting damage is done to our economy.
Dan Tomlinson
The measure contained in clause 56 was in our manifesto, and I think it is good that the Government are making progress to implement our manifesto reforms. We have been working closely with the sector through the rounds of consultation and engagement that I mentioned in my opening remarks. The sector has acknowledged that the Government have had to balance the need to raise revenue for essential public services with the requirement to keep our economy competitive, and has welcomed the changes that have been made as a result of the engagement that has taken place since 2024.
I may add that I am glad that someone does read the TIINs—they are always a joy to sign off ahead of any fiscal event. We will continue to monitor the impact of the measure and other reforms, although the Government do not believe that it is necessary to legislate for such monitoring. It is our position that it is best not to over-legislate.
James Wild
In the debate on the first clause that we considered in Committee, there was a commitment to keep corporation tax at 25% across this Parliament. Can the Minister at least commit to not further increase the rate of tax on carried interest in this Parliament?
Dan Tomlinson
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving me a chance to reiterate that the Government have set out—it is relatively unusual for a Government to do so—a corporate tax road map where we have made very specific commitments, which we have kept to, around maintaining the headline rate of corporation tax at the lowest rate in the G7. As with all other policies, however, we keep all taxes under review. It would not be right, particularly many months from the next Budget, for me—I was called a “low-ranking” Treasury Minister by the Daily Mail the other day—to comment or speculate on future tax measures.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 56 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clause 57
Collective money purchase schemes and Master Trust schemes
Dan Tomlinson
Clause 57 has three connected objectives. First, the change will enable certain collective money purchase schemes to apply to become a registered pension scheme. Secondly, it will allow HMRC to refuse to register, or to deregister, an unauthorised CMP scheme. Finally, it will allow regulations to be made to efficiently support the development of those CMP schemes.
CMP schemes are a new type of pension scheme that provide members with a target pension income for life. The rules for operating such schemes are set out in the Pension Schemes Act 2021, and include a requirement that they must be authorised by the Pensions Regulator. Currently, a CMP scheme can be set up only by an employer to provide benefits to its employees and those of a connected employer. The rules regarding who can set up such a scheme are changing so that from 31 July 2026, it will be possible to set up a CMP scheme for unconnected, multiple employers.
James Wild
Clause 57 updates HMRC’s pension rules to align them with the Pension Regulator’s authorisation regime for collective money purchase schemes. Such schemes pool members’ contributions into a single fund, with the benefits linked to the performance of that shared pot rather than a guaranteed payout, as Members will be aware. Master trusts operate on a similar principle, but manage pension savings on behalf of multiple, unconnected employers, each with its own ringfenced section.
The clause goes a little further than just a technical update; it gives HMRC new and wide-ranging powers to refuse or remove the tax registration of those schemes, and to change the underlying tax rules through secondary legislation. The aim is straightforward: to ensure the alignment of the tax and regulatory frameworks so that only properly supervised schemes benefit from the generous pension tax reliefs. That is a principle that we would all support.
Well-regulated CDC—collective defined contribution—schemes could play an important role in the future of workplace pensions, particularly as the next generation of whole-of-life, multi-employer and retired CDC models develop. If done right, that could help savers manage their transition from work to retirement more smoothly, but it will work only if the rules are clear, consistent and fair with the existing annuity structures. As the Chartered Institute of Taxation has highlighted, the current framework does not allow for reductions in pension payments that vary between different groups of members. That potentially risks creating unfair outcomes for savers in otherwise identical positions. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify how the Government intend to address that concern raised by the experts.
We also know that, under the new guided retirement model expected from 2027, trustees will be making complex decisions on behalf of their members yet, as the Chartered Institute of Taxation notes, trustees will hesitate to act without sufficient flexibility such as limited opt-out periods or conversion options. Those safeguards are notably absent from the clause. Has the Minister, or potentially his colleague the Minister for Pensions, been engaging with the sector on those points?
A further practical point, which I hope the Minister will be able to tidy up, concerns the co-ordination between HMRC and the Pensions Regulator. What safeguards will be in place to prevent a scheme being authorised by one regulator but not recognised by the other? What steps are in place to ensure that savers—our constituents—are not caught in the middle?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the Opposition spokesman for his remarks. He is right that the change will involve some co-ordination between the Pensions Regulator and HMRC. That is partly why we want to legislate here for changes that will allow HMRC to be confident that it can align the pension scheme tax registration process with the Pension Regulator’s authorisation and supervision regime. We think it is important for those things to be aligned and, as the Minister with responsibility for HMRC, I will continue to engage with officials, alongside, I am sure, the Minister for Pensions, to ensure that they continue to work closely with one another.
The Opposition spokesman asked what engagement has taken place. The Government invited a small group of representatives from the pensions industry to comment on the measures ahead of the publication of the Bill to assess their efficacy for our intended purposes. We will continue to work closely with the sector, colleagues from the Pensions Regulator and the DWP on this matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 57 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
Corporate interest restriction: reporting companies
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Tomlinson
Clause 58 makes changes to corporate interest restriction legislation to simplify administration in relation to reporting companies under the regime. Clause 59 makes a minor technical amendment to corporate interest restriction.
The UK’s corporate interest restriction rules restrict groups from using excessive financing costs to reduce their UK tax liability. They apply where net financing costs of a group exceed £2 million per annum. Above that threshold, the rules typically restrict interest deductions to a proportion of tax-EBITDA—earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation—which is a measure of UK taxable earnings.
The restriction is applied to the group’s UK companies as a whole, and the regime provides for groups to appoint a reporting company to act on their behalf to simplify the administration of the regime, and to allocate any overall disallowance among the individual UK companies. Difficulties can arise where groups do not appoint a reporting company on time. The lack of a reporting company can give rise to increased tax liabilities, which stakeholders have described as a disproportionate outcome, and to difficulties and additional work for HMRC.
The main change made by clause 58 is the removal of the time limit to appoint a reporting company, as well as the requirement for the appointment to be made by notice to HMRC. Most of the changes take effect for periods ending on or after 31 March 2026, but the ability for groups to make retrospective appointments will apply for periods that ended on or after 31 March 2024.
To conclude my brief remarks, clause 58 delivers changes that will reduce the administrative burden and risk for both groups and HMRC from administering the regime, while clause 59 ensures that the corporate interest restriction regime works as intended. I commend both clauses to the Committee.
James Wild
Clause 58 makes changes to the corporate interest restriction rules, which limit how much interest large companies can deduct from taxable profits each year. It aims to fix an administrative problem that has frustrated many businesses. Under the CIRR, each group must appoint a reporting company—that is, a UK group member responsible for submitting a group’s interest restriction to HMRC—and the clause simplifies that process, which is obviously welcome.
At the same time, the clause introduces a new £1,000 penalty where a group submits a return without any company having been validly appointed to act as the reporting company. That is a small fixed penalty designed to encourage groups to get the appointment right. Can the Minister assure us that this will be applied with some common sense? Does HMRC have discretion not to apply the penalty automatically, so that it can take into account any mitigating factors?
Clause 59 makes a targeted but important change to the way in which companies calculate tax-EBITDA under the corporate interest restriction rules. The clause adjusts the calculation so that certain types of capital expenditure related to cemeteries and crematoriums and environmental and infrastructure spending—such as waste disposal, flood prevention and coastal erosion management—are excluded from the limits on how much interest a group can deduct for tax purposes.
In practice, that means that when a company makes large one-off investments in public interest infrastructure, such as new flood defences, those up-front costs will no longer unfairly reduce the amount of interest they are permitted to deduct. The measure applies retrospectively to periods ending on or after 31 December 2021. On the face of it, this is a sensible change that ensures that the rules operate as intended, and we support the principle behind it.
The Government describe this as a largely technical fix, which is broadly correct. It does correct the distortion in the corporate interest restriction rules that discourage capital investment in environmental and infrastructure projects. The Budget documents suggest the fiscal impact is limited, allowing qualifying businesses to claim interest deductions they were previously denied. But it does raise some other questions. If the calculation of tax-EBITDA has accidentally penalised spending on projects such as flood defence, waste treatment or crematoriums, are there are other sectors that the Treasury has looked at that might face similar unintended consequences?
Are there sectors where the Government think there might be similar distortions, or were others considered and dismissed? How will HMRC manage amended tax returns and claims retrospectively back to 2021? Does it have the resources and processes in place to do that officially? Finally, will the Minister commit to a wider review of the corporate interest restriction rules to ensure that the system generally supports the long-term environmental and infrastructure investment that our economy and our constituencies need?
Dan Tomlinson
I am not aware of further sectors to which the changes outlined in clause 59 would apply, but I will work with officials to continue to receive representations and perspectives from those who may or may not want to see further changes. The hon. Member for North West Norfolk asked about a review—of course, taxes will be kept under review. On his specific question on clause 58 and whether HMRC will be able to have discretion in applying the £1,000 penalty—yes, it will. I hope and strongly expect that HMRC will always use its powers and penalties in a judicious fashion, making sure to treat companies and individuals reasonably. I am confident that it will continue to do so in this case.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 58 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 60
Avoidance schemes involving certain non-derecognition liabilities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Tomlinson
The Government are taking action to tackle those who attempt to bend or break the rules to avoid paying the tax that they owe. The clause introduces a new provision to address avoidance arrangements in certain very specific situations involving the creation of liabilities and related expenses for accounting purposes. The rule addresses certain arrangements that are designed to secure a tax advantage.
The accounting and tax analysis in relation to when financial assets are derecognised or may continue to be recognised can be complex. In some cases, assets that are transferred to a securitisation vehicle may continue to be recognised for accounting purposes in the transferor’s accounts. This can potentially happen for commercial reasons. In certain circumstances, a liability may also be recognised for accounting purposes in connection with the underlying assets or otherwise in connection with the transfer. This liability is a non-derecognition liability.
This new rule addresses scenarios where, as a result of tax-driven arrangements, a company seeks a tax deduction for expenses in connection with such a non-derecognition liability. HMRC considers that existing legislation already negates any UK tax advantage from these arrangements. However, introducing the new rule aims to deter such tax avoidance arrangements and secure receipts for the Exchequer that might otherwise be deferred through tax disputes. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
James Wild
As the Minister said, the clause introduces a new anti-avoidance provision aimed at arrangements involving non-derecognition liabilities. These are complex structures whereby a company transfers assets to another entity, but under accounting rules continues to recognise those assets and related liabilities on its own balance sheets. Such structures are of course common in securitisations, which are an important part of the UK’s financial landscape. In these arrangements an originating company passes on the economic risks and rewards with an asset, yet maintains the asset on its books. Used properly, these arrangements serve a legitimate commercial purpose. However, as the Minister said, there are examples of people bending or breaking the rules. Can he give the Committee a flavour of how prevalent he thinks that bending or breaking of the rules is?
The provisions of this clause seek to correct any rule-breaking by denying tax deductions where their main purpose is to seek to gain a tax advantage by exploiting non-derecognition accounting. The Opposition strongly support efforts to tackle avoidance and close loopholes that undermine trust in the tax system, and efforts to bring the tax gap down—as the last Government successfully did, and this Government are, I am sure, continuing to seek to do—but, as always, the details matter.
Dan Tomlinson
The Opposition spokesperson is right to ask about the extent to which HMRC will be able to distinguish between valid purposes and uses and those that seek to bend or break the rules. HMRC is aware of a small number of companies and businesses that we think are engaging in such practices. It would not be appropriate for me to disclose the precise number, but there are some of which HMRC is aware. We certainly do not want traditional and reasonable uses of the non-derecognition method to be affected.
The Opposition spokesperson asks about the potential impact of this measure. I am glad that he has also read the costings. According to those costings, which have been certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility, this measure is expected to raise quite a significant sum: £465 million in total over the scorecard period. That suggests that the experts and analysts in HMRC, as well as the independent officials at the OBR, believe that there is a volume of bending or breaking of the rules here that we should be able to go after more effectively under this measure.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 60 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 61
Energy (oil and gas) profits levy: decommissioning relief agreements
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 12—Report on decommissioning relief agreements—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, lay before the House of Commons a report on the impact of implementation of the provisions of section 61 on—
(a) North Sea decommissioning activity,
(b) employment levels in the UK oil and gas industry,
(c) capital expenditure in the UK oil and gas industry,
(d) UK oil and gas production,
(e) UK oil and gas demand, and
(f) the Scottish economy and economic growth in Scotland.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report on the impact of section 61 on North Sea decommissioning, employment and capital expenditure in the UK oil and gas industry, UK production and demand, and the Scottish economy.
Dan Tomlinson
Clause 61 introduces legislation to expressly state that no payments can arise under decommissioning relief agreements in relation to the energy profits levy, confirming the Government’s long-standing view. Decommissioning relief agreements, which take the form of decommissioning relief deeds, are contracts entered into between the Treasury and oil and gas companies. They have been in place since 2013. They define and in effect guarantee a minimum level of tax relief that an oil and gas company will receive in relation to its decommissioning expenditure. Companies can claim a payment under a DRD if the amount of tax relief that they receive is less than the defined minimum level. DRDs enable decommissioning security agreements to be made on a net-of-tax basis, freeing up cash for investment.
The energy profits levy was introduced in 2022 by the previous Government, to tax the profits of oil and gas companies following record high oil and gas prices. The calculation of profits subject to the EPL does not allow a deduction for decommissioning expenditure. The Government have always been clear that that cannot be circumvented by making a claim under a DRD.
New clause 12 asks the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report on the impact of clause 61 on North sea decommissioning and on employment and capital expenditure in the UK oil and gas industry. The Government oppose the new clause on the basis that clause 61 does not impact on the statutory obligation for oil and gas companies to decommission wells and infrastructure at the end of a field’s life, or on employment, capital expenditure, production, demand or the Scottish economy. This measure simply confirms the Government’s long-standing position that payments cannot be made under a DRD in relation to the energy profits levy.
I therefore commend clause 61 to the Committee, and urge that new clause 12 be rejected.
James Wild
I will speak to clause 61 and new clause 12, tabled in my name. They concern reliefs and the energy profits levy, which the Chancellor increased to 78%—a very high level. When it was introduced, prices were much higher than they are now.
Clause 61 clarifies that payments under decommissioning relief agreements—long-term agreements under which the Government guarantee a minimum level of tax relief for decommissioning costs—cannot be claimed by reference to the EPL; and it makes it clear that companies cannot seek refunds or payments when decommissioning costs arose on or after 26 November 2025. New clause 12 is about ensuring that the impact of these changes on decommissioning, employment and capital expenditure in the oil and gas sector, production and demand and the Scottish economy is considered by the Treasury and the Chancellor.
That is important because of the context. The reality in the North sea is stark. Investment has sunk to record lows and, according to research from Robert Gordon University, jobs are being lost at a rate of 1,000 a month. Offshore Energies UK has warned that the Government’s decision in the Budget to reject replacing the energy profits levy in 2026 will cost tens of thousands of jobs, cripple investment and undermine Scotland and its energy security.
The decommissioning reliefs to which this clause refers were designed to give long-term certainty on tax treatment in the basin, precisely so that companies could plan for responsible decommissioning. The Government themselves have acknowledged that we will need oil and gas for decades to come, with about 75% of the UK’s energy still coming from oil and gas and 10 billion to 15 billion barrels required by 2050. Offshore Energies UK has shown that we can produce more than that at home, through tax reform in tandem with a pragmatic approach to decommissioning and licensing, instead of importing more energy and exporting the jobs. That is why new clause 12 would require a proper assessment of the impact on the areas that I have set out. The Chancellor likes to describe the energy profits levy as temporary, but there is nothing temporary about the damage that is being done to jobs, investment and energy security in the North sea.
Dan Tomlinson
As I said in my opening remarks, this clause just clarifies the treatment as was originally intended and has always been the case. It would not be appropriate or necessary to monitor and look at the impact of it, because as I believe was said—a second mention for the 2017 general election—“nothing has changed” in relation to the treatment of DRDs and the interaction with the EPL.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 61 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 70
Relevant property: disapplication of exemptions from exit charges
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Tomlinson
Clauses 70 to 73 make changes to improve the residence-based regime for inheritance tax. The clauses bolster the new residence-based approach to inheritance tax, which came in last April. The Government are making targeted adjustments to the reforms to ensure that they work as intended, acknowledge the economic contribution of former non-doms to our country and strengthen the UK’s position as an attractive destination for global talent.
The changes made by clauses 70, 72 and 73 introduce some of the technical amendments needed to make sure that the reform works as intended. Clause 70 is an anti-avoidance provision, ensuring the settlor and its trust cannot manipulate excluded property rules to avoid an exit charge on ceasing to be a long-term UK resident. Clause 72 confirms that years of diplomatic service do not count towards the long-term UK residence test. Clause 73 makes minor corrections to the wording of sections in the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 that deal with spouse elections to be long-term UK residents and non-residents’ bank accounts.
Clause 71 introduces a new £5 million cap on inheritance tax charges every 10 years on trusts of former non-doms. The usual tax levied on those trusts is 6% per decade. The cap applies only to trusts settled before 30 October 2024, recognising long-term decisions made under the previous framework. The changes bolster the new residence-based approach and make it more effective.
James Wild
Following the 2024 Budget, the Government decided to implement a long-term residency test for inheritance tax. That is a 10-year residency in a 20-year time period. Clause 70 imposes an inheritance tax charge where there has been a change in the settlor’s long-term residence status. While this is not the 20% exit tax—one of the kites that was flown by someone near the Treasury ahead of the Budget—there is a risk about the message that it sends about encouraging people to this country.
The Chartered Institute of Taxation has pointed out that individuals faced with the prospect of UK inheritance tax on their overseas trusts may already have decided to leave the UK and/or wind up the trust, an issue that was debated on Tuesday afternoon in relation to the clauses that pertain to non-doms. The measures that the Government are taking will undermine what we all want to see, which is more money being brought back into the UK and invested in our country. What conversations has the Minister had with groups such as Foreign Investors for Britain about these changes? How would he respond to their concerns?
Dan Tomlinson
Government Ministers are in regular conversation with external stakeholders and individuals to discuss tax matters and their impact. In part, the changes that are being introduced in clauses 70 to 73 are in response to engagement. We are introducing the changes in order to refine the system, which was changed significantly under this Government, to make it fairer and fit for the long term. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 70 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 71 to 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 74
Power to make provision about infected blood compensation payments
Mr Reynolds
I beg to move amendment 47, in clause 74, page 91, line 20, leave out from “(1)” to the end of line 25 and insert-
“may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the House of Commons.”
This amendment would require that all regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 48, in clause 74, page 91, line 25, at end insert—
“(6) Before laying regulations under subsection (1), the Treasury must make a statement setting out the extent to which the regulations made under this section meet the following objectives—
(a) that no infected or affected person, or their family, will be subject to inheritance tax in respect of infected blood compensation payments under the regulations,
(b) that the regulations provide fair and consistent treatment for all victims regardless of when their compensation was paid or when deaths occurred,
(c) that the relief provides compensation for physical harm and psychological trauma experienced by affected family members, and
(d) that administrative processes established for the purposes of implementation of this section will not create additional distress or burden for bereaved families.”
This amendment would require that, prior to making regulations under the section, the Chancellor should make a statement on the extent to which the regulations meet certain objectives in respect of the treatment of victims and their families.
Amendment 46, in clause 74, page 91, line 25, at end insert—
“(7) The Treasury must make regulations under subsection (1) within 60 days of the passing of this Act.
(8) Before making regulations under subsection (1), the Treasury must consult—
(a) organisations representing infected and affected individuals,
(b) the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, and
(c) bereaved families of victims who have died awaiting compensation.
(9) The regulations made under subsection (1) must make provision for identifying and assisting the estates of deceased victims in claiming inheritance tax relief, including—
(a) outreach to known affected families,
(b) assistance with evidence gathering where medical records have been destroyed,
(c) clear and accessible guidance in plain language, and
(d) a dedicated helpline staffed by trained caseworkers familiar with the infected blood scandal.
(10) The Treasury must, within 6 months of regulations under this section coming into force, and every 6 months thereafter, lay before Parliament a report on—
(a) the number of victims who have died since the previous report while awaiting compensation,
(b) the number of estates that have received inheritance tax relief,
(c) the average time taken to process claims for relief,
(d) any identified barriers preventing families from accessing their entitlement, and
(e) steps taken to expedite outstanding infected blood compensation claims.”
This amendment requires the Chancellor of Exchequer to make regulations under this section within 60 days of Royal Assent. It requires mandatory consultation with those directly affected, and a support service to help bereaved families navigate the system. It also places a six-monthly reporting requirement on the Government.
Clause stand part.
Mr Reynolds
The infected blood scandal represents one of the greatest treatment disasters in NHS history: more than 3,000 people died, and thousands more live with HIV, hepatitis C or lifelong trauma. Yet even now victims’ families face the indignity of inheritance tax on compensation payments meant to acknowledge that profound suffering. The clause gives the Treasury the power to provide inheritance tax relief where victims or affected persons have died before compensation payment was received. That policy is intended to develop fair and consistent treatment for grieving loved ones, but it is entirely discretionary, with no timeline, no consultation requirements and minimal parliamentary oversight.
Amendments 47, 48 and 46, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot, look to fix that. First, amendment 47 would ensure that all the regulations face proper parliamentary scrutiny through the affirmative procedure, ensuring that they get the correct amount of parliamentary oversight and the scrutiny that is required.
Amendment 46 would require the Chancellor to make regulations within 60 days mandating consultations with victims’ organisations and the Infected Blood Compensation Authority—people who actually understand what the families are going through. Crucially, it would establish practical support, dedicated helplines and assistance in evidence-gathering through outreach to bereaved families. That matters not just because of the number of people who have died while waiting for compensation, but because their families have already endured decades of suffering, medical records lost and destroyed, and broken promises. They should not also have to face the labyrinth of the tax system without the support they need.
Amendment 48 would require the Treasury to demonstrate how it meets key objectives: that for any victim faced with inheritance tax on their payments, the treatment is fair, regardless of the timings; and that administrative processes do not create additional distress. These amendments are not intended to distract from the clause, which we support; however, without the safeguards that they propose—without timelines and the correct accountability—we will see delay and delay. The families have waited decades for support, and the amendments aim to help to get them that support and the fair treatment that they deserve.
The Government’s policy paper was unequivocal that compensation must be a matter of entitlement rather than charity, and our amendments 47, 48 and 46 would ensure that those promises were kept and not kicked into the long grass. I hope that the Committee will support them when we press amendments 47 and 46 to a vote later.
Dan Tomlinson
The clause, as has been discussed, introduces a power to extend the existing inheritance tax relief for infected blood compensation payments. I worked closely on this measure with the Chancellor ahead of the Budget. It is an important measure for the victims of this scandal and their families. I am glad to hear that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Maidenhead, supports the clause—I am sure that all Members will do so—and I of course welcome the challenge and the scrutiny.
Amendment 47 would require all regulations made under the new powers to be subject to an affirmative procedure, but the clause already provides that, if the future regulations do not amend primary legislation, they can be made under the negative procedure. That is consistent with the existing regulation-making powers for compensation payments under schedule 15 to the Finance Act 2020. The clause already provides for using the affirmative procedure, should the future regulations amend primary legislation.
The Government’s objective here is to ensure that we can introduce regulations, which will come later this year, as soon as possible to help further to clarify the inheritance tax position for all those impacted. I am sure we all agree that we want to ensure as much clarity as possible, as soon as possible, for those who are affected and might be impacted by this change, which has been welcomed.
Amendment 48 would require the Treasury to make a statement setting out the extent to which the regulations meet certain objectives. I have already issued a written ministerial statement, on 18 December, setting out in detail how the changes to the existing relief from inheritance tax for compensation payments made from the infected blood compensation scheme and the infected blood interim compensation payment scheme will be made.
Amendment 46 would introduce proposed new subsections (7) to (10), which set out various new introductory, consultation and reporting requirements. I understand the desire for prompt clarity on the inheritance tax treatment of compensation payments, and the Government are committed to delivering the regulations as quickly as possible. I also recognise the importance of consulting with relevant stakeholders; officials have worked very closely with the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, and the Government will continue to engage with stakeholders ahead of laying regulations.
The clause introduces a power to make a sensible and compassionate change, ensuring that those infected and affected by the infected blood scandal can choose how to pass on the value of any compensation received without incurring inheritance tax. Although I welcome the engagement from the Liberal Democrats on this matter, I hope the Committee agrees to clause 74 standing part of the Bill and rejects amendments 46 to 48.
James Wild
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Maidenhead for bringing forward these amendments to what is a very important clause, one that honours a commitment; I remember sitting in the main Chamber when a number of colleagues from across the House were pressing Ministers to introduce such a change, and it is very welcome that the Government have brought it forward in the Bill. I believe a similar treatment applies to the Horizon IT scandal. It is a common-sense clause. Fundamentally, the victims of this appalling scandal deserve compensation and their families deserve to then benefit in due course.
I put on record my tribute to the work of Sir Brian Langstaff, as well as to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) when he was in the Cabinet Office, working particularly with victims’ groups. The clause will help to provide the remedy that victims and their families have been seeking.
I have said that a similar treatment applies in the Horizon case, but I should mention to the Minister that the Hughes report on the valproate and pelvic mesh scandal is still outstanding. It was published two years ago and recommended that interim compensation payments should be made. I have raised the matter with the Health Secretary on a number of occasions; I ask the Minister to take that issue back and to consider, as the compensation scheme is designed, whether that sort of provision can be built in from the start.
We support the thrust of the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which seek to ensure that Government regulations around the issue reach the right objectives, as well as supporting victims and their families. Amendment 46 would establish a mechanism to support families to navigate the system. I think that is very important and, if the hon. Member for Maidenhead chooses to press the amendment, I assure him that Conservative Members will support it.
Mr Reynolds
The Minister used the words “as soon as possible”. The amendments that we have tabled would hold him and the Government to account on that. They show the seriousness of this issue, and would allow parliamentary oversight, accountability measures and a clear deadline.
I am glad that the hon. Member for North West Norfolk mentioned the Hughes report. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) mentioned the Hughes report in an oral question to the House yesterday, and the response was not particularly forthcoming. I urge the Minister to consider how this clause could apply to the Hughes report and others in the future.
Without these amendments, the clause gives a number of empty promises and more regulation in due course. That mean more waiting and more families navigating complex tax systems alone, while grieving loved ones are left in limbo. Infected blood victims were actively misled by the responsible authorities, then they were ignored, then they were told help was coming. In many tragic cases, that help is too late. The amendments would ensure that grieving relatives do not face additional challenges in receiving compensation. I hope the Minister changes his mind and supports amendments 47 and 46.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson and the shadow Minister for their contributions.
I want to reassure the Liberal Democrat spokesperson in particular that these are not empty promises. The Government take this matter incredibly seriously. When it was raised, we worked hard to engage constructively and productively, and we brought forward this legislation in the Budget. I was glad that we were able to do so for those impacted by the scandal. I put on the record that these are deep and full promises, and the Government will make the progress that needs to be made for the victims.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 76 stand part.
New clause 13—Report on gifts exemption—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, lay before the House of Commons a report on the impact of implementation of the provisions of section 75 on—
(a) the volume and value of charitable donations,
(b) the financial position and funding mix of charities and registered clubs,
(c) donor behaviour, including any changes in the use of tax-relieved giving, and
(d) Exchequer revenues, including any distributional impacts across different types and sizes of charities.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report on the impact of section 75 on charitable donations, the finances of charities and registered clubs, donor behaviour and Exchequer revenues.
Dan Tomlinson
Clauses 75 and 76 close an avoidance loophole to ensure that the inheritance tax exemption for gifts to charities works as intended. Changes were made in 2023 to the definition of “charity” for multiple taxes, including that the charity must be based in the UK. Some gifts to charitable trusts can still, however, get exemption from inheritance tax, even if they are not themselves charities. They may have no connection to the UK, bypassing the UK jurisdiction condition and other regulation requirements for charities. The tax-paying public may therefore be subsidising relief on money that we cannot be sure is used solely for charitable purposes. The Government are therefore closing this loophole and protecting the exemption for legitimate charities.
New clause 13 would require the Government to report on the impact of clause 75 on charitable donations. The Government have already published, as the shadow Minister will have read, a tax information and impact note to set out the impact of the changes. It showed that charities and community amateur sports clubs should be unaffected, as exempt gifts can be made to them in the usual way. New clause 13 should therefore be rejected, and I commend clauses 75 and 76 to the Committee.
James Wild
I rise to speak to clauses 75 and 76, as well as new clause 13 in my name. The clauses fit within the inheritance tax part of the Bill. In Committee of the whole House, we had debates on the family farm tax and the family business tax, and the damage and distress they are causing in rural communities, so I will not prolong that debate. I will focus briefly on clause 75, however, which tightens the rule on inheritance tax exemptions for gifts to charities and registered clubs, including sports and social clubs. Clause 76 provides limited protection for existing arrangements, seeking to prevent new restrictions from applying retrospectively or unfairly.
New clause 13 would require the Treasury to publish a report on the impact of clause 75, including on the volume and value of charitable donations, the financial health of affected charities and clubs, donor behaviour and impact on Exchequer revenues. We agree with the principle, which the Minister set out, of ensuring that charitable reliefs are used as intended, but it is also important that the Government understand the practical consequence of any tightening of the rules. On Tuesday afternoon, we discussed some of the concerns that charities have about earlier provisions in the Bill, and the potential complexity and bureaucracy that was being added to them. We all know that the charitable sector is under significant pressure, and we do not want to add undue burdens on to trustees of charities in particular.
Dan Tomlinson
I can give the assurance that this will not be an unreasonable burden, or even a small burden, on charities that are continuing to behave in a way that is reasonable and right. I note that thirdsector.co.uk reports that, according to experts, charities are unlikely to be affected by new inheritance tax avoidance measures. I agree with those experts.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 75 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 77
Zero-rating of leases of vehicles to recipients of disability benefits
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Tomlinson
Clause 77 will make changes to ensure that the Motability scheme and other qualifying schemes provide value for money for the taxpayer while continuing to support disabled people. It will remove the VAT relief for top-up payments made to lease more expensive vehicles. Clause 78 ensures that insurance premium tax will apply at the standard rate of 12% to insurance contracts on the scheme.
The Motability scheme is an important vehicle leasing scheme available to people receiving the enhanced Motability component of disability benefits such as the personal independence payment. The weekly Motability award covers the lease cost and a generous service package. If a chosen vehicle is more expensive, the customer pays a one-off top-up payment in advance of the three-year lease.
The Motability scheme supports the independence of disabled people, but it benefits from generous tax breaks that are supporting provision beyond the scheme’s core objectives, such as the lease of luxury cars. To limit tax support for the most premium vehicles on the scheme, the Government have removed VAT reliefs on the one-off voluntary—I stress that they are voluntary—payments made to lease higher-cost vehicles. VAT reliefs on weekly lease costs covered by eligible disability benefits, and the VAT relief on vehicle resale, will remain in place. Additionally, ending the IPT exemption for most vehicles will bring the IPT treatment for qualifying vehicles’ leasing schemes in line with other commercial leasing firms.
The tax changes will preserve the delivery of the core objective of the scheme, and Motability Operations Group has confirmed that, after the tax changes take effect, it will continue to offer a broad range of vehicles available without a top-up payment, meaning that customers will be able to lease a vehicle that meets their needs for the value of their eligible benefit. The changes made by clauses 77 and 78 will generate savings of more than £1 billion across the scorecard. I commend them to the Committee.
James Wild
At present, when a disabled person uses their mobility benefits, such as the mobility component of the personal independence payment or disability living allowance, to lease a vehicle under the Motability scheme, that lease is zero-rated for VAT. Let us remember why Motability was created: it was established to help those with serious, long-term physical disabilities to access independence and mobility, not to provide subsidised cars for people with minor or temporary conditions. However, the numbers show that the scheme has expanded far beyond its original purpose. Last year, 815,000 people were using Motability vehicles, an increase of 170,000 in a single year.
For many participants, their benefit covers the full cost of a three-year lease, so they pay nothing beyond their benefit entitlement. However, when someone chooses a more expensive model, such as a larger or higher-spec vehicle, they must make an up-front top-up payment. Until now, the entire lease, including that top-up, has been VAT-free, but clause 77 changes that. Under the new rules, only the proportion of the lease funded by the qualifying Motability payment will remain zero-rated, and any additional amount paid voluntarily will be subject to the standard rate of 20%. That is a fair and balanced reform that we wholeheartedly support.
Clause 78 narrows the insurance premium tax relief for vehicle insurance linked to disability schemes. IPT is a 12% tax on most general insurance premiums. Many cars that are leased to disabled people currently benefit from that relief, even when the vehicles are standard, unadapted models. We welcome that the clause limits the relief to applying only to contracts for vehicles that are specifically adapted for wheelchair or stretcher users; for example, vehicles with ramps, lifts or structural changes supporting wheelchair access. If a vehicle has no such adaptation, premiums will rightly be subject to the 12% charge.
Conservative Members have long argued for tighter focus and accountability in the Motability scheme, and I welcome the Government’s decision to act— we have been pushing them to do so. Sadly, we read in The Times this morning that the Prime Minister has apparently ruled out any wider reforms to welfare in the King’s Speech. Some of the growth we have seen in the Motability scheme, which the clauses will hopefully address, reflects genuine need, but much of it does not. That expansion raises questions about the eligibility standards and on whether taxpayers’ money is being used as intended. Motability should not be a back-door subsidy for people who do not meet the scheme’s original intent, which was to help those with serious disabilities.
As the Minister said, over the scorecard this measure makes a significant saving that is a meaningful contribution to public finances, which we welcome and support. Taxpayer resources should be targeted more effectively to ensure fairness. However, the measures in the Budget overall raise people’s taxes to pay for more welfare spending. We consider that to be the wrong choice. We welcome the fact that the clause mitigates some of that additional welfare spending, but overall, this is a welfare spending Budget.
Mr Reynolds
I will speak briefly to clause 78, and then I will ask the Minister some questions, specifically on the definition of “substantially and permanently adapted”, which is slightly lacking in the Bill. Disability is not just about wheelchairs and stretchers; many individuals use and require adapted vehicles that may not be seen as substantially or permanently adapted.
The Liberal Democrats do not aim to change or amend the clauses, but some clarification would be helpful. Could the Minister clarify the definition of substantially adapted vehicles, and confirm what consultation has happened with disability groups about those definitions? Could he also confirm what impact assessment has been done on the additional costs for individuals who will no longer receive insurance premium tax relief?
Dan Tomlinson
I will somewhat disappoint the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Maidenhead: the words that Ministers say in Committee are sometimes powerful and I do not think it would be appropriate for me to be more expansive on the definition. I ask him and others to rely on the words in the existing legislation, which I think are relatively clear and strong.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 77 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mark Ferguson.)
Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting)
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 42, in clause 79, page 95, line 37, at end insert—
“(3B) Section (3A) does not apply to journeys by private hire vehicle or taxi in rural areas.”
This amendment would exempt journeys by taxi and private hire vehicle in rural areas from the provisions of subsection (3A) of section 79.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
New clause 14—Report on VAT for private hire and taxi vehicles—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, lay before the House of Commons a report on the impact of implementation of the provisions of section 79 on—
(a) the taxi and private hire industry,
(b) driver earnings,
(c) vulnerable passengers,
(d) rural communities, and
(e) passenger fares.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report on the impact of section 79 on the taxi and private hire industry, driver earnings, vulnerable passengers, rural communities and passenger fares.
James Wild
It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair presiding over our proceedings this afternoon, Mrs Harris. I will speak to amendment 42, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends, along with clause 79 and new clause 14.
Clause 79, which many are already calling the taxi tax —that is certainly what people in the industry are calling it—changes the way VAT is applied to taxi and private hire vehicle journeys. Currently, under the tour operators’ margin scheme, VAT is charged only on the operator’s margin—that is, the difference between what the operator charges the customer and what it pays the underlying provider. The clause will remove taxi and private hire vehicle transport from the scope of the tour operators’ margin scheme.
The clause is being brought forward following a defeat for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on precisely this point. The tribunal rejected HMRC’s claim that ride-hailing services do not qualify for TOMS, although I understand that there is still an appeal, which is due to be heard in March. Perhaps the Minister can explain how much money is being spent preparing for that, if this legislation is going to make the question moot.
In practical terms, the clause means that drivers and businesses now have to charge VAT at 20% on the fare paid by the customer—taking, for example, a £20 fare to £24. The measure took effect from 2 January this year. The Labour party promised in its manifesto not to increase VAT. It is true that it has not increased the rate, but it has certainly expanded the scope of its application through this measure. According to the Government’s own Budget policy costings document, the change will raise about £190 million in 2025-26, rising to some £675 million a year by 2031. That strikes me as a significant new burden—a significant new tax—on private hire and taxis, hence the “taxi tax” sobriquet. It is passengers who will ultimately end up paying the bill.
Industry bodies have warned that fares could increase by double-digit percentages in some areas. Every penny of extra VAT will be passed on to passengers who rely on these services because they have no viable public transport alternatives. That is particularly the case in rural areas and among disabled and elderly passengers, women wanting to get home safely at night and workers on early shifts. They are the people who will be affected by this taxi tax.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Like quite a few members of the Committee, I represent a rural constituency. We have a lot of villages that are not connected to our towns, and a lot of elderly people who need to get to appointments. There are also a lot of children with special education needs and disabilities who get to school via taxis. Does my hon. Friend agree that the increase in fares, which will be passed on to our vulnerable constituents, is unacceptable, and that a charge will be passed on to local authorities, which is not fair to our local taxpayers?
James Wild
My hon. Friend, like me, has a very rural constituency that spends tens of millions of pounds on this. I think Norfolk spends around £30 million or £40 million a year on taxis to transport pupils with special education needs to school. That is a huge proportion of the money that is spent on special educational needs, and potentially adds to the burden and costs of councils who are struggling, particularly in rural areas. They have been—I will be polite—disadvantaged by the latest local government settlement and the way that the Government have skewed the formula against rural areas, having already removed the rural services grant, which we had come to rely on.
What is the Government’s estimate of the average fare increase for passengers as a result of this measure? How can the Treasury justify raising the transport costs at a time when families are already struggling and the Government claim that the cost of living is their priority?
The charge in this clause will not only hit passengers. Operators will face new administrative burdens as they try to account for VAT under far more complex rules. That creates uncertainty—this Committee has discussed the need for certainty on many occasions—and increases the costs for local businesses that operate on relatively small margins. As one operator of a private hire vehicle firm said, rather starkly,
“a 20% VAT hike would hit the elderly, disabled and rural passengers hardest. Businesses cannot plan, invest or grow while uncertainty remains.”
The places most exposed are those with limited public transport networks and a consequently high reliance on the use of taxis and private hire vehicles. That is why we have tabled amendment 42, which proposes to exempt rural communities. It is a simple and fair way to protect those most affected. It would amend clause 79 so that the charge does not apply to journey by private hire vehicle or taxi in rural areas.
If the Minister refuses that limited relief, will he at least commit to supporting new clause 14? It would require a proper impact assessment of the effect of the measure on the taxi and private hire industry, driver earnings, vulnerable passengers, rural communities and passenger fares.
There is a practical problem with clause 79, as with so many clauses that we have debated. Some major operators, including Uber, have reclassified themselves or are exploring ways to reclassify themselves as technology platforms rather than transport providers. That seems to be happening in cities outside London already. If they succeed, the VAT liability would shift from the company to the individual drivers, many of whom are not VAT-registered owing to their earnings level. What is the Minister’s response to that shift, which is already taking effect in parts of the country?
Concerns have also been raised by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales that the list of qualifying services in proposed new subsection (3A) in section 53 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 is too narrow. The institute contends that the list excludes other key designated travel services, most notably trips, excursions and the services of tour guides. That creates a genuine issue for tour operators who supply day-trip packages, whether to the coast of North West Norfolk or to other parts of the country. A lot of small, often family firms provide these services.
For example, if the package consists of a private car transfer, picking up someone from King’s Lynn station and taking them up to sunny Hunstanton, and that is combined with a professional tour guide or excursion ticket, under the clause the private hire element will fall out of TOMS while the guide or excursion will remain in it. What will that do? It will add considerable complexity, forcing the unbundling of a single commercial package. It will require changes to systems and changes to invoicing.
If the intent, as the Minister will no doubt tell us, is simply to go after taxis and private hire vehicles, this is a glaring example of where the drafting is wrong and goes too far. The ICAEW contends that the existing ancillary tests are robust enough to avoid any obvious attempt to dodge paying the tax that is due.
This is a tax rise that will increase fares, hurt rural and vulnerable passengers and create fresh uncertainty in a vital sector. In my constituency, the funding that has been provided for buses is reducing in comparison with the funding provided by the last Government. I expect that that position is being replicated across the country. People in my constituency do not have the luxury of the regular services that I am sure the Minister has in his Chipping Barnet constituency, with maybe three an hour. In parts of my constituency, three a day would be frequent.
I hope that the Minister recognises the points that are being made on behalf of rural areas; I am sure that other hon. Members who represent rural areas will not sit silently when the issue is being discussed, but will speak up for their constituents.
As I say, this is a tax that will increase fares, hurt rural areas and vulnerable passengers and create uncertainty. It will also add to the cost of living. The Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that real living standards will increase by 0.25% in each year of this Parliament, which is a staggeringly low figure when the average has been 1% in each of the past 10 years. That is not a great record—no wonder the Government are cancelling elections left, right and centre.
If the Government are intent on pressing ahead, the very least the Minister can do is agree to review the measure, looking at fare levels, passenger numbers and any reduction in service availability. Otherwise, I look forward to pressing to a vote my amendment, which would protect rural areas.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
In November, the Chancellor told the House that what we are now seeing in clause 79 would protect about £700 million of tax revenue, ensuring that VAT is paid on fares. Yet, according to The Guardian on 2 January, Uber
“has swerved paying millions of pounds”
by simply rewriting its contracts with drivers so that it acts
“as an agent, rather than as the supplier”
outside London. That means that the vast majority of Uber fares outside the capital will avoid the 20% VAT tax on Uber and, as the majority of drivers’ earnings are below the VAT threshold, that money will not come into the Treasury. Meanwhile, passengers in London, where Transport for London has prevented the agency model, will see higher fares.
Can the Minister explain how much of the projected £700 million in revenue is actually going to be protected, given Uber’s change? Why are we now in a position where we have an absurd two-tier system in which identical journeys are taxed differently depending on whether they take place inside or outside London? I note that no Government amendment to the clause has been tabled. Has the Treasury accepted that because of Uber’s decision, this policy has failed before it has even begun?
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
On reading the clause, I too was concerned about the costs for SEND. Devon, which is a very rural county, spends something like—from memory—£50 million a year on taxis to move children across the county who require special schools in different areas. A 20% tax on that would equate to £10 million. Will the Minister clarify whether taxis used for SEND transport by councils are included? If so, will the Minister please negotiate the extra money that will be required, so that we do not have our SEND budget in Devon cut by £10 million?
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I am very glad to see you in the Chair. Rather than running through these changes in detail, let me respond to some of the points that have been raised, because they are important and, in some cases, valid.
As a tax Minister, I am not going to comment on the affairs of individual taxpayers, by which I mean individual businesses, but I will say that the exclusion from TOMS applied to several large private hire vehicle operators. Crucially, it ensured that they were subject to the same tax rules as everyone else. That is what this change is trying to do.
Regarding any subsequent potential changes to the operation of business models that may or may not have taken place—hon. Members have mentioned some reports, but at this stage they are only reports—HM Revenue and Customs will always make an operationally independent assessment of whether a private hire vehicle operator is operating as an agent or, as it is sometimes called, a principal, and it will charge tax accordingly. If there are any implications—we do not know yet whether there will be—any costing update will flow into the forecast as usual.
James Wild
May I return to the point about the ancillary services? Proposed new subsection (3A) in section 53 of the 1994 Act requires only
“the provision of accommodation, or…the transport of passengers by bus, coach, train, ship or aircraft.”
Excursions or trips are not covered, which is why the ICAEW has suggested simply amending the wording to include the services of tour guides, trips and excursions to ensure that genuine day-trip packages, wholly within TOMS, continue to be protected. Under the clause as drafted, they will not be; a proportion of them will face an extra 20% charge. That is the case, is it not?
Dan Tomlinson
We are confident that the exclusion drafted in the Bill is carefully targeted and will not have unintended implications by limiting the activities of legitimate tour operators. It is right to make this change, which will raise £700 million of tax revenue that the Government believe should already be being paid. It will be a vital contribution to the public finances.
Dan Tomlinson
The Government are, of course, aware of the pressures on local council finances as a result of the growing number of children with additional needs who require transportation or other support. It is important to note that the clause does not seek to apply additional VAT to those who are not already seeking to make use of the TOMS. The vast majority of taxi services across the country are not using the TOMS and will be unaffected by this change, but we think it right to ensure that this particular use of the TOMS cannot continue, in order that we can raise revenue.
Dan Tomlinson
I have given way multiple times, but I am happy to do so again, because we are in Committee and it is good to have thorough scrutiny.
Mr Reynolds
I thank the Minister for his generosity. Will he confirm that if any local authority sees an increase in its spending on SEND transport because of the 20% VAT, the Treasury will work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that those authorities are paid back in full for that extra cost? That reassurance would help to put our minds at ease, along with council leaders and council chief executives across the country who are worried that they might have a hole in their budget come the next financial year.
Dan Tomlinson
Local authorities have usual and long-standing mechanisms for handling their VAT liabilities, including reclaiming the VAT where permissible.
I hope that I have responded with sufficient thoroughness to the points that have been raised. I commend the clause to the Committee and urge that amendment 42 be withdrawn and new clause 14 be rejected.
James Wild
I need to hammer the nail about day-trippers while we have the taxman on the Government Benches. Proposed new subsection (3A) in section 53 of the 1994 Act does not provide for day-trip excursions not to be in scope; it refers simply to accommodation and passenger transport not being captured. I hope that the Minister might look at that again, because certainly in tourist areas such as my own constituency, those day trips are part of the local economy and hospitality sector. He knows well from his portfolio that pressures are being placed on hospitality businesses more broadly, not just on pubs.
I am not sure whether we got the full guarantee on SEND. Perhaps the Minister will write to the Committee to set out the position on that, so we all have clarity and can go back to our local authorities to assure them that the £700 million that the Government are looking to raise in additional taxes will not be coming from our council tax payers.
I am not satisfied that the Minister has dealt with the rural issue or the impact on such areas. I appreciate that he does not come from a rural constituency, so he does not have that at his fingertips, but certainly in my area, people rely on private hire vehicles and taxis to get around. That is a big issue, so I will therefore be pressing the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
James Wild
I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 80, page 96, line 28, at end insert—
“(2A) The Treasury must, each year, amend by order the applicable limit set under section 5A(2)(a) by the change in the level of the consumer prices index in the previous tax year.”
This amendment would provide for the £200 applicable limit to be uprated annually in line with the consumer prices index.
James Wild
Having debated so many clauses that tighten the rules and put up taxes on individuals and businesses, we finally reach something unusual for the Chancellor: a tax break. I will speak to the amendment—in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest and the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride)—and to the clause. The clause addresses a long-standing phenomenon in the VAT rules governing the donations of goods to charity.
In the present situation, when a VAT-registered business donates stock, those goods can sometimes be treated as if they were sold, triggering a VAT bill on a notional supply that never took place. Sensibly, the clause corrects that anomaly. It provides that qualifying charitable donations of goods will no longer count as taxable supplies for VAT purposes. In practical terms, that means that no output VAT charge will be liable simply because a business chooses to donate stock to a charity, provided that it meets the conditions and value limits set out in the legislation.
I acknowledge that the change has been warmly welcomed across the charity sector, unlike some of the other provisions about which concerns have been raised. It represents a small but meaningful step towards encouraging more corporate donations. The Opposition, however, have tabled amendment 43, which would ensure that the £200 cap set out in the legislation would increase by the level of the consumer prices index in the previous tax year—as with amendment 41, that would mean that the measure would retain its value over time.
The Opposition support the principle behind the measure. It is right to remove a barrier that discourages generosity and adds unnecessary complexity to charitable giving, but the Association of Taxation Technicians has already cited concerns. In its view, the changes do not fully match the existing relief for goods donated for resale. Businesses will still face different VAT treatments, depending on how a charity uses the donated items.
Clause 80 adds yet another outcome, meaning that the system remains complex for what is, in simple terms, the same act of giving goods to charities—the charities across our constituencies. Practical guidance from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will therefore be vital, because businesses need to understand exactly when the new relief applies, how the value limits work and what evidence they must keep to stick on the right side of the rules. Without that clarity, many could decide that donating just is not worth the administrative hassle. Will the Minister commit to providing such guidance and working with the sector to produce it?
According to the Budget documents, the measure will cost around £10 million to the Exchequer, which is a small price to pay for allowing more goods to reach charities and the communities they serve. However, amendment 43 would ensure that the measure retains its value over time. The current £200 limit risks eroding year by year as inflation drives up the cost of goods. Our amendment would simply link that cap to CPI, so that it keeps pace with prices, rather than becoming less generous each year. I think the Minister would have to agree that this is a modest and practical suggestion that would ensure the relief continues to operate as intended, so I hope he might agree to accept the amendment.
To conclude, I will ask the Minister three things. What estimate has the Treasury made of the additional volume and value of goods expected to be donated following the change? Secondly, will HMRC commit to publishing clear and accessible guidance for small and medium-sized businesses so that they can use the relief with confidence? Finally, if the Government will not support our amendment, will they at least agree to review the £200 limit within a year or so, listening to evidence from charities and donors about how the policy is working in practice?
In the end, the change is about making generosity easier, not harder. If we can make the tax system work just a little better for those who give and those who do so much vital work on the ground in our constituencies and communities, that is something that all members of the Committee would want to support. I look forward to the Minister’s response to what is a very modest and helpful amendment.
Mr Reynolds
The Liberal Democrats fully support clause 80 and would support amendment 43 if it were pushed to a vote. When I worked in retail, including in grocery retail for a significant number of years, I saw time and again that goods were going in the bin that should have been going to a good home, such as a charity, but that was not happening because it was cheaper to dispose of those goods than to donate them to a worthwhile cause. That is an unacceptable position, and one that we should not be in, so I am really glad that the Government have brought forward clause 80 to help change that.
Clause 80 explicitly names the household goods to which the £200 limit applies—household appliances, furniture, flooring, computers, tablets and phones. As someone who is renovating a house at the moment, I am not sure whether many household appliances can be bought for £200 or less, and I do not know whether the Treasury has set that limit deliberately. When buying a tablet or phone, there are very few options under that £200 limit, and I wonder whether the limit has been drawn too narrowly to ensure that the majority of products donated will not fall under it. I would welcome the rationale from the Minister as to why £200 was chosen as the appropriate number, and what consideration the Treasury has given to widening that limit.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the Opposition spokespeople for their questions. [Interruption.] Spokesmen—very good. Before the Budget, I attended a roundtable with businesses, charities and those who had been campaigning and advocating for the change we brought in at the Budget. In response to many of the questions asked by the Opposition spokesmen, I can reassure them that we worked through the limits and detail of the clause really closely with the charitable sector and with the businesses that would have a different VAT treatment or that may pass on their goods in this way.
On the specific question about guidance, it has already been shared with stakeholders and we continue to engage with them. I will see if my officials can send the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, the guidance if he would be interested to see it. The value of goods will be commensurate with a £10 million a year Exchequer cost.
On the threshold, the Government have decided not to uprate it in line with CPI, but we will continue to keep it under review. As I said, it was set after detailed and extensive conversations and engagement with the groups that will be involved with the different treatment through either receiving or donating the goods.
It is worth noting that, due to the wonders of modern capitalism, lots of the prices of consumer goods have actually been falling in real terms over time—for example, we might think about how expensive a traditional washing machine or a television is today compared with 20 or 30 years ago. It is not clear to me that it would be appropriate to continue to uprate the threshold as default in line with CPI. For that reason, I encourage that amendment 43 be rejected, and commend clause 80 to the Committee.
James Wild
The hon. Member for Maidenhead makes a reasonable point about the £200 limit. The Minister said that there had been a lot of discussion to arrive at that threshold, but I do not think he exposed the entire rationale underpinning it—he talked about washing machines and their prices, which was an interesting diversion. The point remains that if we have a £200 limit and we think that is the right limit now, why do we not just automatically uprate it? Then the Minister will not have to come back with regulations or put other clauses in future Finance Bills. It would save us all a lot of hassle and palaver, and would mean that people and charities know where they stand. Our amendment is a modest measure, which I am surprised that the Minister has not simply accepted, so I will test the will of the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dan Tomlinson
My remarks on clause 81 will be very brief. The changes that the clause makes will add combined county authorities to the list of bodies eligible for refunds under section 33 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994. This will remove the need for individual Treasury orders each time a new combined county authority is established. I commend the clause to the Committee.
James Wild
I thank the Minister for that very succinct description of the clause. He will be pleased to hear that I have only a few points to make—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Burnley says, “That’s good.”
The clause allows newly created combined county authorities to reclaim VAT incurred on non-business activities, such as statutory public functions. At present, established local authorities can recover VAT on such activities under section 33 of the Value Added Tax Act, but the definition does not explicitly include combined county authorities. We understand that that change took effect last year.
The explanatory notes make it clear that the clause is intended to ensure fiscal neutrality for the new governance arrangements. Combined county authorities should be no worse off than traditional counties because of their form, but of course the beneficiaries are the combined authorities that are being formed under the Government’s local government reorganisation plans.
My own county of Norfolk is set to be joined with Suffolk in one of these combined county authorities, with a mayor sitting across the two counties. People in Norfolk and Suffolk were looking forward to that mayor being elected in May, until the Government cancelled our election as a late Christmas present in December. As a result, we will not have a combined county authority mayor in place and we will lose out on the £40 million that the mayor was meant to have through the investment fund.
The county council elections for the authority that will make way for the combined county authority, which will then benefit from this VAT exemption, were also cancelled. So there is more delay and uncertainty, and a loss of funding, as people look at the creation of these combined county authorities, which are the subject of the clause, and the refund that they will be able to get. The clause is sensible, but the Government’s wider plans that sit behind it are somewhat chaotic, and cancelling elections is undemocratic.
Mr Reynolds
Balancing VAT refund rights to ensure fairness for CCAs is, of course, welcome, and we support it. We support the idea that VAT refund rights should be balanced across groups and institutions that are similar and have a similar purpose. That is why I hope you will allow me to share some surprise, Mrs Harris, that the Government have not gone further in balancing refund rights. For example, a school with a sixth form attached can claim its VAT back, but a sixth form college cannot. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) has been campaigning on that for a significant time. In answer to a written question, the Minister confirmed that the Government are not planning to extend the VAT refund right to sixth form colleges, but they have done so for combined county authorities. Will the Minister explain the rationale for that? We all support the idea of balancing VAT refund rights, so we should surely be extending that to other situations.
Dan Tomlinson
I am glad that the hon. Member for Maidenhead is aware of the answer to the written parliamentary question. I have also responded in writing to Members who have written to me about this issue, and the rationale has been set out in that correspondence.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 81 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 82
UK listing relief
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 15—Review of extension of three-year period for UK listing relief—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within 12 months of this Act being passed, publish and lay before Parliament a report on the potential benefits of extending beyond three years the period for which UK listing relief applies under section 82.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must assess the—
(a) impact that extending the period could have on the attractiveness of UK markets for new listings,
(b) potential effects on capital raising and investment in the UK, and
(c) implications for Exchequer revenues.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report on the potential benefits of extending beyond three years the period for which UK listing relief applies under section 82, including effects on the attractiveness of UK markets, capital raising and Exchequer revenues.
Dan Tomlinson
The Government are committed to ensuring that world-leading capital markets support our firms to raise the capital they need to continue to grow and invest. Clause 82 introduces UK listing relief, which means that transfers of a company’s securities will be subject to relief from stamp duty reserve tax for the first three years after the company lists in the UK.
Stamp duty reserve tax and stamp duty are charges on transfers of UK securities. They are vital sources of revenue for the Exchequer, and combined they are forecast to raise up to £5.3 billion a year by the end of the forecast period. The Government are focused on ensuring that the UK is the best place for firms to start, scale, list and stay, and we have delivered an ambitious programme of reforms to build on those strong foundations.
The changes made by the clause will remove the 0.5% stamp duty reserve tax charge on the transfer of a company’s securities for three years from the point at which the company lists its shares on a UK-regulated market. That will enable newly listed companies to secure higher share prices, boost trading volumes and improve access to capital.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
It is great to hear the Minister talking about making the City of London a pre-eminent place in which to grow and list companies, and this is a very welcome measure. However, if he accepts that stamp duty is what has been holding back the listing of shares, why do the Government not go the whole hog and get rid of stamp duty altogether, thereby making the City of London comparable with pretty much every other major developed stock market in the world?
Dan Tomlinson
As the hon. Member knows, there are always trade-offs to be considered in taxation policy design. As I have just outlined, there is around £5 billion of revenue here. We must ensure we get the balance right between raising revenue and continuing to support growth and the ability of companies to grow and invest in the UK.
We did make changes at the Budget, for example to venture capital trusts, enterprise investment schemes and enterprise management incentives to encourage start-ups in particular to scale up in the UK, as one of our frontier sectors seeing growth. We have made changes to support that. I note the Opposition’s perspective, but on balance we think this is a good change to make on its own. We look forward to seeing the impact that it will have and we will continue to keep our tax measures under review.
New clause 15 would require the Chancellor to publish, within 12 months, a report on the potential benefits of extending the period in which the UK listing relief applies beyond three years. The Government have carefully considered the scope of this relief, including the length of the relief period. The first few years after listing are crucial for companies as they endeavour to establish long-term viability on public markets, with the most vital period being the initial one or two years. However, our judgment is that the benefits of significantly extending the relief beyond this period would not represent best value for money, as the Exchequer cost would increase while the benefits for firms would diminish with each additional year. I therefore commend clause 82 to the Committee and ask that new clause 15 be rejected.
James Wild
I rise to speak to clause 82 and new clause 15 tabled in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. As we have heard, clause 82 introduces a time-limited relief from stamp duty reserve tax for companies listed on a UK-regulated market. The Committee will know that stamp duty is charged at 0.5% on trades in chargeable securities such as shares. This form of transaction tax is among the most economically inefficient, in the same way stamp duty is on homes: it dampens the market, prevents people from moving and undermines labour market flexibility. As a result, we have committed to abolishing stamp duty on house sales—not stamp duty on shares—and that has been very warmly welcomed.
Under clause 82, trades in a newly listed company’s securities will be exempt from that 0.5% charge for the first three years after the company lists, provided specified conditions are met. The relief will apply to new listings from November last year, with the detail on the qualifying markets and securities set out in the clause, with which hon. Members will, I am sure, have familiarised themselves. We on this side of the Committee support the principle behind the clause.
Some Opposition Members have highlighted the potential benefits of scrapping this transaction tax entirely. We all want to see more companies listing and raising capital in the UK, and steps to lower frictional trading costs can contribute to that ambition. However, my new clause 15 seeks to go further by requiring the Government to publish a report on the potential benefits of extending the stamp duty relief beyond three years. Specifically, I am asking Ministers to assess how a longer relief period could affect the attractiveness of UK markets for new and returning listings, and the impact on capital raising, investment and Exchequer revenues. According to the “Budget 2025 Policy Costings” document, historical listing activity has raised between £14 billion and £17 billion of capital each year. The same document shows that the relief is expected to cost the Exchequer £25 million in the first year, rising to about £50 million a year once fully implemented.
Dan Tomlinson
As with other measures that have been debated this week, for example on business rates, it seems that the Conservatives were just getting around to reform on the issue. Now they are in opposition, they seem to have developed a significant zeal for reform and tax cutting that they did not show at all when they were in government—for example, leaving business rates unreformed, as well as leaving this measure totally unreformed.
James Wild
I am surprised that the Minister has brought up business rates. This is very important. We look with sympathy at having to reverse the Chancellor’s mess, although the Minister will be coming back in a few months, I am sure, with a further U-turn. Just to clarify on business rates, did the Government choose to scrap the 40% relief that was in place when they came into office?
Dan Tomlinson
I do not know whether you want the conversation to continue on a tax that is not in scope, Mrs Harris, but I am happy to answer the question.
Dan Tomlinson
Indeed, Mrs Harris. I respect your judgment and authority in such matters.
As I said, the Government carefully considered the scope of the relief, including the length of the relief period. The first few years after listing are vital in establishing longer-term liquidity, the most important period coming right at the start. The benefits of extending the relief significantly beyond that period, in our judgment, would not represent value for money for the taxpayer.
Mark Garnier
The Minister talks about value for money and the cost, but the alternative is that there will be no listings, so it does not cost anything because this is revenue that the Government would not otherwise have. If they levy this stamp duty, people will not list—they will go to other markets. If they remove it, people will list. There is not actually any change in the revenue to the Government. I do not understand why they cannot extend it. It is not lost revenue because it never would have been generated in the first place.
Dan Tomlinson
Of course there will be companies that will list under the current tax regime, and changing the tax would lead to lower revenues for the companies that would have listed anyway. We have to look at both sides of the coin. [Interruption.]
Dan Tomlinson
The Government are doing a lot to continue supporting the UK’s vibrant capital markets. We have some of the deepest capital markets globally. We have, for example, changed UK listing rules to bring the UK into line with international best practice. We are also changing and improving the prospectus regime, significantly cutting the amount of paperwork that a firm needs to produce while providing better and more relevant information to investors.
We are taking a range of actions to support our capital markets and to support firms to list here. We have seen some good progress in recent months, with more companies choosing to list in the UK, and I hope and expect that we will see more of that soon.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 82 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 87
Rates of duty effective from 6pm on 26 November 2025
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 88 stand part.
New clause 31—Review of effects of sections 87 and 88 on illicit tobacco market—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, publish an assessment of the impact of the provisions made under sections 87 and 88 on the illicit tobacco market.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish an assessment of the impact of sections 87 and 88 on the illicit tobacco market.
Dan Tomlinson
Clauses 87 and 88 implement changes announced at Budget 2025 concerning tobacco duty rates.
At the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirmed that the Government will increase tobacco duty in line with the escalator. Clause 87 therefore specifies that the duty charged on all tobacco products will rise by 2 percentage points above retail prices index inflation. The new tobacco duty rates will be treated as having taken effect from 6 pm on the day they were announced, which was 26 November 2025. In October 2026, tobacco duty will rise again in line with the escalator with the introduction of vaping duty. That is to preserve the price differential between vaping and tobacco products to ensure the duty on vaping does not make smoking more attractive, and will maintain the incentive to choose vaping over smoking.
New clause 31 would require the Government to publish an assessment of the impact of the changes to tobacco duty rates on the illicit tobacco market within six months of the Bill being passed. The Government will not accept the new clause, as the potential impact on the illicit market is already one of several factors that we consider when we take decisions on tobacco duty rates. We have already published a tax information and impact note alongside the Budget to set out the expected impact of this measure. I commend clauses 87 and 88 to the Committee and I reject new clause 31.
James Wild
I rise to speak to clauses 87 and 88, as well as new clause 31 tabled by the Conservatives. As the Minister said, clause 87 increases tobacco duty and the minimum excise tax with effect from Budget day, as is traditional. As he also outlined, tobacco duty is clearly charged on cigarettes and other tobacco products, while the minimum excise tax ensures that cheaper cigarettes do not escape the appropriate levels of taxation.
Clause 88 sets out a further increase from October this year, introducing an additional uplift in line with RPI, alongside a one-off increase of £2.20 per 100 cigarettes and a similar rise for hand-rolled tobacco. The one-off increase coincides with the introduction of the new vaping products duty, which we may get to talk about later in Committee.
As the Committee discussed last year, in the autumn Budget 2024, the Government announced that the measure was intended to preserve the price gap between tobacco and vaping products, with the same £2.20 rate applying across both categories. These measures will result in a sharp rise in the duty per pack and per pouch. While we broadly support these measures, there are concerns about the implications for illicit trade and enforcement. As we discussed in the Committee of the whole House on the Budget and the Finance Bill in relation to the Government’s almost doubling of gambling taxes, the risk, as always, is that such steep increases widen the price gap between legal and illegal products, making it more profitable for criminal networks, and more tempting for consumers to turn to the black market.
The tobacco duty has been around for a long time, and in recent years successive increases have sought to maintain the financial incentive for people to switch to vaping or to give up entirely. The OBR forecasts that tobacco duty will raise around £8 billion in the current financial year, a modest rise of 0.8% from the previous year, before receipts fall steadily to £7 billion by 2031. The tax information and impact note suggests that the Exchequer impact from this measure will peak at about £130 million before tailing off, consistent with those forecasts.
In economic terms, it would appear that tobacco duty is pushing beyond the point of maximum returns—beyond the Laffer curve peak. As Members of this House, our focus should be on ensuring that further increases in gambling taxes, or the tobacco taxes that we are debating here, do not simply fuel illegal trade. Raising prices on tobacco inevitably risks boosting demand for illicit products, with the associated criminality that blights our communities and fuels organised crime gangs. Even the TIIN acknowledges that some consumers may switch to cross-border or illicit purchases.
HMRC says that it will “monitor and respond” as part of its anti-fraud strategy, but frankly, more clarity and more action are needed. Will the Minister outline specific measures that HMRC will use to counter any shift towards the black market? What assessment has been made of the risk to consumers who buy illicit products, both in terms of the health impacts and the costs to public services such as our NHS?
Mrs Harris, you are probably wondering what the scale of this problem is. According to HMRC, 10% of cigarettes and 35% of hand-rolling tobacco consumed in the UK are from illegal or non-UK duty-paid sources. However, industry data suggests—I of course recognise that the companies have an interest, and I do not take their figures at face value—that the problem may be far worse, with up to 30% of cigarettes and over 50% of hand-rolling tobacco now being sourced illicitly. If accurate, those are levels that have not been seen the mid-2000s.
I cited similar data in Committee during the passage of the Finance Act 2025, when similar provisions were brought forward. Can the Minister update me and the Committee on what discussions have taken place with HMRC about the discrepancy in the estimates? We have one estimate of 10% and another of 30%; that is a huge difference, and we have to get to the actualité.
HMRC’s own director of indirect tax—I want to see that on a business card—has said that illicit tobacco costs the taxpayer around £1.8 billion a year in lost revenue. That is a lot of tax being avoided that could be collected, were this legislation properly implemented. Is that the Government’s estimate? If not, can the Minister provide more up-to-date figures on the gap between legal and illegal sales? It would also be helpful to know whether the Government have assessed the cumulative impact on retailers and enforcement bodies, if the illegal market continues to expand. That is precisely the purpose of new clause 31, which would require
“an assessment of the impact of the provisions made under sections 87 and 88 on the illicit tobacco market.”
HMRC launched its first strategy to tackle illicit tobacco back in 2000. I will not go through them all, but subsequent updates, working closely with Border Force, have delivered progress. They have reduced the duty gap on cigarettes by a third and on hand-rolling tobacco by half, which is a welcome success. The previous Conservative Government launched a strategy in March 2024, building on that record.
I am pleased to see that the trading standards powers we introduced in July 2023 are producing results. By early January this year, over £1.4 million in civil penalties had been issued for illicit tobacco sales. When in government, we recognised the importance of enforcement. The Public Accounts Committee, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire serves and I had the pleasure of serving for two years, estimated that every £1 spent by HMRC on compliance recovers £18— a fine rate of return.
Dan Tomlinson
Let me respond to some of the Opposition spokesman’s points. HMRC’s estimate of illicit trade is published annually in “Measuring tax gaps”, which are official statistics produced to the highest quality standards. They adhere to the values, principles and protocols set out in the UK Statistics Authority’s code of best practice for statistics and are regulated by the Office for Statistics Regulation. HMRC is always looking for ways to strengthen them, but the Government consider them to be the most reliable estimates of illicit trade. As he set out, the figures produced by the tobacco industry or those working on its behalf cannot be regarded as a fully neutral assessment of the situation on the ground.
The Opposition spokesman asked about the latest figures. The latest figures from the 2023-24 tax year are that the tobacco duty gap was 13.8%, equivalent to £1.4 billion. He is right that every penny not collected there is a penny not going towards public services. We need to continue to focus our efforts on what we can do to reduce that figure. He mentioned the work of the previous Government, and this Government will build on that. We will continue to work with Border Force to seize cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco. The Committee may be interested to know that in the 2023-24 tax year, HMRC and Border Force together seized 92,435 kg of hand-rolling tobacco. We are continuing to see what more we can do. HMRC and Border Force published a strategy in 2024 setting out the continued commitment to reduce the trade, with £100 million of funding in enforcement capability and £1.4 billion to recruit 5,000 compliance officers.
I had not heard the Opposition spokesman’s point on trading standards before; I did not have the pleasure of serving on the Public Bill Committee of last year’s Finance Bill when he raised it. The Government’s policy position is as it stands, but I am always interested to hear policy ideas. I will take his point back to the Department.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 87 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 89
Vehicle excise duty for light passenger or light goods vehicles etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 17—Statement on increases to vehicle excise duty for cars and light goods vehicles—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, make a statement to the House of Commons, on the increase to vehicle excise duty made under section 89.
(2) The statement under subsection (1) must include details of the impact on—
(a) the automotive sector,
(b) household incomes, and
(c) the UK economy.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement to the House on the impact of the increase to vehicle excise duty under section 89 on the automotive sector, household incomes and the UK economy.
Dan Tomlinson
I will keep my remarks brief, if only to give the hon. Member for North West Norfolk more time to inform us of his opinions on this matter. Clause 89 makes changes to uprate vehicle excise duty rates for cars, vans and motorcycles in line with the retail prices index measure of inflation from 1 April 2026. New clause 17 would require the Chancellor to make a statement to the House on the impact of that 2026-27 increase to VED rates, but the increase announced in the Budget is in line with the retail prices index, meaning that rates will remain unchanged for vehicle owners in real terms by that metric. It is therefore the Government’s judgment that the new clause is unnecessary. I therefore commend clause 89 to the Committee, and recommend that new clause 17 be rejected.
James Wild
I am very happy to share my views with the Committee on each and every clause as we go through; that is part of what we are here to do. I am also happy for the Minister to expand on the merits or otherwise of his legislation at will. If he prefers to keep it brief, we can read into that what we wish.
Clause 89 increases vehicle excise duty, the annual charge for keeping a car, van or motorcycle on the roads, in line with the retail prices index. Those changes take effect in relation to licences taken out on or after 1 April. Let us be clear: in practice, that means higher costs for almost every driver. New clause 17 seeks to make sure that those impacts are assessed. It specifically looks at the impact on the automotive sector, household incomes and the UK economy.
We will not vote against clause 89, but the Government should not take our position as an endorsement of their wider approach to motorists. Vehicle excise duty flows straight into the Treasury’s general fund, and the amount that a driver pays depends on the vehicle type, registration date and emissions, with rates adjusted. According to the OBR, vehicle excise duty is forecast to raise getting on for £12 billion by the end of the decade, due in no small part to the RPI increases. It is interesting that the Minister is keen to increase people’s taxes by RPI on a regular basis but will not give such a commitment on a fairly minor charitable threshold. We will leave that there, though, as we have debated that clause.
Ministers like to describe these increases as modest. On their own they may be, but we have to look at all these things in the round, and the impact of these clauses on individuals. If we look at all the costs—the hike in fuel duty and the new mileage-based charge planned for electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, which will cost the average driver £255 a year—the cumulative impact begins to bite. That is why the new clause looks at the impact of this measure. That all comes on top of rising insurance premiums, servicing costs and of course the wider pressure on household budgets. Everyone’s bills are going up, and there seems to be no end in sight.
Let us not forget that it was this Government who decided to end the 5p fuel duty cut that the last Conservative Government introduced—a decision that will cost the average family around £100 a year from September. Then, from next April, the long-standing fuel duty freeze that was in place for 16 years will also be scrapped, replaced by inflation-linked rises. That freeze has saved motorists £120 billion since 2010, but once again, drivers are being asked, through this measure, to pay the price for the Government’s failure to get a grip on the economy.
Motorists and motoring organisations including the RAC have rightly warned that these charges come at a time when the cost of living remains high and public transport options are patchy—particularly outside our major cities, as we discussed in the context of private hire vehicles and taxis. For many in rural areas like my own, a car is not a luxury but a necessity to get around, get to work and see family. Many people do not have an alternative to their car. Drivers are paying more, yet the Prime Minister boasts about things like his £3 bus fare cap, which he quietly increased by 50%. That is why new clause 17 would require an assessment of the impact of the increase in vehicle excise duty.
Although we will not vote against the clause, we expect some answers from the Minister. Will he confirm whether the Treasury has modelled the combined impact of these motoring costs—VED, fuel duty, the upcoming road pricing charges—on household budgets, particularly in rural areas where public transport is limited? What assessment has been made of the impact on small businesses that depend on vans and light goods vehicles to operate in each of our constituencies every day? Those are the people we should think of when we consider clauses such as this. New clause 17 would help to deliver the clarity that Britain’s 50 million motorists deserve.
Dan Tomlinson
In response to the shadow Minister’s question, the Government do consider the impact of each individual tax measure on businesses and consumers in the round with the others, at Budgets and in between them too. As a result, we have concluded that this is the right and proportionate way forward, to protect revenue and make sure that we can increase revenue in line with inflation, rather than beyond it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 89 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 90
Vehicle excise duty for rigid goods vehicles without trailers and tractive units
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 91 to 93 stand part.
Clause 95 stand part.
New clause 18—Statements on HGV Vehicle Excise Duty and HGV Road User Levy—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, make a statement to the House of Commons on the increase to HGV vehicle excise duty made under sections 90 to 93 and the increase to the HGV Road User Levy made under section 95.
(2) The statement under subsection (1) must include details of the impact on the—
(a) haulage sector,
(b) decarbonisation of the logistics industry, and
(c) UK economy.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement to the House on the increases to HGV vehicle excise duty under sections 90 to 93 and to the HGV Road User Levy under section 95, including their impact on the haulage sector, decarbonisation of logistics and the UK economy.
Dan Tomlinson
Clauses 90 to 93 will make changes to the vehicle excise duty rates for rigid goods vehicles without trailers and tractive units, the cab of an articulated lorry, rigid goods vehicles with trailers, vehicles with exceptional loads, and haulage vehicles other than showman’s vehicles. Clause 95 will make changes to uprate the heavy goods vehicle—HGV—levy.
The registered keeper of a vehicle is responsible for paying VED. The rates depend on the vehicle’s revenue weight, axle configuration and Euro emissions status. The HGV levy is payable for both UK and foreign HGVs using UK roads. A reformed HGV levy was introduced in August 2023, which varies according to the vehicle’s weight and Euro emissions status.
New clause 18 would require the Chancellor to make a statement to the House—in a similar way, I believe, to new clause 17 that we just discussed—on the increases to HGV vehicle excise duty under clauses 90 to 93, and the HGV road user levy under clause 95. Similarly, given that the uprating is in line with inflation and that rates will remain unchanged in real terms for vehicle owners, it is the Government’s view that the new clause is not therefore necessary, and I urge the Committee to reject it.
James Wild
The clauses deal with changes to vehicle excise duty for heavy goods vehicles, rigid good vehicles with and without trailers, vehicles with exceptional loads, and haulage vehicles other than showman’s vehicles. I welcome the exemption for showman’s vehicles as we look forward to the King’s Lynn Mart, which has been going for 800 years. On 14 February, I will be joining in the civic procession through the middle of King’s Lynn, before getting on the dodgems for the traditional dodgem ride, with other civic figures. Hon. Members should feel free to come along—it is on a Saturday. It is always cold for the Mart, but it is well worth coming along to.
Together, these provisions will uprate the VED and the road user levy by RPI. We have concerns about the timing of the increases, and the absence of meaningful backing for the most affected industries, especially the logistics sector, which keeps Britain moving. HGV vehicle excise duty is already complex, with more than 80 different rates, varying based on the characteristics of weight, emissions, class and configuration. Of course, as the Minister referred to, HGVs are also subject to the road user levy, which was introduced in 2014 as a charge for using the network. That levy was rightly suspended in August 2020 during the pandemic, and the reformed levy that the Minister referred to was reintroduced in August 2023, but it was frozen in the autumn statement that year.
Mark Garnier
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly good point about the inflationary effect of these taxes. He has mentioned houses, and we know that the Bank of England is charged with using monetary policy to keep inflation under control. The direct effect of this measure could be an increase in interest rates, and therefore an increase in the cost of mortgages. Does he think that the Government would be happy with that?
James Wild
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the effect of these clauses on putting up costs and potentially adding to inflation, which as we know has almost doubled from the rate that the Government inherited. Of course, that is partly due to the decisions that the Chancellor has taken and the huge amount she is borrowing and spending, which was not mentioned in her party’s manifesto.
To my hon. Friend’s point, the Minister must tell us what assessment has been made of the knock-on impact on consumer prices, particularly for essentials such as food that depend on road freight to get to our supermarkets and local stores. This is a time when we should be backing British logistics, not burdening it. I therefore hope that, on reflection, the Minister will accept new clause 18 as a sensible one that will help him provide that information to our constituents, to the public, and—importantly—to the logistics sector, transport operators and supermarkets.
Mr Reynolds
The haulage sector has seen significant challenges in recent years: increases in fuel prices, increases in wages and significant changes in the Employment Rights Act 2025, business rates and vehicle excise duty, as we see here. I would not be the investment and trade spokesman for the Liberal Democrats if I did not mention another challenge for the road haulage sector in recent years, which is the significant amount of red tape involved in Brexit, and the cost of that.
The Government’s EU reset has not touched the sides, as haulage associations have been telling us recently. The Business and Trade Committee recently heard about some goods moving from the UK to France that required 29 different stamps on their paperwork. If one stamp goes in the wrong place, the vehicle gets stuck in France or sent back. That is an additional cost for the road haulage sector, on top of all these extra costs and the vehicle excise duty increases.
For example, we were told on the Business and Trade Committee about a vehicle that was sat in France for almost one month because of paperwork that was not quite correct and small technical challenges. That vehicle being sat in France for one month meant consistent driver changes and meant the freezer compartment having to be kept on to ensure that the goods did not spoil. There was a £6,000 cost to the business because of two stamps being in the incorrect place. If we add that to the £2,000 cost per truck of the changes to vehicle excise duty, we see very clearly that the significant changes that the Government are making in quick succession are not helping the sector, which needs all the support it can get.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for North West Norfolk for his romantic invitation to King’s Lynn; I may be otherwise engaged on that date, but I thank him for it all the same. I am interested to see whether any Members wish to intervene to say whether they will be taking up the invitation, but it is good to hear that he is an active constituency MP.
We do, of course, look at measures in the round, as the hon. Member for North West Norfolk implored me to. We did so ahead of the Budget, and I will continue to work with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on tax policy in the run-up to the Budget at the end of the year. We are providing stability this year for the private sector and for individuals by moving away from the relatively chaotic approach under the previous Government of having multiple tax events with big swings and roundabouts twice a year, so future tax changes will not come until the end of the year, but that will give me more time to consider things in the round.
James Wild
Is the Minister therefore ruling out any further support for hospitality, leisure and retail businesses in the Chancellor’s spring statement?
Dan Tomlinson
The Government will consider all tax measures in the round in the usual way in the run-up to the Budget. It would not be right for me to speculate on what will or will not be in the Budget; it is a long way away, and there is much to consider in the meantime. Conservative Members decided to bring up inflation, which hit 11% under them in 2022, pushing up prices for everyone up and down the country, leaving businesses and consumers significantly worse off in the worst Parliament on record for living standards.
James Wild
The Minister is a fair man, so he will recognise the impact that the pandemic and the war in Ukraine had on inflation and energy prices. Could he confirm what the inflation rate was on the day the Government came into office and what it is today? That is an important context for his comments.
Dan Tomlinson
Over the months ahead, as a result of the action that this Government have taken to bring stability back to the economy, I look forward to seeing inflation return to 2% by the end of the year, as is forecast by the Bank of England.
I thank the hon. Member for Maidenhead for bringing up the botched Brexit deal that the previous Government left us. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister and Ministers in the Cabinet Office and elsewhere in Government, we continue to work to reduce barriers to trade and deepen our relationship with our nearest trading partner. As the Minister responsible for customs and excise, I am always looking at what more we can do to support those who move goods across borders and trade with our partners in the EU.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 90 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 91 to 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 94
Vehicle excise duty: expensive car supplement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 19—Report on expensive car supplement—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, lay before the House of Commons a report on the impact of implementation of the provisions of section 94 on—
(a) the automotive sector,
(b) the sale of hybrid cars, and
(c) vehicle excise duty revenues from high-value vehicles.
(2) The review must consider whether the threshold set under section 94 remains appropriate.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report on the impact of section 94 on the automotive sector, sales of hybrid cars and vehicle excise duty revenues from high-value vehicles, and to consider whether the threshold remains appropriate.
Dan Tomlinson
Clause 94 will make changes such that the vehicle excise duty expensive car supplement threshold is increased to £50,000 for zero emission cars, from its current level of £40,000. This change will take effect from 1 April 2026 and will apply to zero emission vehicles first registered on or after 1 April 2025 for tax renewals from April 2026.
The expensive car supplement is a supplement to VED payable by vehicle keepers for five years, from years two to six following a car’s first registration. The rate is currently £425 a year; that will increase to £440 from 1 April 2026, in line with RPI, and is charged in addition to the standard rate of VED. The additional charge was, I believe, originally introduced in 2017 under a previous Government so that those who can afford the most expensive cars pay more than the standard rate paid by other drivers.
Clause 94 will increase the threshold for zero emission cars from £40,000 to £50,000. This measure is projected to benefit over half a million drivers of zero emission vehicles over the next five years. It will also incentivise electric vehicle take-up. Increasing numbers of motorists will benefit in future years as the zero emission vehicle population grows.
New clause 19
“would require the Chancellor…to report on the impact of section 94 on the automotive sector”
and on other issues. As is usual practice, a tax information and impact note was published at the Budget, outlining the anticipated impacts of this measure as well as the expected revenue impacts of the change.
The Government remain fully committed to the EV transition, which will drive economic growth, help the country meet its climate change obligations and improve air quality. By increasing the ECS threshold to £50,000 for zero emission vehicles, clause 94 supports those goals.
James Wild
I rise to speak to clause 94 and new clause 19, which stands in my name. Clause 94 makes changes to the expensive car supplement in vehicle excise duty, as the Minister referred to, specifically for zero emission vehicles. This is an extra £425 charge that applies to most cars with a list price above £40,000. Under the clause, the Government propose to increase the threshold to £50,000, but only for zero emission vehicles. That means that buyers of higher-value electric vehicles will avoid paying the charge, while the £40,000 limit still applies to petrol, diesel and hybrid cars. This change is due to take effect from April 2026.
Let us recall that, back in the Public Bill Committee on last year’s Finance Bill, one of the Opposition’s “review” new clauses called for an independent assessment of the £40,000 threshold and its impact on consumers, particularly for electric vehicle sales, because we said that it was not at the right level. The Minister’s predecessor rejected that idea, and now here we are: the Ministers have quietly decided to raise the very threshold that we urged them to raise a year ago. They are playing catch-up, but they get there in the end. Is the Minister willing to admit that they have been a bit slow to follow the points that we made? Maybe we will be here in Committee next year, talking about other clauses on which the Minister has rejected things and reversed his position.
That brings me to the hybrid point. The Government now seem to have decided that hybrids no longer warrant support, despite the fact that they are critical in bridging the transition to fully electric vehicles. I would be grateful if the Minister expanded at length on the reasoning behind that decision, and on how many jobs in the UK are dependent on the manufacture of hybrid models when a lot of our electric vehicles come from China, where the Prime Minister is now.
We are broadly supportive of the measure, having recommended it a year ago, but let us be realistic: it will not do anything for most of the households in our constituencies, who simply cannot afford a new electric vehicle, especially one that costs £50,000. That is completely out of reach for people in my constituency. I do not know whether that is also the case in constituencies nearer to London, but it is certainly the case in mine.
How does this increase fit with the wider EV policy and charging infrastructure and its roll-out? To support ordinary people up and down the country, we should be joining countries such as Canada—along with the EU, or so it looks—in scrapping the mandate forcing manufacturers to produce EV vehicles and ending the 2030 ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars.
New clause 19 would require a proper review of the policy, its effects on the automative sector and the impact on the sale of hybrid cars and on vehicle excise duties. It would ensure a consideration of whether the threshold remains appropriate as market prices shift.
I hope that the Government will accept this accountability and transparency in policymaking, which will benefit everyone. Will the Minister at least commit to reviewing the threshold in future, particularly if it turns out that it needs to be adjusted? Will he also look at the hybrid point?
Mr Reynolds
We welcome the uprating of the expensive car supplement for EVs to the value of £50,000, supporting EVs and EV take-up. However, we are surprised that during the Committee’s first sitting on Tuesday, when I asked about extending zero VAT for charging infrastructure beyond 2027, the Economic Secretary declined to do so. I am aware that the Minister who is present today was not there, but that is slightly confusing. Here, we see the Government supporting electric vehicles and increasing the threshold from £40,000 to £50,000, but not applying the same policy by supporting electric vehicles post 2027 in other clauses of the Bill.
The Economic Secretary, who was in the Minister’s place on Tuesday, is now in China; I do not know whether I should commiserate with the Minister for not being invited on that trip. We are concerned about floods of electric vehicles that are coming in from China, undercutting European and British competitors. We are worried that they will be impacted by that £50,000 change, but several British vehicles will not be. I am sure that we do not want a world in which the Government are unintentionally encouraging British residents to buy electric vehicles made in China rather than electric vehicles from Britain. I hope that the Minister will clarify that point for us.
Dan Tomlinson
I am sorry to report to the Committee that when the Chancellor and I made the decision to increase the threshold ahead of the Budget, I was not aware of the representations that the hon. Member for North West Norfolk had made in last year’s Finance Bill Committee. If I am still in my role in the run-up to the Budget later in the year, of course I will bear in mind everything he has said today. I have already taken some notes that I will take back with me.
The hon. Member is right to note the important role that hybrid vehicles play in the transition. Ultimately, however, to move towards our goal of net zero by 2050, we need to move to a fully clean vehicle fleet over the coming decades, so we want to particularly encourage fully electric vehicles.
We will keep this measure under review; it is important that we do so. This has been an ask of the car manufacturers here in the UK that we want to support. I take the points from the hon. Member for Maidenhead about making sure that consumers can buy vehicles that are produced here in Britain. I hope that a change such as this, which shows the Government’s intent to support the electric vehicle transition, will be a consideration for vehicle manufacturers as they choose where to produce new EV cars in the years to come. Along with other measures that we set out in the Budget, this shows our intention to work alongside the industry to support that transition.
The hon. Member for North West Norfolk raised a point about how high the supplement is. He said that many constituents in rural Norfolk, but also in north London, will find it very challenging to afford to buy a new car that costs between £40,000 and £50,000. That is true in lots of parts of the country, but as I am sure he is aware, it is important that we seek to encourage those who can afford such a car to do so, because they will then sell their cars on at a cheaper value that people may be able to afford. It supports the general health of the car market overall if we can increase the affordability of these—granted—relatively expensive vehicles. That is why the Government have brought forward this change: to support the transition and to reduce the cost of purchasing new vehicles within the £40,000 to £50,000 bracket.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 94 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I think now is an appropriate time for a comfort break. Please will Members get back as quickly as possible?
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 20—Review of bands and rates of air passenger duty—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within 18 months of this Act being passed, publish an assessment of the impact of the changes to air passenger duty made under section 96 on—
(a) the aviation industry,
(b) passengers,
(c) household finances, and
(d) the public finances.
(2) The assessment under subsection (1)(c) must consider how households at a range of different income levels are affected by the changes under section 96.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish an assessment of the impact of changes to air passenger duty under section 96 on the aviation industry, passengers, household finances at different income levels, and the public finances.
New clause 32—Air passenger duty change on boarding passes—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must by regulations require travel operators who are liable to air passenger duty to ensure that in the case where a boarding pass is issued, the change in the level of air passenger duty made under section 96 and charged in respect of the passenger’s journey, is clearly stated on the boarding pass.”
I call the Minister.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the Opposition for that warm welcome back after our break.
Clause 96 sets the rates of air passenger duty for the year 2027-28, as announced at the Budget. The rates will take effect on 1 April 2027. Following previous increases to APD, the Government will uprate rates in line with RPI from 1 April 2027. As was previously announced, they will be rounded to the nearest penny, which constitutes a real-terms freeze. This will continue to make sure that airlines continue to make a fair contribution to the public finances, particularly given that tickets are VAT-free and aviation fuel incurs no duty. The Government expect these measures to have an impact on approximately 600 airlines and aircraft operators.
New clause 20 would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the impact of changes to air passenger duty under clause 96 on the aviation industry, passengers, household finances at different income levels and the public finances. The air passenger duty national statistics on different APD rates administered by HMRC are published annually through the APD bulletin. The bulletin, which is updated annually, includes statistics and analysis on APD receipts up to the latest full month before its release, and airline passenger numbers one month behind that of duty receipts in the UK. New clause 20 is therefore unnecessary.
New clause 32 would require travel operators liable to air passenger duty to ensure that, where a boarding pass is issued, the change in the level of air passenger duty made under clause 96 and charged in respect of the passenger’s journey is clearly stated on the boarding pass. Air passenger duty is charged to airlines on a per-passenger basis on departure from UK airports. Although airlines can pass the cost of the tax on to passengers, that is a commercial decision for them. I therefore commend clause 96 to the Committee, and encourage the Committee to reject new clauses 20 and 32.
James Wild
Thank you, Mrs Harris. I am almost the only one who has said anything in this Committee, so hopefully people know my name. I rise to speak to clause 96 and to my new clauses 20 and 32.
As the Minister has set out, clause 96 sets air passenger duty rates for the 2027-28 tax year, uprating them in line with RPI. I believe that APD is one of the few taxes for which rates are set well in advance so that the sector knows of the increases. The clause will also expand the higher rate to all private jets over 5.7 tonnes. This applies to passengers departing from UK airports, with rates determined by distance and travel class.
My new clause 20 would require the Government to publish a full impact assessment of the APD changes on the aviation industry, on passengers, on households of all income levels and on the public finances. New clause 32 seeks to bring greater transparency to the travelling public; it would require that the change in the level of APD charge be clearly stated on boarding passes so that every passenger knows how much the rate has gone up as a result of tax imposed by the Government. The Minister says that it is a commercial decision whether airlines pass on the cost, but he will be familiar with how the world works. If a business is taxed more, it is likely to pass on the cost rather than absorbing it into what can be quite thin margins. It may not be able to absorb it, so if it does not pass it on, it will go bust.
This could start a wave of transparency. At the petrol pump, we could see how much of the price of a litre is going straight out in tax. In a pub, we could see on a pint glass how much of the pint goes on tax. Those ideas are not included in my new clause, but they have given me inspiration for when we return to the Floor of the House on Report. The new clause would bring greater transparency; I would hope that the Government and Ministers are willing to be more open.
According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, APD will raise £4.1 billion this year, which is forecast to rise to £6.5 billion by 2030-31, driven by rate increases and passenger growth. While the Government reap the higher revenues, they must also recognise the impact and pressure on families getting away for a holiday—I would say, “Come to Norfolk”—and on regional airports and the wider economy. There are concerns about the impact on people saving up for a family holiday; about the availability of routes that might be slightly marginal and which the increases might make uneconomic; and about affordability for families.
The British Airline Pilots Association said that the latest rise is:
“Bad news for passengers, especially families going on holiday”.
The Business Travel Association put it rather more bluntly:
“APD is not simply a passenger charge; it is a tax on global connectivity”.
It highlights an economy flight to India, a key trading partner of the UK. For 2027, the APD alone will be over £100 per passenger, and that is of course before any accommodation or other costs. It is a significant additional factor if a family of four is travelling, perhaps to see family or to go to some of the great sights in India. I enjoyed a visit there a few years ago, and I am happy to discuss where I went with colleagues after this sitting, as I fear it may be out of scope. What will this mean for children? What analysis has been done of how it might affect consumer behaviour? Will it put people off flying?
New clause 32 is about transparency. Everyone would be able to see on their boarding pass how much has been added as a result of this stealth tax. We are unable to put the full amount, due to resolutions passed by the House, which is why we would put the annual amount. Such taxes should be more visible to consumers.
From 2027, all aircraft over 5.7 tonnes will face a higher charge, and that change follows the 50% rise planned for April. When we talk about private jets, people may think of pop stars gadding around, but most private jets are corporate aircraft that are used as capital assets. They are not luxury toys; they are about people flying to trade and secure jobs in our economy. It is about people being internationally connected and going to places such as India—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Burnley is pulling a face, as if that is not the reality, but it is what these jets are. We want people to get on a plane, go and do deals, come back and secure investment into our country. [Interruption.] The Minister is nodding. Perhaps that is why he is the Minister and not on the Back Benches.
The Prime Minister has just hired a private jet to go to China, because he could not take the Royal Squadron flight due to national security concerns. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how much chartering that plane has cost the taxpayer in air passenger duty.
We do not oppose clause 96, but we expect the Government to be up front about the impact of the tax rises they are ramming through in this Bill. We want transparency for families going on holiday, who will see prices going up and will have to pay more to get away. Our new clauses simply ask for some transparency and accountability, which are often missing from the Government’s approach to taxation.
Dan Tomlinson
One thing to note about Labour Back Benchers is that they are on the Government Benches, making changes for their constituents. They are supporting the work of this Government to improve living standards for people up and down the country, to ensure economic stability and to bring down interest rates. They are doing the right thing by their constituents.
Dan Tomlinson
Of course, Mrs Harris.
On the point that the hon. Member for North West Norfolk raised, it would be an unnecessary administrative burden to ask airlines to reformulate how they print and design their boarding passes as a result of an Opposition new clause, so I do not support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 96 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 97
Rates of climate change levy
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 21—Report on Climate Change Levy rates—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, lay before the House of Commons a report on the impact of implementation of the provisions of section 97 on—
(a) energy-intensive industries, and
(b) the UK’s international competitiveness.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report on the impact of section 97 on energy-intensive industries and the UK’s international competitiveness.
Dan Tomlinson
Clause 97 makes changes to the main rates of the climate change levy, with effect from 1 April 2027. Since 2001, CCL has provided an incentive for businesses and the public sector to be energy efficient by adding a tax on the non-domestic supply of energy. Energy efficiency is one of the most cost-effective ways in which businesses can cut emissions, and permanently reducing energy use also helps to improve the UK’s energy resilience.
CCL sets four separate main rates for different energy products. The liquefied petroleum gas rate has been frozen since 2019, and it will continue to be so from April 2027. The changes made by clause 97 will increase CCL rates on gas, electricity and solid fuels in line with the retail prices index. This represents a small increase to business bills, but it will ensure that the behavioural incentives of the tax are maintained while also protecting the public finances. The Government announced a wider review of CCL at the spring statement in 2025, and we remain committed to this to ensure the tax remains up to date in the ever-changing energy landscape.
New clause 21 would require the Chancellor to report on the impact of clause 97 on energy-intensive industries and the UK’s international competitiveness within six months of the Bill being passed. I reassure the Committee that the Government already consider the impact of CCL on energy-intensive industries and competitiveness, and a number of reliefs are available to such businesses. For example, the exemption for certain processes in sectors such as steel, ceramics, cement, glass, metal forming and aluminium provides £270 million of relief per year. The Government do not believe that new clause 21 is necessary.
I therefore commend clause 97 to the Committee and ask that new clause 21 be rejected.
James Wild
Environmental taxes are obviously a very important topic for our constituents and businesses, so it is important that we scrutinise them appropriately. Clause 97 raises the climate change levy—the tax on non-domestic energy use for electricity, gas and solid fuels—while freezing the rate for LPG. As the Minister said, it was first introduced in 2001 to encourage energy efficiency.
This uprating will take effect from April 2027. According to the OBR, around £2 billion will come in as a result. We must look at the additional burden being placed on businesses. Again, we need to look at all of these things cumulatively, which is why I welcome the Government’s decision in the autumn to extend the climate change agreements for a further six years—by allowing qualifying businesses to benefit from reductions at a time when businesses are facing significant headwinds, this offers some much-needed respite.
Of course, British manufacturers are paying higher prices than the European average—I think it is more than 50% more for electricity—while the gap with the United States is wider, for understandable reasons. However, high energy costs are one of the issues holding back growth and productivity in the country. We should be looking to reduce the burden and cost of energy, rather than increase it, and this measure will obviously put up the rate.
New clause 21 would require a report on climate change levy rates, and it would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the impact on energy-intensive industries and the UK’s international competitors. I am thinking about sectors such as ceramics, glass, data centres and gigafactories. These are the industries that drive innovation, exports and skilled jobs, and we should consider the impact of such measures on their ability to do business in the UK.
That is why we have set out a different approach that does not follow the fundamentalism of the Energy Secretary, who is picking arbitrary dates and loading up costs by rushing to meet them, rather than getting the benefits of technology development and innovation. Our plan would bring down the cost of energy, because taxing industrial energy is not a strategy for growth.
What assessment has the Minister made of the greater impact of these rates on British manufacturers’ productivity, competitiveness and ability to grow? If he cannot answer that question, perhaps he will support new clause 21 so that we can have a review after the event to see what the impact has been.
Dan Tomlinson
The hon. Member for North West Norfolk is right that high energy costs are one of the big challenges facing industry and consumers. The Government are doing all we can to accelerate the roll-out of clean power. That includes nuclear power, which as a country we have not invested in for way too long, and we desperately need more of that firm baseload power. We also need more intermittent clean power through wind and solar. We cannot turn things around overnight, but in time, I hope and expect that these interventions will lead to lower bills for both businesses and consumers. However, I would be the first to say there is much more to do on this, given the high energy costs and surging inflation we inherited from the previous Government, particularly after 2022.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 97 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 98
Rates of landfill tax
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 22—Review of landfill tax changes—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within 12 months of this Act being passed, lay before the House of Commons a report on the impact of implementation of the provisions of section 98.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must in particular assess any effects on—
(a) construction and infrastructure projects,
(b) investment in ports,
(c) levels of recycling and illegal dumping,
(d) progress towards the Government’s environmental objectives, and
(e) Exchequer revenues.”
This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report on the impact of section 98, including any effects on construction and infrastructure projects, port investment, recycling and illegal dumping, progress towards environmental objectives and Exchequer revenues.
Dan Tomlinson
Clause 98 increases the standard rate of landfill tax in line with the retail prices index. It increases the lower rate by the same cash amount, and it will take effect from 1 April 2026. This tax was introduced 20 years ago, and it is charged on materials disposed of at a landfill site or an unauthorised waste site in England and Northern Ireland. The objective of the tax is to divert waste away from landfill and to support investment in more circular waste management options, such as recycling and recovery.
The Government consulted earlier this year on proposals to reform the tax to drive more materials out of landfill, and to design out incentives for landfill tax fraud. The hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) is not here, but I enjoyed his video on this, in which he appeared with a hard hat. He, and others, have engaged on this issue.
I particularly welcome the engagement from industry, which has welcomed the Government’s decision. The National Federation of Builders said we had
“really engaged with industry”,
and that the decision put forward after the Budget, following the consultation, would
“allow the industry to start preparing for the circular economy”.
Meanwhile, the chief executive of Biffa said that our decision
“not to converge the two rates…is a good outcome for the industry”.
I am glad that we have a very good tax policy. We are making progress, consulting in good time, engaging with industry, and coming forward with a proposal to make sure the gap does not get any wider on landfill tax—we are increasing the lower rate by the same cash amount as the increase in the higher rate—without adding significant burdens on those who seek to construct and build this country’s future, which we must do after 14 long years of under-investment and decline.
New clause 22 would require the Government to make an assessment of the impacts of clause 98. At the Budget, the Government published a tax information and impact note for this measure, and our approach has been informed by extensive engagement with business. The Government oppose new clause 22 on that basis, and I urge the Committee to reject it. I commend clause 98 to the Committee.
James Wild
Clause 98 increases the standard and lower rates of landfill tax from 1 April, uprating them in line with the retail prices index. In practical terms, that means the standard rate will increase to £130.75 per tonne, with the lower rate applying to less polluting materials increasing by the same cash amount.
Landfill tax, as the Minister said, is intended to discourage disposal in landfill and promote recycling and recovery, and of course we support that aim. However, it is also right that we scrutinise the real-world effect of these changes on business costs, recycling rates and wider environmental outcomes. That is why we have tabled new clause 22.
According to the Budget 2025 costings document, the measure is expected to raise £35 million in 2026-27, increasing to £130 million by the end of the decade. Members will remember the intense speculation ahead of the Budget that the Government might move to a single landfill tax, and the Minister referred to a consultation. The speculation did not come from nowhere; it came from a Government consultation that proposed to do precisely that.
As such, the Minister could have been a bit more up front that this is something the Government were consulting on, presumably because they thought it might be a good idea. Indeed, I recall raising this directly with the Chancellor at Treasury questions earlier last year, where she accused me of scaremongering when I spoke about her own consultation, so I am glad that she has dropped her proposal to move to a single rate. Had she gone ahead with it, material such as topsoil could have faced a thirty-onefold increase.
The Minister kindly referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne and his video; he led a determined campaign alongside the industry to stop the reckless proposals put forward by the Chancellor. They could have added £28,000 to the cost of a new home and increased road construction costs by up to 25%.
When we asked what discussions the Treasury had had with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government before coming forward with its proposal for a thirtyfold increase in the tax rate, it was clear that there had not been any. There was then a sudden panic that the 1.5 million new homes target would be sunk by the Treasury’s actions. I welcome the rethinking of this policy—I will be generous to the Minister on that—to spare the sector yet another unnecessary blow that could have worsened house building numbers and jeopardised the key infrastructure upgrades that we all want to see across the country.
So far, so good, but—and there is always a “but”—the Government’s retreat on that issue does not mean all is well with these proposals. The long-standing exemption for dredging material and its removal has caused deep concern, if the Committee will accept the pun, in the ports and water sector.
The British Ports Association, I believe, has written to the Minister as well as the Chancellor, warning that if these changes proceed unchecked, we may see
“the collapse of major industrial and development projects, particularly in ports, rivers and canals”.
I declare an interest, as King’s Lynn in my constituency has a fine historical port. Indeed, the wealth of King’s Lynn was built on our trading links with the Hanseatic League in medieval times. The knock-on effects of removing the exemption could be significant; delayed waterway clean-up projects, increased flooding in vulnerable areas, and reduced investment in our ports, which keep our country trading.
New clause 22 seeks a proper assessment of how these tax changes will affect construction and infrastructure projects, investment in ports, recycling levels and illegal dumping rates, and progress towards the Government’s environmental objectives. The Minister needs to set out how the Government are responding to address the serious concerns raised by the British Ports Association, which, if correct, could have a very damaging effect on major infrastructure. We welcome that the proposals put forward in the consultation have been ditched, but there are concerns that the Minister now needs to address.
Mr Reynolds
I am very glad that the Government have ditched the plan to converge the rates of landfill tax and to massively hike the charge for inert waste, adding tens of thousands of pounds to the cost of a new build home at a time when the Government want to build 1.5 million new homes. That was not joined-up government, and I am concerned at the lack of joined-up thinking when the Treasury put forward this proposal.
There are a number of gravel quarries in my Maidenhead constituency, and converging the rates would have meant that a significant number of those quarries would have gone unfilled, resulting in more quarry lakes in our town. We know that quarry lakes are dangerous: they are quite shallow until they suddenly become incredibly deep. That is dangerous when young people are out on the water or swimming, and in areas not too far from my own we have seen some unfortunate deaths as a result.
I am glad that the Government have decided to back down on this and are not going to burden the quarry sector or developments with that proposal. However, can the Minister confirm what the cost would have been to UK infrastructure projects such as High Speed 2, and what the additional cost to the taxpayer would have been?
Martin Wrigley
I endorse my hon. Friend’s comments. We have a number of quarries in Newton Abbot, and the same principles apply. I am, however, doubly pleased that the extensive increase was not included in the Budget. I was taken to a local factory in Newton Abbot that makes high-value, high-performance propellers that it exports all over the world. The factory was to be put out of business, because it pours the metal into moulds of sand, and the cost of disposal of that sand would have been more than it could have borne. That would have shut down a £20 million-a-year business. I am extremely grateful that the increase has not been implemented, but I draw the Minister’s attention to such side effects when considering future proposals.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank Opposition Members for their contributions and for welcoming the Government’s decision on this matter at the Budget. I find it a bit tiresome that the Conservatives, when we consult, accuse us of consulting, and when we do not, accuse us of not consulting. It is right and proper, where possible, for the Government to engage with industry on proposals and then come forward with good policy outcomes. I am glad that there has been acknowledgment across the Committee that we have listened, engaged and come forward with proposals that are proportionate.
James Wild
It was not the fact that the Government consulted that we objected to; it was that they were consulting on a crazy idea that would have increased costs for industry 31-fold. Consult away, but do not consult on bad ideas.
Dan Tomlinson
The refining fire of a consultation process is something that I am happy to stand behind.
On the shadow Minister’s important point about the decision to remove the dredging exemption, I have received correspondence from the sector on the issue and will continue to engage with it. The change is not scored in the Budget. To be very clear, it was not made with the express intention of raising revenue; the Government’s judgment, after consultation, was that it would get the balance right between supporting the circular economy and encouraging more environmentally friendly ways of carrying out the activity. I want to continue to engage sincerely with the sector, so I will be responding to the correspondence I have received. I am sure that we will continue to engage.
James Wild
The industry’s concerns are urgent, so if it persuades the Minister on certain points, will he table amendments on Report—the Bill will return to the House in the near future—to address them?
Dan Tomlinson
I am sorry to tell the shadow Minister that this matter is not being legislated for in this Finance Bill; it will be for next year’s Finance Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 98 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 99
Rate of aggregates levy
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 100 stand part.
Government amendments 27, 28 and 26.
Schedule 23.
Government motion to transfer schedule 23.
New clause 23—Report on aggregates levy rate—
“The Treasury must, within six months of this Act being passed, lay before the House of Commons a report on the impact of implementation of the provisions of section 99 on—
(a) the construction industry, and
(b) infrastructure projects.”
This new clause would require the Treasury to report on the impact of section 99 on the construction industry and infrastructure projects.
Dan Tomlinson
Clause 99 makes changes to increase the rate of the aggregates levy in line with the retail prices index from 1 April 2026. Clause 100 and schedule 23 make changes to aggregates levy legislation in preparation for its replacement in Scotland with the Scottish aggregates tax.
The changes made by clause 99 increase the rate of aggregates levy from £2.08 per tonne to £2.16 per tonne from 1 April 2026. The changes made by clause 100 and schedule 23 make aggregate moved from a producer’s site in Scotland to England, Wales or Northern Ireland liable to aggregates levy. In addition, they provide an exemption where the aggregate has previously been supplied and will be subject to Scottish aggregates tax. Lastly, they provide for a tax credit from aggregates levy for aggregate moved from England, Wales or Northern Ireland to Scotland. The changes will take effect from 1 April 2026, when the Scottish aggregates tax is due to come into force.
Amendments 26 to 28 are needed to ensure that the legislation interacts correctly with Scottish Government legislation so that a credit from aggregates levy is available on aggregates moved to Scotland only in circumstances in which Scottish aggregates tax is payable on the movement.
James Wild
Clause 99 will increase the aggregates levy—the tax on commercially exploited rock, sand and gravel—from April. The levy, charged per tonne of primary aggregate, is intended to encourage efficient use of materials. As colleagues will know, aggregates are fundamental to almost every form of infrastructure: they are the foundations of our roads, our concrete structures and our coastal defences. They are the essential components in so many products, from ready-mixed concrete to asphalt, lime, mortar and countless others. As the Mineral Products Association puts it so aptly,
“Aggregates provide the backbone of our world”,
and in the UK we use around 250 million tonnes every year.
New clause 23 would require the Government to assess the impact of clause 99 on the construction industry and key national infrastructure products. Although roughly a quarter of aggregate comes from recycled sources, the overwhelming majority still comes from primary extraction. Around 90% is used by the construction industry itself. While we obviously support the principle of encouraging sustainability that is behind the levy, the construction of a single home requires, on average, around 200 tonnes of aggregate and associated materials, from the foundations to the roof tiles. At a time when the Government are looking to accelerate house building, has the Minister looked at the impact of this measure on housing delivery and cost? We will not oppose clause 99, but new clause 23 would require the Government to assess its impact on construction and infrastructure projects.
The Minister set out that clause 100 and schedule 23 will simplify things for the introduction of the new Scottish aggregates tax, reducing the number of businesses that would otherwise need to account for the levy. That is a perfectly good and common-sense measure, so I have no further comment on it.
Mr Reynolds
Clause 99 introduces a very small increase in the rate of aggregates levy, but a small increase when dealing with massive numbers is still quite a large increase. High Speed 2, for example, is predicted to use 20 million tonnes of aggregate during phase 1. That means that the measure will add about £3.2 million to the bill for HS2, which we know is already significantly over budget. Has the Minister worked out the cost associated with money being passed from the Government to HS2 and then from HS2 back to the Government through things like the proposed aggregates levy increase?
Dan Tomlinson
On the question asked by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, and implied in the specific question about HS2 impacts from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Maidenhead, the key thing is that the aggregates levy provides a price incentive to use more recycled aggregate, which we would all support, rather than virgin aggregate. Increasing the aggregates levy rate in line with inflation will ensure that the value of that price incentive does not fall in real terms.
It is important for administrative reasons and for our ability to collect tax without undue complexity that, even where services are provided ultimately for the benefit of the public sector, the taxes apply in a uniform way. It would become more complicated than it would be worth to apply the tax differently to parts of different industries, or to different contracts, depending on whether they were being used for HS2 or something else.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 99 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 100 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 23
Aggregates levy: amendments relating to disapplication of levy to Scotland
Amendments made: 27, in schedule 23, page 535, line 22, after “from” insert “premises in”.
This amendment together with Amendments 28 and 26 revises the inserted sub-paragraph (za) of regulation 13(2) of SI 2002/761 to accommodate expected changes to provisions of the law relating to Scottish aggregates tax.
Amendment 28, in schedule 23, page 535, line 23, after “Ireland” insert
“operated or used by a person registered under section 24 of the Act for any purpose specified in subsection (6) of that section”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 27.
Amendment 26, in schedule 23, page 535, line 24, leave out from “waters” to end of line 25.—(Dan Tomlinson.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 27.
Schedule 23, as amended, agreed to.
Ordered,
That Schedule 23 be transferred to the end of line 5 on page 468.—(Dan Tomlinson.)
Clause 101
Rate of plastic packaging tax
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Tomlinson
Clauses 101 to 104 encourage greater demand for recycled plastic, help create demand for chemically recycled material, and allow for a more level playing field for plastic recyclers, rewarding the recycling of waste plastic. This is supportive of the Government’s broader environmental goals. The plastic packaging tax was introduced on 1 April 2022 as a part of the previous Government’s resources and waste strategy. It is the Government’s view that the clauses implement that tax in the right and proportionate way. I will not go through each in detail, but I will of course answer any questions that the Committee may have.
James Wild
Clauses 101 to 104 amend the plastic packaging tax introduced in 2022 to encourage the use of recycled and reduced plastic. At the end of August last year, around 5,000 businesses were registered for the tax, and 38% of plastic packaging manufactured or imported into the UK was declared as taxable under it. The tax applies to packaging with less than 30% recycled content and is charged per tonne of plastic packaging components. The Opposition believe that the Government must ensure that the policy is working effectively in practice, encouraging the industry to change and delivering genuine environmental benefit, and not simply adding cost.
Clause 101 increases the packaging tax rate, this time in line with CPI, not RPI. Could the Minister explain why? In principle, that is reasonable, to maintain its value and sustain the incentive to recycle, but it is a practical reality that many businesses simply cannot get enough high-quality recycled plastic at reasonable prices, so raising the rate without addressing that supply constraint risks making packaging more expensive but not greener.
Recycling firms are already facing higher energy bills and rising labour costs as a result of both global pressures and some of the measures that have been introduced. It is often still cheaper to import virgin or recycled plastic from Asia than to buy recycled content from within Europe, and loopholes in legislation may make it more profitable to export plastic waste than to process it here at home.
The Guardian, which I confess is not my usual paper of choice—[Interruption.] It is not the Minister’s either; it is good to get that on the record. It recently reported that 21 plastics recycling and processing plants across the UK have shut down in the last two years, which is a direct result of the imbalance between export incentives, cheap virgin plastic and low-cost imports from Asia.
How much additional revenue does the Treasury expect this rate increase to bring in, given that I think receipts actually fell in 2024-25? What increases in recycled content are the Government assuming will result from the measure? Has the Treasury assessed whether the costs will simply be passed on to consumers through higher prices for everyday goods? We want a tax that drives genuine behaviour change, not one that just adds to the cost of living.
Clause 102 allows chemically recycled plastic to count towards the 30% recycled threshold and introduces a mass balance approach. That is a welcome recognition of innovation and new technology. However, analysis from Pinsent Masons notes that it will introduce significant certification and evidential demands on manufacturers and importers, and many small and medium-sized businesses fear an extra compliance burden in the absence of clear guidance or support. Can the Minister set out to the Committee, and to those companies, what practical support the Government will provide to help businesses adapt to the new rules, and will Ministers commit to reviewing the effectiveness of the measure within a reasonable period to ensure that it is genuinely driving more recycling?
Clause 103 excludes pre-consumer plastics, such as factory offcuts, from the definition of recycled content from April next year. The Government say that that is to ensure that the tax incentivises genuine recycling of post-consumer waste, rather than reusing scrap material. That is reasonable as it goes, but Pinsent Masons has warned that some manufacturers will no longer be able to treat their own production offcuts as recycled content. While the overall burden of tax may not have changed, the burden of liability could shift from those gaining relief through mass balance accounting to those losing relief for pre-consumer materials. The Government should be up front about who will bear the costs of the changes.
Finally, clause 104 deals with commencement. Businesses need certainty ahead of the changes, and time to adapt their supply chains and get the relevant certification and other measures lined up. Can the Minister confirm that HMRC will be publishing detailed guidance in advance? He may tell me that it is already out there and that I have not seen it yet, but if it is not, can he assure me that it will be published in good time for those companies?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the Opposition spokesman for his questions. May I put on record my thanks to the officials for the support that they have provided to me today, in my first appearance in a Bill Committee as a Minister?
The hon. Member asked why the tax is increasing in line with CPI rather than RPI. All new tax measures introduced since 2018 have been uprated by CPI instead of RPI, so that is perfectly in keeping with established practice. That is good to know.
The hon. Member also about the mass balance approach. That is an accepted model already used in a range of industries, including cocoa and timber. Respondents to the consultation on a mass balance approach agreed that combining it with third-party certification is the best approach to prevent fraud and abuse. HMRC will continue to work with stakeholders on the detailed policy development, including independent certification requirements, which will be designed to be fair and robust and to maintain the integrity of the tax.
Dan Tomlinson
Clause 105 legislates for the new rates of the soft drinks industry levy to apply from 1 April 2026. It amends section 36(1) of the Finance Act 2017 to reflect the new rates of the levy to apply from 1 April 2026. Those rates are £2.08 and £2.78 per 10 litres of prepared drink, for the lower and higher bands respectively. I commend the clause to the Committee.
James Wild
I am surprised that the Minister covered this important clause so briefly, as will become clear in my remarks. Clause 105 increases the soft drinks industry levy—the tax on soft drinks with added sugar, which is charged per litre, with higher rates applied to drinks containing more sugar. The Government propose to uprate the levy by combining one fifth of the CPI inflation from 2018 to 2024 and full CPI inflation between Q2 2025 and 2026. In practice, that all together means a total rise of 27%—I am surprised that the Minister did not want to get that figure on the record; it is a significant increase.
The soft drinks industry levy has worked in meeting its objectives, but we had a debate on it last year and, and as I warned then, we have serious concerns about the Government’s decision to backdate an inflation increase over a six-year period. That is an unprecedented move, which raises serious questions about fairness, consistency and confidence in the UK tax system.
The soft drinks industry levy was introduced in 2017 by the Conservative Government to help tackle obesity, diabetes and tooth decay, particularly among children. By any reasonable measure, it has been a success. There has been a 46% reduction in sugar in fizzy drinks since the original tax came into force, and 89% of soft drinks sold now in the UK are not subject to the charge due to reformulation. As the British Soft Drinks Association points out, since 2015, more than 1 billion kilograms of sugar have been removed from the UK diet. Soft drinks now account for just 6% of the UK’s total sugar intake.
The industry has responded to the incentives that Parliament put in place by investing heavily, innovating and reformulating on a huge scale. That is why the backdated tax rise in clause 105 is so troubling. Imposing, in one go, six years of inflation over a period when it was not imposed represents a 27% retrospective increase, something that I think—unless I am corrected by the Minister—is without precedent in recent UK fiscal policy. It is not simply a technical adjustment; it is a departure from the principles that underpin our tax system, such as clarity and predictability.
As we have recently discussed when considering other clauses, inflation uprating is normally applied annually, not retroactively over a six-year period. When alcohol duty or fuel duty is frozen, the Treasury does not go back and seek to make up for the years it was frozen by adding them to the rate—although maybe that is what the Government are going to do—but that is precisely what the Government are now doing with the soft drinks levy. As I pointed out to the Finance Bill Committee last year, if the same backdating principle were applied elsewhere, the results would be very troubling. According to research that the House of Commons Library kindly produced for me, if the Government were to take the same approach to fuel duty as they applied to the soft drinks levy—there has been a long freeze in fuel duty—fuel duty would rise by 64%, while the aggregates levy would rise by 67%. No one would defend that, so why is it acceptable in this scenario to have such an increase?
Businesses make long-term decisions on investment, employment and pricing based on the stability of the tax regime. To introduce retrospective changes on this scale undermines that certainty and, I fear, risks setting a dangerous precedent. Is this now Government policy? Can the Minister rule out—as the Minister at the time failed to rule out—the Government taking a similar approach with other taxes, such as fuel duty? I wonder if he will be able to give us a bit more confidence. Will the Government commit to not applying such levels of retrospective taxation-inflation increases to other sectors?
In the context of this debate about the soft drinks industry levy and the increase in it, also important is what might happen—given that the threshold and the rates have been set—if there are proposals to lower the rate to bring more soft drinks into the tax, such as milk-based drinks—the milkshake tax—coffee drinks and milk substitutes that exceed the same sugar threshold. If that happened, that would potentially be another hit to the cost of living. Industry has estimated that compliance costs could run into the tens or possibly hundreds of millions of pounds, if such an approach were taken, moving the goalposts when the policy has delivered on its aims. The hospitality and drinks sector already face a lot of pressures, so they do not need to see further increases.
I therefore think that applying a retrospective 27% tax increase is a move that the Government should not take lightly. We support the principle of the industry levy and the goals that it serves, but this is concerning, and I look for some confidence from the Minister that the retrospective approach to taxation will be a one-off.
Dan Tomlinson
Our approach to uprating taxes is plain to see for all the different approaches that we have taken. The Government set out their position on fuel duty, for example, and we have discussed many upratings today in Committee. The Government’s judgment in this specific circumstance was that uprating in line with inflation, as in previous years, was an appropriate step to take to protect the real-terms value of the SDIL and to maintain incentives for manufacturers over time. The Government are happy to stand by that position, although of course it is well within the rights of the Opposition to take a different approach.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 105 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 106
Amendment of customs tariff power
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Tomlinson
The clause relates to trade defence. As set out in the trade strategy, the Government committed to strengthen the UK’s trade defence toolkit in response to an increasingly turbulent global trading environment. The clause supports those commitments and ensures that the Government can continue to respond to changes in the global trading system.
Unfair trade practices, including distortionary subsidies and dumping goods below cost in foreign markets, have a long pedigree. What has changed rapidly in recent years is their sheer volume and the range of markets and indeed British businesses that they threaten. Our trade defence system needs to be sharper and more flexible to respond to the increasingly turbulent global trading system.
The UK remains committed to upholding the rules-based international system that has benefited us well, but in an unstable and volatile world, we cannot afford to be left behind and we need to be more agile in the face of a range of potential future shocks. That is why clauses 106 to 108 strengthen the UK’s trade defence toolkit, making it more closely aligned to that of international peers. The clauses will help to ensure that we can best protect UK interests, including in critical sectors such as steel, which are vital to our national security and critical infrastructure.
The changes made by the clause will put beyond doubt that we are able to apply tariffs on a global basis or against a group of countries, where consistent with international agreements to which the UK is a party. This measure strengthens the UK’s trade defence toolkit, ensuring that the Government can continue to respond to changes in the global trading system, as well as to unfair trading practices where they occur. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mark Garnier
Before I go into the details of the clause, and before the Committee discusses the subsequent two clauses, it is worth getting on record how much the Opposition object to trade wars and increasing tariffs. Such tariffs harm the country that introduces them. Take what has been going on in America as an example. On its “liberation day”—as I think its Government called it—it introduced very heavy tariffs, including on something as simple as the iPhone, which the American people would consider to be one of the greatest inventions and greatest products they have ever had. It seemed that the person who introduced those tariffs had completely failed to observe that 95% of an iPhone is made in Vietnam and China, as a result of which the tariffs increased the price of iPhones for the American people, which was completely against the intentions of that Government.
Tariffs are really bad, and we have been trying to get them down for an awfully long time. However, I completely understand the point that the Government are trying to make with the Trade Remedies Authority and the toolkit that the Government need in order to respond to certain issues. It is vital that we have the ability to move on things such as tariffs, and I suspect that the Minister is 100% aligned with me on this, but I stress that we have lessons from history, from when such actions have gone hideously wrong.
The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, introduced by President Hoover, was designed by Senator Smoot and Representative Hawley to try to help American businesses and American farmers by increasing tariffs. The net result was a global trade war that resulted in a 65% drop in global trade. That is what happens when people muck around with tariffs; that is where the damage can come. I completely appreciate that these measures are, I suspect, a very necessary response to what is happening on the other side of the Atlantic, where there is a very unpredictable trade policy, so it is the right thing to do. However, I urge the Minister to talk to all his colleagues about this matter, and to reassure the Committee that these measures are not about having our own version of that policy, and about increasing tariffs in order to have a trade war, but about having a set of relevant measures that mean that the Government can act in defence to what could be a hostile attack on trade.
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for his comments. It is good to converse with a new Opposition spokesman and I look forward to more conversations and discussions with him—though I do not have favourites. I want to be really clear—and I am glad to have the chance to be so—that the UK will continue to champion the free and fair trade that has benefited us so much in our history as a small, independent trading nation. We will always look to work with international partners to protect the rules-based international trading system. With this measure, we are not lapsing into protectionism and we will always make sure to balance the need to use these powers when and if they may be required in individual circumstances, with a continued focus on the need to be open because that is the route to sustained and long-term prosperity for a country with an economic and geopolitical position such as ours.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 106 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 107
Dumping and subsidisation investigations
Mr Reynolds
I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 107, page 129, line 32, at end insert—
“(10) Before giving a direction under sub-paragraph (1), the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an impact statement setting out—
(a) the evidence on which the Secretary of State has concluded that the conditions in sub-paragraph (1) have been met,
(b) an assessment of the potential impact on consumer prices and UK supply chains,
(c) the reasons why a direction is considered necessary in the circumstances, and
(d) whether coordination with other jurisdictions, including the European Union, has been considered.
(11) A direction under sub-paragraph (1) shall cease to have effect if, within the period of 21 sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement under sub-paragraph (10) is laid, either House of Parliament resolves that the direction should be annulled.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide Parliament with an impact statement before directing the TRA to initiate a dumping or subsidisation investigation, and would give Parliament the power to annul such directions within 21 sitting days.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 45, in clause 107, page 129, line 43, at end insert—
“(6A) In paragraph 17, at end insert—
‘(11) Before making a recommendation under paragraph 17, the TRA must prepare and publish an assessment of—
(a) the likely impact of the proposed anti-dumping amount or countervailing amount on consumer prices,
(b) the effect on UK businesses that use the goods subject to investigation as inputs in their production processes,
(c) the overall impact on the UK economy, including benefits to UK producers and costs to UK consumers and supply chains, and
(d) whether a lower duty than the margin of dumping or amount of subsidy would be sufficient to remedy any injury to UK industry.
(12) The Secretary of State must have regard to the assessment made under sub-paragraph (11) when making a decision on whether to accept the TRA's recommendation and at what level to set any anti-dumping or countervailing duties.’”
This amendment would require the Trade Remedies Authority to assess and publish the consumer and wider economic impact of proposed anti-dumping or countervailing duties.
Clause stand part.
Clause 108 stand part.
Mr Reynolds
Amendments 44 and 45, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot and I, strengthen the democratic accountability in our trade remedies system. Trade remedies exist to protect British businesses and workers from unfair foreign competition from goods dumped below cost or artificially subsidised. Since Brexit, the Trade Remedies Authority has operated as our independent investigation body. That independence matters, because trade remedy decisions affect jobs, consumer prices, business costs and our international relations.
Mark Garnier
Clause 107 gives the Secretary of State the power to direct the Trade Remedies Authority to initiate a dumping or subsidisation investigation. We support measures that tackle any unfair trading practices, including dumping and subsidisation. We are also supportive of measures that bring power back into the hands of Secretaries of State and Ministers. That is especially important when it comes to practices that could harm our industries and our constituents.
One example of that is the steel industry. Back in 2016, it was reported that Tata Steel had suffered more than 1,000 job losses, including 750 from Port Talbot alone. Tata stated that the reason for this was the flooding of cheap imports, particularly from China. This will continue to be a problem. According to the OECD, Chinese steel imports surged to a record level of 118 million tonnes in 2024. Interestingly, there are different points of view on this. For those in the building industry, the idea of having an awful lot of cheap steel coming into the country is not that unattractive, but it would affect our domestic industries.
How the Government curb dumping and subsidisation must be accompanied by, at least in part, a deterrent effect. That is crucial for investigations that implicate large and powerful countries. Clause 107 removes the opportunity to implement any deterrent effect because it caps duties imposed on the dumping margin or subsidy amount, not at the injury margin. I acknowledge that this is in line with World Trade Organisation rules. However, injury margins can often exceed dumping and subsidy margins due to their accurate reflection of the true economic harm inflicted on UK industries. Each time, they have been overridden due to the lesser duty rules, and the removal of this rule could have given the Government the opportunity to apply a regime that reflects injury margins better in dumping and subsidy investigations. That would not only protect UK industries but send a clear message to those who engage in these abhorrent trade practices that this will not be tolerated and will be met with serious repercussions. I would be grateful if the Minister could expand on the Government’s rationale not to cut duties at the injury margin. It is quite a technical question, and if he feels the urge to write back, that might save him the trouble of getting into a lot of technical detail.
We are supportive of the thrust of amendments 44 and 45, tabled by the hon. Member for Maidenhead. It is important for decision makers to be accountable to Parliament for their decisions, whether that is the Secretary of State or the Trade Remedies Authority. I suspect that these amendments will be voted down, so could the Minister help the Committee understand what safeguards are in place to address the concerns outlined by the hon. Member for Maidenhead?
Clause 108 gives the Secretary of State the power to direct the Trade Remedies Authority to initiate a safeguarding investigation. It is important that the UK has the necessary defensive measures where there is injury to UK industries. However, clause 108 requires clarity on the conditions that enable the Secretary of State to direct the Trade Remedies Authority to initiate an investigation.
I have two points on this. First, on the requirement of evidence of increased quantities in a good, clause 108 does not introduce any parameters or a threshold that would distinguish a legitimate increase in quantity of goods from an increase that warrants investigation. Secondly, there is no definition or guidance on what constitutes “serious injury”; the clause does not make clear what serious injury means. Without the clarification, the clause grants the Secretary of State substantial discretion in determining whether those conditions have been met. Fundamentally, though, on both these clauses, we must ensure that these important decisions are made with technical rigour and on the evidence. It is incredibly important that they are not driven solely by political whim. I ask the Minister for an assurance on that point.
Dan Tomlinson
I will not expound on the detail of the clauses, but I will explain why the Government cannot accept the amendments.
On amendment 44, any public disclosure of evidence before an investigation is formally launched risks undermining it. The formal initiation of an investigation is a defined procedural step, and once an investigation has been formally initiated, the TRA may recommend the imposition of provisional duties. If there was a gap between publicly disclosing evidence and initiating an investigation, it might incentivise exporters to increase shipments of the goods concerned into the UK to avoid potential future duties. It would also risk contravening our international World Trade Organisation obligations. The rules are clear that authorities must avoid publicising the application for an investigation before a decision has been made to initiate it. To our knowledge, no such parliamentary veto exists in comparable trade remedy systems internationally, but I assure the House that the process will remain transparent and led by the evidence.
On amendment 45, the Trade Remedies Authority is already required by our domestic legislation to publish the consumer and wider economic impact of proposed anti-dumping or countervailing duties. As part of its dumping and subsidisation investigations, the Trade Remedies Authority must advise the Secretary of State on whether and how any recommended anti-dumping or countervailing duties would meet the economic interest test as set out in legislation. The Secretary of State must then have regard to that advice when considering whether to accept or reject the recommendation. This advice is included in the TRA’s published reports across the case life cycle, including a statement of essential facts, which is included on the public file ahead of a recommendation to the Secretary of State.
Since he has given me leave to do so, I will write to the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, on his specific question.
Mr Reynolds
It is important to remember that one can support both free trade and protection against unfair dumping—they are not mutually exclusive—and I think the amendments strike a balance between them transparently. Amendment 44 gives Parliament meaningful oversight of ministerial decisions to initiate investigations, and amendment 45 ensures that decisions account for impacts on consumers and businesses relying on imported inputs. Together, they strengthen democratic accountability while maintaining our ability to act against unfair trading practices. I ask the Minister to reconsider his thoughts on amendment 44 when we push it to a vote.
Dan Tomlinson
Clause 109 amends sections 20 and 20A of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 to update HMRC’s existing powers to require all ports to provide and fund customs infrastructure.
Customs infrastructure is essential to protecting the UK by ensuring that risk-based checks on goods entering and leaving the country can take place. Provision of that infrastructure by ports is a long-standing requirement. When we left the EU, the Government funded and operated customs infrastructure at inland border facilities for ports that do not have enough space for this infrastructure within the port itself. Only two inland border facilities remain: Sevington inland border facility in Kent and Holyhead inland border facility in Wales. As confirmed in the border target operating model in autumn 2023, Government provision of these inland border facilities was always intended to be temporary.
Clause 109 would, first, require the small number of ports assessed as having insufficient space on site for customs infrastructure to provide equivalent infrastructure at an offsite location, which must be approved by HMRC. Secondly, all ports will now be responsible for providing and funding the customs infrastructure required for border checks on goods. This levels the playing field between ports, bringing all ports into line with the long-standing model. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Mark Garnier
Clause 109 shifts the responsibility for the remaining two inland border facilities from the Government to the port authorities. The switching of inland border facilities services and operations to a commercial basis was something that the last Government were exploring.
However, we query whether clause 109 goes a little too far. It would require the ports to prepare to take on the additional responsibility of providing equivalent infrastructure. We appreciate why the ports received the additional Government assistance in the first place, especially considering the far-reaching effects that any disruption in Dover could have. However, while I agree that the ports must be able to stand on their own feet, clause 109 risks the ports’ introducing additional import and export charges being applied to every lorry and trailer that passes through. The magnitude of the price increases could be substantial for businesses, which may end up passing on the additional costs to consumers—not to mention that they would be in addition to the port inventory charges that the port of Dover implemented from 1 January this year.
I recommend that the Government assess the impact that the legislative changes in clause 109 would have on these ports, the businesses and hauliers that rely on them and consumers, who will have to pay a higher price. We get the principle of the clause, but we are concerned about whether there are any adverse knock-on effects on trade through the ports.
Dan Tomlinson
We do not expect that the changes will result in significant cost changes. How ports that currently benefit from the inland border facilities choose to recover any costs is a commercial matter. It is worth noting that the ports have benefited from significant public investment that has already been made in the development and operation of inland border facilities since we left the EU.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 109 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 110
Increases to rates of levy
Dan Tomlinson
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 110, page 134, line 20, at end insert—
“(2A) In consequence of the amendments made by the preceding subsections, in section 189 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, in subsections (3)(b)(ii) and (11) (which operate by reference to provisions amended by this section), for ‘large or very large’ substitute ‘in any of bands B to D’.”
This amendment makes a consequential amendment as a result of the new bands.
Dan Tomlinson
Clause 110 will make changes to the rates charged to businesses under the economic crime (anti-money laundering) levy from April 2026. The changes will increase the revenue raised each year by the levy by £110 million from 2027-28 onwards.
The levy was introduced to provide a long-term, sustainable source of funding for initiatives aimed at tackling money laundering. In 2024-25, the levy funded 455 new roles fighting economic crime in organisations, including in the National Crime Agency and City of London police, and delivered a new digital service for suspicious activity reporting, which onboarded precisely 15,211 organisations. In a constrained funding landscape, we believe that the levy is right place to find the money for these initiatives. The Government have decided to change the rates charged to businesses under the levy to provide sufficient funding to deliver key projects in the economic crime space over the next three years.
The changes made by clause 110 will increase the charge paid by businesses with an annual revenue between £10.2 million and £36 million from £10,000 to £10,200 per annum. It will also introduce a new band for businesses with an annual revenue between £500 million and £1 billion. Lastly, it will increase the charge paid by businesses with an annual revenue exceeding £1 billion to £1 million from April 2026. As the levy is collected a year in arrears, the increased rates will first be collected in the financial year beginning April 2027. The changes have been designed with proportionality and fairness at their core, and no business will pay more than 0.1% of its UK annual revenue in levy charges.
Government amendment 12 seeks to update the language in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which refers to the current band names “large” and “very large”. These will be changed to refer to the new band names A, B, C and D. The amendment contains no policy changes; it will just bring existing legislation in line with the new economic crime levy band names. I commend the clause and the amendment to the Committee.
Mark Garnier
The previous Conservative Government introduced the levy back in 2022 as a proactive measure to combat money laundering and strengthen our economy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), now the shadow Business Secretary, said when he brought it in,
“the levy will provide an important private sector contribution from those industries at highest risk of being abused for money laundering.”
We support robust action against money laundering, but we have one or two concerns about the scale. The introduction of a new band C, with a £500,000 levy for businesses with a revenue of between £500 million and £1 billion, is a substantial new burden on businesses that are already heavily regulated and are already investing significant sums in anti-money laundering compliance. To be clear, a business with £500 million to £1 billion revenue used to pay £36,000 and will now have to pay half a million—a 1,289% increase.
The Government’s own impact assessment suggests that between 100 and 110 businesses will be affected by the levy rise in this band C. It is a really big rise, so it would be helpful if the Minister could justify the nearly 1,300% rise for firms moving into the new band C. Perhaps he could also say whether he has had any representations from any businesses about the effect it could have on investment, staffing level, productivity and all the rest of it.
The simultaneous reduction in the threshold for the “very large” band, band D, means that more businesses fall into the higher levy. Will the Minister talk about the rationale for that? Has he considered the potential impact on the UK’s competitiveness, particularly mid-sized firms that may now face substantially higher costs?
Dan Tomlinson
On competitiveness, the Government of course do not place any additional burdens on businesses lightly, but reducing economic crime helps the good functioning of the UK economy and our competitiveness, so we think that this is a proportionate change.
The shadow Minister is right to identify that there are significant changes in band C. Previously, businesses with revenue of £500 million paid only 0.007% of their UK revenue, while those with revenues of, for example, £36 million paid 0.1%. That was a significant imbalance. This change seeks to address that disparity by aligning contributions more closely with revenue size so that contributions are proportionate to revenue—more proportionate, but still bands over the broad swathe of business size. This is to make contributions fairer and more consistent, and it will ensure that larger businesses contribute proportionately to the overall funding requirement.
Amendment 12 agreed to.
Clause 110, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 111
Removal of time limit to claim relief under section 106(3) of FA 2013
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dan Tomlinson
Clause 111 removes a restrictive time limit within which relief from the annual tax on enveloped dwellings can be claimed. This measure updates the legislation to remove the current restrictive time limit for claiming relief from the ATED. Companies are still required to deliver their ATED returns on time—typically 30 days from the start of the chargeable period. ATED returns not delivered by the filing deadline will remain subject to penalties for late filing. The time limits for amending a return already delivered to HMRC are unchanged. This clause will come into effect from the date of Royal Assent of the Bill and will have effect as if it had always been in force. HMRC is currently applying its discretion to accept late claims pending enactment of this legislative change. The change is necessary to ensure that the law reflects our policy aims for relief from the ATED. I therefore move that clause 111 stand part of the Bill.
Mark Garnier
The ATED was originally brought in back in 2013 under the coalition Government to discourage the use of corporate structures to hold high-value residential properties. Reliefs were built into the system to ensure that genuine commercial property businesses were not caught by the charge. However, those reliefs were subject to a clear 12-month time limit for making a claim. That was for two reasons: first, it helps ensure that relief claims are made while the facts are still reasonably clear. Secondly, it simply aligns with normal tax time limits.
Now the Government want to remove that time limit entirely. Without a deadline, if claims are made over the original 12-month period, HMRC could be required to revisit historical ATED returns long after they were filed. Given service levels in HMRC are already stretched, it is unclear why the Government have chosen to do that. It could increase, rather than reduce, administrative burdens on HMRC. Have the Government assessed the resource implications for HMRC of processing claims made more than a year after the relevant adjustment period?
Dan Tomlinson
Yes; in anticipation of the Budget and the announcements made at the Budget, work was carried out between HMRC and policy officials in the Treasury to assess the implications of tax changes on businesses and on the Government, and this is set out in the usual way.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 111 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mark Ferguson.)
Railways Bill (Seventh sitting)
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during the sittings. The selection and grouping document shows the way in which the amendments and new clauses have been arranged for debate. Any Divisions on amendments and new clauses will take place in the order that they appear on the amendment paper.
Clause 15
Rail strategy
Amendment proposed (27 January): 134, in clause 15, page 8, line 18, at end insert
“for the next 30 years for”.—(Olly Glover.)
This amendment would ensure that the rail strategy set out in Clause 15 must cover a 30-year period.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 137, in clause 15, page 8, line 21, at end insert—
“(c) the support given to rural communities in accessing rail travel, and
(d) the co-operation with relevant local and regional transport authorities for greater integration between trains, buses, trams, cycling, walking and other active travel options.”
This amendment would require the rail strategy to set out the long-term strategy for supporting rural communities in accessing rail travel and co-operating with transport authorities to integrate travel options.
Amendment 207, in clause 15, page 8, line 21, at end insert—
“(c) the consideration of the national rail network as a whole, and
(d) the development of national and regional integrated timetables including—
(i) any infrastructure enhancements necessary to facilitate such development,
(ii) strategies at a local or regional level to deliver these enhancements in line with the 5-year funding periods; and
(iii) a system of prioritisation of connections between services, taking into account interchange times and overall end-to-end journey times resulting from those connections.”
This amendment introduces a requirement for the rail strategy to consider the rail network as a whole, and the relationship between integrated timetables and infrastructure enhancement to enable such integration.
Amendment 224, in clause 15, page 8, line 21, at end insert—
“(c) the development of rail freight network usage.”
This amendment would require the rail strategy to include developing rail freight.
Amendment 25, in clause 15, page 8, line 21, at end insert—
“(1A) The document issued under subsection (1) must be in force for a minimum of three control periods.
(1B) A control period as set out in subsection (1A) must be no shorter than five years.”
This amendment would require the rail strategy to remain in place for three control periods at a minimum.
Amendment 260, in clause 15, page 8, line 23, at end insert—
“(2A) The rail strategy must include a strategy for level crossings (‘the level crossings strategy’).
(2B) The level crossing strategy must set out an assessment of the impact of level crossings on the economy and community of the area in which the level crossing is situated, for the purpose of reducing disruption caused by level crossings.”
Amendment 261, in clause 15, page 8, line 23, at end insert—
“(2A) The rail strategy must include an assessment the ability of passengers to change between—
(a) main line rail services and branch line rail services, and
(b) rail services and other modes of public transport.
(2B) An assessment under subsection (2A) must consider how to reduce delays and disruption to end-to-end journeys involving a change between rail services, or between rail services and other modes of public transport.”
Amendment 135, in clause 15, page 8, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) The rail strategy must include an international rail strategy to—
(a) support the development of new international routes,
(b) support operators in introducing and operating any such new routes, and
(c) support new and existing operators in using the Channel Tunnel and London St Pancras High Speed.
(3B) In meeting the objectives under subsection (3A), the international rail strategy must—
(a) consider options to increase rail depot capacity at, and to supplement, Stratford Temple Mills;
(b) consider any enhancements that may be required to conventional rail network in the Southeast of England for the purpose of enabling international rail travel;
(c) consider options for electrification, changes to gauge clearance, and any other alterations to rail infrastructure as may be necessary to increase the potential for increased rail freight to travel via the Channel Tunnel.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to include an international rail strategy as part of the Government’s long-term rail strategy. The international rail strategy would specifically look to support new routes and operators, and increase Channel Tunnel and London St Pancras High Speed rail capacity.
Amendment 136, in clause 15, page 8, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) The rail strategy must include a network electrification strategy to—
(a) require that any new rail lines are electrified, and
(b) set criteria for determining which existing rail lines should be fully electrified, based on current and potential operation of those lines, and set a timetable by which electrification should be completed.
(3B) In preparing the network electrification strategy under subsection (3A), the Secretary of State must take into account the current and potential future—
(a) maximum operating speed of,
(b) average number of trains in an hour using,
(c) average volume of freight transported on,
(d) maximum potential reliability of rolling stock using, and
(e) acceleration requirements of
trains using the relevant lines.”
Amendment 225, in clause 15, page 8, line 32, at end insert
“, and persons wishing to operate services for the carriage of passengers or goods on Great British Railways’ infrastructure.”
This amendment requires consultation with freight operators during the preparation of the rail strategy.
Amendment 213, clause 15, page 8, line 35, at end insert—
“(8) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an annual report setting out any progress on the rail strategy.
(9) The report under subsection (8) must be sent to the Transport Committee of the House of Commons.
(10) References in this section to the Transport Committee of the House of Commons—
(a) if the name of that Committee changes, are references to that Committee by its new name, and
(b) if the functions of that Committee (or substantially corresponding functions) become functions of a different Committee of the House of Commons, are to be treated as references to the Committee by which the functions are exercisable.”
This amendment requires regular reporting to Parliament and the House of Commons Transport Committee on delivery of the rail strategy.
New clause 27—Great British Railways: national rolling stock strategy—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act and every subsequent 12 months, Great British Railways must publish a national rolling stock strategy.
(2) Each strategy under subsection (1) must set out rolling stock requirements by operating region and route.
(3) Great British Railways must align each strategy to the infrastructure capacity plan in section 60, the rail strategy in section 15, and each funding period as set out in Schedule 2.
(4) Great British Railways must set out how the strategy is used to inform procurement, leasing and allocation decisions.”
This new clause would require GBR to publish a national rolling stock strategy each year, setting out the expected rolling stock requirements per operating region and route, aligned to current and future planned infrastructure, and aligned to the long-term rail strategy and 5-year funding periods.
New clause 28—Great British Railways: cyber security and technology strategy—
“(1) Great British Railways must publish a cyber security and technology strategy (“the strategy”).
(2) The strategy must set out how Great British Railways will—
(a) use emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, to innovate in respect of its operations and services,
(b) develop resilience for rolling stock and critical systems in line with industry and international standards, and
(c) increase the use of technology to improve passenger experience and services including—
(i) WiFi access,
(ii) digital ticketing,
(iii) real time information systems, and
(iv) accessibility for passengers with sight or hearing loss.
(3) Great British Railways must publish an annual report describing progress that has been made against the strategy and any challenges that have arisen in delivering the strategy.”
This new clause would require GBR to publish a cyber security and technology strategy, as well as an annual report on progress.
New clause 29—Railway services: Sunday working arrangements—
“(1) Within one year of the passing of this Act, Great British Railways must publish a report on demand for railway services on Sundays.
(2) The report must set out—
(a) current figures for use of railway services on Sundays, and
(b) projected figures if services on Sundays were increased.
(3) The report must identify and set out actions that can be taken to increase demand for railway services on Sundays.
(4) When setting out actions under subsection (3), the report must have due regard to five-year funding periods for Great British Railways.”
This new clause would require GBR to publish a report on current Sunday demand, suppressed Sunday demand, and identify actions to be taken to increase demand for railways services on Sundays in line with the 5 year funding periods.
New clause 54—National signalling strategy—
(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act and every subsequent 12 months, Great British Railways must publish a national signalling strategy.
(2) Each strategy under subsection (1) must set out expected signalling renewal requirements by operating region and route.
(3) Signalling requirements as set out in subsection (2) must be informed by the principle that new or renewed signalling will be digital and based on standards set by the European Train Control System.
(4) Great British Railways must align each strategy to—
(a) the infrastructure capacity plan in section 60,
(b) the rail strategy in section 15,
(c) each funding period as set out in schedule 2, and
(d) current and future planned infrastructure including electrification and rolling stock changes.
(5) Great British Railways must set out how each strategy is used to inform procurement, leasing and allocation decisions.”
This new clause introduces a national strategy for digital signalling rollout to create an approach to signalling renewals, enhancements, and interfaces with rolling stock, and to realise signalling safety, capacity, and performance benefits of digital signalling.
Clause stand part.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I am doing a rapid rewrite as this speech was full of witticisms and pithy things to do with speeches that none of us can remember from earlier this week— or last week; whenever it was. I would like to speak in support of amendments 134, 137, 136 and 213 and new clause 28, all tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage.
Amendment 134 would require the rail strategy to cover a 30-year period. That matters because decisions on electrification, rolling stock, workforce planning and passenger experience simply cannot be made on short political cycles.
Amendment 137 is particularly important for rural constituencies such as West Dorset. Too many rural communities are poorly served by rail and have limited alternatives when services fail. The amendment would ensure that the rail strategy explicitly supports rural access and strengthens co-operation with local and regional transport authorities so that trains, buses, and cycling and walking routes actually connect. No one should miss a bus just because a train arrives three minutes late or wait 40 minutes because timetables were not aligned in the first place—an experience familiar to anyone arriving at Crewkerne.
Amendment 136 would place electrification at the heart of the rail strategy. Electrification is not just about missions; it improves reliability, efficiency and resilience.
Amendment 213 would introduce a vital safeguard, which the Government refused to put in place earlier when they rejected our new clause 26, to prevent Great British Railways from hiding from accountability to those who gave both it and the Secretary of State their power. The amendment would require regular reporting to Parliament and the Transport Committee. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has agreed to provide an annual update to Parliament on how we are doing against our climate and nature targets. I would hope that what is good enough for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is good enough for the Department for Transport.
New clause 28 would require a cyber-security and technology strategy. We need to know whether and how GBR will use emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, to innovate, develop resilience and improve the passenger experience. I know from my work on the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy under your leadership, Mr Western, that the threats to national infrastructure are real and increasing. We must make sure that our public and national infrastructure remains safe and protected.
At the same time, we continue to campaign for passengers to be placed at the heart of the Bill. They deserve modern, accessible services, reliable wi-fi, real-time information and inclusive design. For these and future technologies to benefit the passenger now and long into the future, we need real investment and real innovation so that we will always have a modern railway planned over the long term.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I will be brief, as I know that a number of hon. Members wish to speak.
I can see the intent behind amendment 134 in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, which would ensure that the strategy covers a 30-year period, and I think it is important that one looks to the future. Given our relative ages, I suspect that, notwithstanding any decisions by the electorate, the Minister may be the only person who is still in this place to assess whether the strategy has worked in 30 years’ time. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage was right to highlight that a 30-year strategy would set a baseline, but, as with any strategy, it would be right to refresh and, if necessary, amend it every few years to reflect changing externalities or new Government who wish to tweak it in a different direction. I think that is a sensible approach.
Amendment 137 has an important focus on rural transport links. I have four stations in my constituency: Syston, Bottesford, Sileby and Melton Mowbray. Apart from Melton Mowbray and Syston, those stations are in relatively small villages that are served by only irregular buses. The intent behind the amendment, as I understand it, is to not only focus on investment in those rural services, but ensure that there are linkages so that people in outlying villages or elsewhere can access them. I know that my constituents would very much welcome that.
Amendments 207 and 261 focus, in different ways, on interchanges and integrated transport, which are hugely important. The hon. Member for West Dorset rightly highlighted the experience, which I expect many of us and our constituents have had, of landing at a railway station five minutes after the train has gone because the bus service is not integrated in its timetabling.
I gently caution the Minister that a national integrated transport strategy may not be something he wishes to take on himself. If I recall, that was something mooted in “Yes Minister”, and Jim Hacker took on the job, in an episode known as “The Bed of Nails” because it was deemed virtually impossible to win when trying to integrate all aspects of transport strategy. Fond as I am of the Minister, I would counsel him not to take on that role, even if the Bill has the right intent of trying to integrate transport a little better.
Amendments 224 and 225 would rightly require freight services to be considered carefully, and would require consultation with freight operators. Throughout the Committee’s proceedings, we have spoken a number of times about the potential tension between passenger services and GBR’s own services, and the need for freight services to be protected and supported, as well as whether there is an explicit target for freight versus passenger services. Again, I think the amendments are sensible.
Finally, I think new clause 29 in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, which would require an assessment of the need for Sunday services, is extremely sensible, and I hope that others on the Committee will speak to it. I mentioned Sileby station in my constituency. Sileby is a large village, but on a Sunday it has only one bus to Leicester first thing in the morning and one bus back from Leicester in the afternoon. That is the extent of the public transport available to that large and growing village. Constituents have written to me to ask what can be done to better understand the demand for and possible implementation of a Sunday rail service there—even if it is only irregular, running once or twice a day, it would be something—to give them that option, so I know that they would welcome new clause 29.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I will speak to a few of the amendments and new clauses, including those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, as well as some of those tabled by the Liberal Democrats, because some of their ideas are worth noting.
It is obvious why I would support amendment 224, which yet again seeks to include in the Bill more mention of rail freight. As someone who is keen on looking at how we can use rail, and even sea, for freight, I emphasise the necessity of ensuring that it is a central part of the Bill. The Government speak about wanting to tackle climate change and bring net zero into play, but that will be hampered if the rail freight network is not strongly represented in the Bill. I appreciate that the Minister will say that it does mention rail freight, but we do not feel it is explicit enough, and we want to ensure that we get it nailed into the Bill wherever we can.
Amendments 260 and 261 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) would require the rail strategy to consider local need, in particular in respect of level crossings and integrated transport. That is something that the Select Committee on Transport, which I am a member of, is also looking at. Indeed, we had our first hearing on integrated transport yesterday, and one thing that came across strongly to me was that we should really have been looking at an integrated transport strategy before this Bill was introduced, because how rail and buses—I have had the privilege of serving on Bill Committees on both subjects—slot into such a strategy is really important. Therefore, having something on the face of the Bill that pushes towards ensuring that we have regard for integrated transport is important.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
My hon. Friend is quite right that we need to look at modal interoperability. Does she agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that a level crossing in a conurbation has a negative impact on road use and, in some instances, cuts one side of a town off from the other? Is he right, as I suggest he is, that that should be part of GBR’s consideration?
Rebecca Smith
Yes, absolutely. Indeed, amendment 260, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, would require the forthcoming rail strategy to have specific regard to level crossings. Fortunately, I do not have anything like what my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham describes, where a level crossing splits an entire town in half, but I presume that the Government will not want to invest in bridges everywhere there is a level crossing, so having at least some regard for level crossings in the rail strategy, and ensuring that one thing does not negate the other, will be essential. I entirely agree with my hon. Friends.
Amendment 137, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, relates specifically to rural communities, and no doubt it overlaps with amendment 260. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston, he has highlighted the importance of good rail connectivity in our rural communities. Again, that came up in the Transport Committee’s oral evidence session yesterday: how do we make sure that we are not just weighting the system in favour of urban areas, and make sure that due and serious regard is given to rural communities? My rural community has only one station, and we are keen to see more stations that will serve rural communities, both in my constituency and others. But ultimately, if we really want to see that modal shift away from cars to the railway, we have to make sure that everybody stands a fair chance of accessing it.
I will turn to new clauses 28 and 29, again in the name of hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage. The first is about technology and the need for connectivity on the railway. As somebody who does the right thing and uses my mobile phone rather than Great Western Railway’s wi-fi to connect to the internet—because that is what the parliamentary security people tell me to do—I am entirely reliant on my 4G network to work on the train. I sit there for three and a half hours one way and three and a half hours back, if I am lucky—I have that to look forward to later on today—and I rely on that time to complete my work. I am sat in Bill Committees half of the week, so that time on the train, doing my constituency work and reading in preparation for this Committee, is essential. When there is no decent wi-fi or 4G connection, that is a problem.
I am sure the Minister is well aware of the very exciting pilot that GWR has been doing using Formula 1 technology, which is right up my street, as those who know me well will appreciate. It is excellent. Effectively, it uses that thing no one likes because it technically belongs to that American Musk guy—is it Skylink?
Rebecca Smith
That is it. It still works, though, and provides a very good internet signal.
I suppose that is a question for the Minister: what regard is he giving to such pilots? That might not be on the face of the Bill, but a large part of the population will want to know we have talked about how to ensure that connectivity on Great British Railways is up to date. Connectivity means getting from A to B, but also the ability to work using the internet. I completely agree with the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage on that point.
I will just briefly speak to new clause 29, on Sunday working arrangements. I have mentioned this already, but those far-flung parts of the country that rely on a possibly hourly service into London that connects all the way through the south-west region need the guarantee of Sunday services. I have to leave at 6.55 am to get here. If I want to get here for an early start on a Monday, I have to leave the night before—if there was no train available, I would lose nearly a whole day just to get to London for a meeting on a Monday morning. It is a privilege to be able to do that, but I would rather not, and more frequent trains would help.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I want to speak in support of amendment 137, in the name of the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, and amendment 261, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). The two amendments attempt to deliver the same thing: better integration between rail and other modes of transport. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage is a man of great attention to detail, but it was perhaps a little sloppy of him on this occasion not to include in his list of trains, buses, trams and cycling the word “ferries”. Of course, ferries are fundamental in my constituency; we cannot get off the Isle of Wight without using them.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to rebuke me, albeit very politely and gently. I should have worded the amendment in a non-exclusive manner, to make sure that I did not forget any other form of transport. He is right to highlight, as I know he is about to, the critical importance of the integrated transport terminal in Portsmouth harbour for access to and from his wonderful island. There are many other examples of such terminals, including the one in Ardrossan harbour for getting to and from the Isle of Arran in Scotland. I am sure that, if I had had the Government’s resources at my fingertips rather than having bashed away at this over Christmas, I would not have made that error.
Joe Robertson
I thank the hon. Member for his apology, if that is what that was; it is accepted. My argument for integration between rail and all modes of transport, although I will use ferries as a particular example, is important. The Minister is also the Maritime Minister, and is well aware of the specific issues that my constituency faces.
The two amendments seek to deliver integration through strategy. If we think back to the evidence given to this Committee last week by the future Prime Minister who is currently apprenticing as the Mayor of Greater Manchester, he said that integration is essential—and he would know, being in charge of a combined mayoral authority. We are due to get a combined authority for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, and the amendments can be viewed as mirroring the strategic responsibilities put on combined mayors, who have responsibility for travel and the interoperability of transport connections in their areas.
What the amendments—and particularly amendment 137 —seek to do is ensure that the Minister and the Government also have the responsibility to ensure co-operation. That is explicit in amendment 137, which calls for
“co-operation with relevant local and regional transport authorities”.
The amendments would end situations such as, for example, the one where, if I was to travel home on the 3.30 train from Waterloo down to Portsmouth Harbour station, the train would arrive five minutes after the ferry had departed. I imagine those are frustrations across pretty much every constituency in the land between trains and other forms of transport. If that situation is not addressed in the explicit way set out by the two amendments, it will continue to be a significant problem that will never get dealt with. Giving more attention and powers through the Bill will help to deliver improvements even for modes of transport, such as Isle of Wight ferries, that are not regulated by the Government and where they do not have explicit and express powers.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
The Transport Act 1981, which privatised British Rail’s ferry operations, including the Sea Link service to the Isle of Wight, contained no passenger interest provisions of the type contained in this Bill. Does the hon. Member agree that such an omission was an oversight and an historical missed opportunity?
Joe Robertson
I do. It is not difficult for me to agree and accept that the way Wightlink, which was part of British Rail, was dealt with was more than a missed opportunity; it was a bad decision. Locally, I work cross-party with the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) on that.
This Government have an opportunity. I thank the Minister for the work he is doing and I hope he will be prepared to intervene in a way no Government have done. There are clearly opportunities to make small improvements to the Bill, and accepting the amendments would do that not just in my constituency, but in others. I will leave the Minister with a question: if he does not support the amendments, how else might he use powers in the Bill, or would he be prepared to introduce amendments of his own, to improve connectivity for other modes of transport that do not have any formal regulation?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
Good morning, Mr Western. It continues to be a pleasure to serve under your chairship.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions and for the clarity and succinctness with which they delivered them. I am afraid I will not be able to follow in their footsteps when responding to what is a chunky group of amendments and new clauses, so they will have to bear with me for this section of our deliberations. Clause 15 has been of considerable interest to members of the Committee and to the rail industry more generally, as we heard during oral evidence. I am thrilled that so much enthusiasm is being expressed for the strategy both verbally and in amendments, each of which I will now address.
Amendments 134 and 25 relate to the timing of the strategy. Amendment 134 would require the strategy to be set for 30 years. The Government have already confirmed that the strategy will cover a 30-year period. Setting that in legislation, however, is inflexible and unnecessary. Although the Government’s ambition is for a 30-year-long strategy, we need to provide for the ability to make reasonable changes to that term when needed.
Amendment 25 would remove the ability for the strategy to be amended within a 15-year period. That would fundamentally limit the railway’s ability to respond to unforeseen circumstances such as the covid-19 global pandemic. I hope the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham agrees that such a circumstance, or any number of other possible events, would clearly require the strategy to be revisited within a timeframe of less than 15 years.
Rebecca Smith
The Minister’s comments imply that a 15-year strategy would be fixed in concrete and could not be amended. I am assuming that the 30-year strategy will be fluid and flexible to take into account the circumstances that he has just mentioned, such as—God forbid—a future pandemic. I feel the way he has described the amendment is not entirely in the spirit of what was meant, so it is worth reflecting that. Ultimately, we all want a flexible railway; we are just trying to say that the strategy could last for 15 years instead of the current 30.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. My reading of the amendment is that it would remove the ability to amend the strategy within a 15-year period. Her broader point, about having flexibility to make determinations about the long-term rail strategy and cater for unforeseen events, technological innovations and global events that we cannot predict, strengthens the argument that we made about amendment 134, when we considered whether to set the period in stone and make it exactly 30 years. There has clearly been deliberation between the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats about whether it should be 15 or 30 years, but we think that not being overly prescriptive is the best way to ensure that the rail strategy gives a long-term perspective and is sufficiently malleable to meet changing operational realities on the railway.
Jerome Mayhew
I just want to give the Minister some further clarity about what amendment 25 actually does. He is right that it says,
“The document issued under subsection (1) must be in force for a minimum of three control periods”,
but that should be read in the light of subsection (4), which gives the Secretary of State express power to
“keep the rail strategy under review”,
and paragraph (b), which says that they
“may revise or replace it.”
Does he accept that it is quite clear that the amendment, read in conjunction with subsection (4), does not prevent reacting to new events?
Keir Mather
On locking in a 15-year strategy that can be reopened only if the Secretary of State chooses to revise it, it has been said throughout our deliberations that we do not want politicians micromanaging the railway. I therefore presume that the Secretary of State would want to reopen the three control period review envelope only in extremis. Given our deliberations about whether it should be three control periods or 30 years, I think it is better overall to bake that flexibility into the Bill and allow those discussions to take place.
I have to make a lot more progress, and I do not want to detain the Committee for long. In the evidence sessions, several witnesses said that the ability to update and change the strategy in response to unexpected events is critical. No one can accurately predict things such as technological and environmental changes over the next 15 years. For that reason, the Bill has been drafted so that the strategy is not a once and done document, but can be revised when it needs to be.
The next theme in this group of amendments is to ensure that the long-term rail strategy includes specific content. Amendments 137, 207, 224, 135 and 136 all do that. The strategy will not go into specific operational requirements in the way sought by the amendments, which relate to topics such as rural railways, co-operation with local authorities, timetable integration, international rail and electrification. Those are all vital topics—of that there is no doubt—but they are all matters for Great British Railways to consider as it develops its strategic plan for the operation and optimisation of the rail network, informed by the long-term strategy.
Although I agree that co-operation with local authorities is critical to the success of this reform, I do not think that that objective needs to be captured in the long-term rail strategy. Rather, it is already captured in the Bill via GBR’s duty to co-operate with mayoral strategic authorities. That duty is provided for in legislation and will be enduring, so it does not also need to be in the strategy.
The suggestion that the long-term rail strategy should set out obligations relating to the timetable is in opposition to the views of the majority of stakeholders who responded to the Railways Bill consultation. They want Great British Railways to have the autonomy to manage the timetable without Government micromanagement, and I wholly agree with that.
Olly Glover
We seem to be losing track of the words that have been tabled. Either that or, like a group of management consultants, we are in danger of getting plans confused with strategies and tedious things such as that. Amendment 207 is neither intended nor drafted to encourage or enable the micromanagement of timetables. It is about the development of and the longer-term vision for what those timetables are supposed to achieve, and that is very much in line with what should be a 30-year strategy. I just want to assure the Minister on that point.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that assurance. I suppose that, in response to the amendments that he tabled, we agree that timetabling is of special significance because of the diffuse way in which it is currently organised between Network Rail and the Office of Rail and Road. We are conscious of the fact that making GBR a single driving mind for the railway means that timetabling needs to be dealt with in a way that is operationally responsive, but also not scattered throughout the Bill.
Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of timetabling and having due regard for how it is implemented over the long run, I think the way in which the duties under clause 18 allow us to consider the best interests of passengers through that work has a necessary long-term impact on the timetabling process overall. I hope that that would be adequate in meeting some of the concerns that he outlines and seeks to address through the amendment.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful to the Minister, who is doing his job in highlighting some of the practical challenges that the amendment might entail. The important bit is not so much the strategy; I think what my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is trying to get at is that, when Network Rail or GBR assesses the function of a level crossing, it also needs to take account of the impact on the society in which it is based: for instance, cutting a town in two or stopping vehicular access for multiple periods during a day. Does the Minister not agree that, if GBR did not consider that—it was not in the list of considerations that the Minister mentioned a moment ago—it would not be doing its full job?
Keir Mather
I thank the shadow Minister for his intervention. I very much identify with the sentiment identified by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. This is something that impacts Selby town, much as it affects communities across the country. It is right that GBR has regard to managing the way in which level crossings impact road users as much as it does the way that railway infrastructure and passenger services do.
My question is whether that obligation is best placed in this part of the Bill. Network Rail already has a system for considering the impact of changes on local communities, and that will be mapped over into the way that GBR functions. I believe that the transfer of that process, in a way that is reactive and operationally agile, is probably the best way to ensure that those considerations remain integral to how GBR carries out that work.
On connectivity and multimodal journeys, I am happy to confirm that strategic objectives in the long-term strategy will already include supporting better connectivity between communities. This will provide direction on the long-term trends affecting the railway. However, as with others in this group, amendment 261 would make the strategy a document focused on short to medium-term assessments of passengers’ ability to change between rail services or different modes—things that could change frequently, and are therefore not appropriate for inclusion in a document that sets out long-term strategic aims.
However, the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham will be pleased to hear that we will soon be publishing our integrated national transport strategy, which will set out the Government’s vision for domestic transport across England. It will focus on a transport network that works well for people across the country, including improving integration across modes, but I will of course take the sage advice of the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston about my personal role as part of that process.
Amendments 225 and 213 both seek to make the strategy subject to additional procedural requirements. Amendment 225 requires consultation with operators during preparation of the strategy. I can reassure the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham that the Government have already committed to consultative engagement with key stakeholders, including freight and passenger train operating companies, which will be essential for gathering evidence and informing the strategy’s development. Therefore, in our view, this amendment is unnecessary.
Amendment 213, meanwhile, requires regular reporting from the Secretary of State to Parliament on delivery of the strategy. However, as GBR will be the principal organisation responsible for delivering the vision and outcomes that will be set out in the long-term rail strategy, it will be for GBR to report on its progress in delivering it. GBR already must have regard to the strategy, and will respond to it through its business plans, on which it will report regularly. Given that and other existing reporting mechanisms, the amendment would be duplicative.
The new clauses in this group all propose new strategies or reports—for example, on rolling stock, cyber-security and technology, Sunday working arrangements or signalling. Those all naturally cut across the long-term rail strategy and, if accepted, would, in my view, risk GBR being busier completing strategies than actually running the railway. However, I would like to take each new clause in turn to give them due regard.
On new clause 27, the Government absolutely agree with the principle of a long-term rolling stock strategy. In fact, we would go a step further and say that this strategy should cover not just rolling stock, but the related infrastructure as well, in a single integrated strategy. Such a strategy was sadly lacking during the last three decades of privatisation, with decisions about rolling stock and related infrastructure taken to meet short-term and route-specific needs of operators seeking to maximise their profits. It is this Bill, establishing GBR, that will put that right.
However, I do not agree that the Bill needs this as a duty on GBR. Rather than creating a duty for GBR to deliver at some time in the future, we are already working with relevant parties across the industry to develop a rolling stock and infrastructure strategy to be published this summer. GBR will inherit that strategy and act on it to deliver improvements for industry, taxpayers and passengers.
Likewise, there is no need for a reporting requirement relating to cyber-security and technology. Cyber-security remains a priority for my Department; we are committed, through both existing cyber legislation and policy, to ensuring that GBR operates safely and securely. While new clause 28 reflects priorities that the Government share, the measures it proposes, such as on artificial intelligence, digitalisation and innovation, are already being delivered without the need to include them in this Bill.
On new clause 29, relating to Sunday working arrangements, I would first like to say that I have no doubt that creating GBR to improve both the quality and dependability of train services on Sundays will drive up demand and allow more people to benefit from the railway. We want a railway that operates reliably and sustainably, seven days a week, on a lower net subsidy than today, with built-in resilience and a diverse workforce. However, this is not an overnight change, but a long-term one, and not a process that, in my view, needs to be set out in legislation. Rather, we will continue to work with staff, managers and unions across the future railway to deliver this change collaboratively.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister is touching on a key issue that the railway will have to address if he is serious about achieving a reliable Sunday service, and that is operating a seven-day schedule with a six-day roster. Does the Minister intend finally to address the six-day roster issue and to move working practices on to a seven-day roster?
Keir Mather
We want GBR to be empowered to address and deal with all these questions relating to personnel and timetabling in a way that is consultative and in partnership with both unions and private sector operators. My point merely remains that it is not appropriate to freeze them in aspic as part of this Bill, in a way that might prevent GBR’s ability to work properly through those considerations with the workforce once it exists. Producing a separate report on the demand for Sunday travel would duplicate the work that GBR already has to undertake through its business plan, which will set out the outcomes and key deliverables for GBR, including train service levels, which will be agreed with the Government and published accordingly.
Finally, new clause 54 relates to a signalling strategy, and again there is no need to place such requirements in this Bill. Network Rail has released its approach to digital signalling for 2024 to 2029, setting out the routes that will be converted to digital signalling. GBR will take over that approach and would be expected to develop it in its future business plans.
To bring the focus of the discussion back to clause 15, the long-term rail strategy will ensure that the railway will always have long-term direction from this Government and future Governments. Such directions are vital for stability and confidence within the rail industry. The strategy will help to prevent the constant short-termism that has been called out by both the industry and its supply chain.
I hope that, following my response to these amendments, the hon. Members will feel able to withdraw them, and I commend clause 15 to the Committee.
Olly Glover
I apologise, Mr Western; I had forgotten I was due to speak, because we started to discuss this group the other day.
I do not have too much to say. I can understand some of the Minister’s points, but I certainly disagree with others. There is, of course, a balance between being too prescriptive and something being so woolly that it ends up being—this is a very tenuous analogy, but it could end up being like a glass of Ribena for a two-year-old, or predominantly water. That is the debate that we have been having, but I shall not detain the Committee for too much longer. I wish to press these two amendments to a Division, as I stated on Tuesday.
Also, I have a thought for our subsequent proceedings. We talk a lot about preserving things in aspic, but for the interest and attention of the Committee we may need a different analogy. Perhaps we should preserve things in stone, as the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) did in the 2015 general election. Perhaps we should turn to that analogy a bit more.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jerome Mayhew
I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said on amendment 25, particularly his comments on the Secretary of State, so I will not press it to a Division.
Amendment proposed: 135, in clause 15, page 8, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) The rail strategy must include an international rail strategy to—
(a) support the development of new international routes,
(b) support operators in introducing and operating any such new routes, and
(c) support new and existing operators in using the Channel Tunnel and London St Pancras High Speed.
(3B) In meeting the objectives under subsection (3A), the international rail strategy must—
(a) consider options to increase rail depot capacity at, and to supplement, Stratford Temple Mills;
(b) consider any enhancements that may be required to conventional rail network in the Southeast of England for the purpose of enabling international rail travel;
(c) consider options for electrification, changes to gauge clearance, and any other alterations to rail infrastructure as may be necessary to increase the potential for increased rail freight to travel via the Channel Tunnel.”—(Olly Glover.)
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to include an international rail strategy as part of the Government’s long-term rail strategy. The international rail strategy would specifically look to support new routes and operators, and increase Channel Tunnel and London St Pancras High Speed rail capacity.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 16, page 9, line 11, leave out “have regard to” and insert “seek to achieve”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 218, in clause 16, page 9, line 20, after “and” insert
“each single strategic authority, and”.
This amendment would require GBR to have regard to the transport strategies of single strategic authorities when exercising its statutory functions.
Clause stand part.
New clause 33—Long-Term Rolling Stock Leasing Framework—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a framework for the long-term leasing of rolling stock (‘the Framework’).
(2) The Framework must apply to all rolling stock agreements for use on infrastructure managed by Great British Railways.
(3) The Framework must include measures to—
(a) provide that rolling stock leases entered into, renewed or extended by Great British Railways or passenger operators for use on infrastructure managed by Great British Railways, have a minimum lease term of 15 years for new or renewed rolling stock, unless the Secretary of State determines that a shorter term is justified by exceptional operational or market circumstances;
(b) require Great British Railways to assess whole-life asset cost, maintenance, refurbishment and residual value when procuring or approving leases;
(c) provide Great British Railways with the power to specify obligations in long-term leases that support accessibility, improved energy efficiency, and interoperability across the network;
(d) ensure that long-term certainty supports—
(i) manufacturers of, and
(ii) persons who maintain
rolling stock by enabling investment in skills, supply chains and technological innovation;
(e) require that lease terms are consistent with Great British Railways’ long-term network strategy, its five-year funding settlements and its access and capacity allocation duties;
(f) require Great British Railways to publish an annual statement setting out—
(i) projected rolling stock needs for the 15 years following the publication of the statement;
(ii) any lease terms agreed within the year prior to the annual statement;
(iii) an assessment of the alignment of lease arrangements with the Framework’s objectives;
(iv) a value-for-money assessment of any new or renewed leases.
(4) Before issuing or revising the Framework, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) Great British Railways,
(b) the Passenger Council,
(c) the Office of Rail and Road, and
(d) any other persons the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.
(5) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act and every subsequent 12 months, Great British Railways must lay an annual report before Parliament setting out its compliance with the Framework and the reasons for any departures from the minimum lease requirement.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a Long-Term Rolling Stock Leasing Framework, and for Great British Railways to comply with this framework.
New clause 36—Rolling Stock Investment Framework—
“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, Great British Railways must publish a report containing a framework for rolling stock investment (‘the Framework’).
(2) The Framework must include an assessment of needs for rolling stock for the period of 15 years following its publication, including—
(a) procurement of new rolling stock,
(b) refurbishment of rolling stock that is already in use,
(c) digital signalling and onboard technology upgrades,
(d) decarbonisation, and
(e) accessibility improvements.
(3) The Framework must set out the routes through which private investors may finance—
(a) new trains,
(b) refurbishments to existing stock,
(c) upgrades to low-carbon traction,
(d) modernisation of interiors of trains,
(e) predictive maintenance, and
(f) digital systems.
(4) The Framework must promote private-sector investment in energy-efficient rolling stock and accessibility improvements.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), the meaning of ‘energy-efficient rolling stock’ includes hybrid, battery, or hydrogen technology.
(6) The Framework must set out how procurement undertaken by, or on behalf of, Great British Railways will—
(a) ensure competitive tendering,
(b) encourage innovation in design and maintenance,
(c) provide private investors with a stable commercial investment environment, and
(d) ensure a consistent pattern for the placement of orders.
(7) Great British Railways must align any plans for investment in the Framework with—
(a) its integrated business plan, and
(b) funding determinations for the relevant Control Period.
(8) Great British Railways must update the Framework at least once each year after it is first published, including in relation to—
(a) updating Great British Railways’ strategy for its fleet of rolling stock,
(b) opportunities for private capital investment in rolling stock,
(c) the reasons for any major changes to planned procurement,
(d) expected timelines and volumes for procurement, and
(e) how it will use private investment to—
(i) reduce whole-life cost of stock,
(ii) improve quality of stock, and
(iii) support jobs in the rail supply chain in the UK.”
This new clause would require GBR to publish a rolling stock investment framework.
New clause 37—Great British Railways Accountability—
(1) Great British Railways must publish a business plan each year.
(2) The business plan set out in subsection (1) must include—
(a) a summary of activities that Great British Railways intends to undertake during the following year,
(b) how these activities will support the delivery of the Rail Strategy,
(c) the outcomes Great British Railways expects to achieve, and
(d) how these outcomes reflect the funding settlement for the relevant Control Period.
(3) Great British Railways must publish a delivery report each year (‘the Report’).
(4) The Report must set out progress made against the outcomes in the Rail Strategy, including—
(a) passenger experience,
(b) freight growth,
(c) accessibility,
(d) passenger growth,
(e) integration with housing and local transport, and
(f) long-term infrastructure and service improvements.
(5) The Report must assess Great British Railways’ performance against its statutory duties as set out in this Act.
(6) The Report must include Great British Railways’ performance against its key performance indicators set by the Office of Rail and Road, including—
(a) areas of underperformance,
(b) risks to delivery,
(c) corrective actions taken, and
(d) financial performance related to its business plan.
(7) The Office of Rail and Road must assess Great British Railways’ performance against its business plan, key performance indicators set out in section [Great British Railways: Key Performance Indicators] and statutory duties, and publish an annual assessment of its performance.
(8) If the Office of Rail and Road makes any finding of material underperformance in the assessment set out in subsection (7), it must give notice to—
(a) the Secretary of State, and
(b) Great British Railways.
(9) The Secretary of State must publish a written response within 90 days of receiving a notice under subsection (7).
(10) Within 90 days of receiving a notice under subsection (8), Great British Railways must set out—
(a) how it will rectify any underperformance identified in an assessment under subsection (7), and
(b) and how it will measure progress against any areas of underperformance.
(11) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of—
(a) each business plan under subsection (1),
(b) each delivery report under subsection (3), and
(c) each assessment made by the Office of Rail and Road under subsection (7).
(12) When the Secretary of State lays a copy of the delivery report in accordance with subsection (11)(b), a Minister of the Crown must make a statement to each House of Parliament about the contents of the report.
(13) For the purposes of this section, ‘Control Period’ has the meaning given in any final decision taken by the Office of Rail and Road which concludes each periodic review of access charges as described in Schedule 4A of the Railways Act 1993.”
This new clause sets out a reporting and accountability framework for GBR.
Jerome Mayhew
The usual procedure applies again. Clause 16 requires both GBR and the Office of Rail and Road to “have regard to” a number of different requirements, such as the long-term rail strategy, the statutory transport or rail strategies published by the Welsh and Scottish Governments respectively, the mayoral combined authorities and the Mayor of London. There is a key political question within this clause: why has the Minister chosen to apply a duty on GBR and the ORR to only “have regard” to those strategies? In practice, that means only that GBR and the ORR will consider transport plans, not that they must, or even should, follow or prioritise them.
That seems a slightly unusual position for the Government to take, given their keen approach to oversight of GBR in other clauses, such as 7 and 9, where it looks like they wish to maintain their role as key stakeholder over that of the devolved Governments and the mayoral combined authorities. The weak obligations are shared, whereas the strong obligations are kept primarily to themselves. It is a surprising approach, particularly given that clauses 7 and 9 effectively strip GBR of operational independence. I recognise that the Scottish Government and, to a lesser extent, the Government in Wales have their own clauses to guide and direct, but the mayoral combined authorities certainly do not. I wonder whether this clause is directed at overweening powers demanded by certain mayors, but I could not possibly look into the depths of the psychology of the Labour party as it struggles with its issues at the moment.
It is very noticeable, as Mayor Andy Burnham said to us last Tuesday in oral evidence, that there is a substantial difference between the Government’s proposed treatment under the Bill of mayoral combined authorities and that of Transport for London. There does not appear to be any rationale for that deliberate divergence—or at least not one that the Government have identified.
As other mayoral combined authorities come online, the Bill provides no formal mechanism for their wishes to be respected. Members of the Committee who were in the oral evidence session will remember that Andy Burnham said he would “insist” on greater authority in that area. The Bill as currently drafted does not provide that avenue for him or for others, so those looking for advancement in the future might like to consider their voting strategy on this clause. After all, page 33 of the Labour manifesto states:
“Mayors will have a role in designing the services in their areas.”
Can the Minister outline the mechanism for existing and future mayoralties to be put on a statutory footing, and for their local transport plans to be given greater consideration from GBR and the ORR?
There is one other question regarding this clause. It relates to subsection (3). What does GBR do if the strategy of a mayoral combined authority or Transport for London conflicts with that of the Secretary of State? How are potential conflicts between strategies resolved, and who will be the arbiter? Will it be the Secretary of State, or will there be an independent structure? With that in mind, the clause should be strengthened to ensure that GBR and the ORR respond more clearly and act under greater requirements.
That is where amendment 26 comes in. It would replace the very weak “must have regard to” with “must seek to achieve”. That change seems small on the face of it, but it would strengthen the requirement on GBR and the ORR to engage and work with mayoral combined authorities, the Welsh and Scottish Governments and the Mayor of London. Will the Minister support this modest proposal to strengthen that relationship?
The clause currently restricts the duty of mayoral combined authorities and the Mayor of London. It is silent on other strategic authorities, yet the same arguments apply to areas that are not yet or will never be mayoral combined authorities when identifying regional needs for current and future transport. We heard that concern eloquently expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon. I hope that she will be able to expand some of her thinking on this in a moment. We have heard examples from the west country where local government reform is floundering, as it is around the country, including in Norfolk where I am a Member of Parliament. It is already delayed until 2028. That is perhaps just the first of further delays as well, as this Government lose steam. There is no idea where, when or even if it will go ahead.
There are also many areas that will never have a mayoral combined authority because of the structure of their local government settlement. We do have local transport authorities, though, which are the base level of local government that has responsibility for local transport co-ordination. It seems like a very significant omission that the Bill currently only relates to mayoral combined authorities. That is the lowest level of regional government to which it deigns to provide any form of requirement for co-operation with the ORR and GBR. Why is that? Where there is, for sound local reasons, no mayoral combined authority, why are the Government designing out the ability of local government representatives, the local democrats, to co-operate and co-ordinate with the ORR and—more importantly in this instance—GBR? What happens to their interest? There is simply no explanation as to why these large authorities, which will be the local transport authorities in their own right, have been excluded from consideration. That leads me neatly on to amendment 218, which adds them to the list.
New clause 33 requires the Government, or rather GBR, to set out a long-term rolling stock leasing framework. The clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a long-term rolling stock leasing framework, and require GBR to comply with that framework. It mandates a minimum 15-year lease, save in exceptional circumstances. That is because the longer the lease, the better the value for money for the taxpayer.
Longer leases lead to lower costs, which will lead to more UK investment, more trading and better value for taxpayers, as the industry and supply chain are able to plan ahead and produce effective business plans. There is a consequence to the leasing’s being done by the public sector, rather than the private sector: the Government will have to consider the impact of the cost of leasing on the national debt. That is, after all, the logical consequence of their political decision to nationalise the railways—the operating companies. There is a cost that comes with it, and that is moving from the private sector balance book on to that of the public sector. The Government need to own the financial consequences of their political and ideologically driven decision, and that is one of them.
Rebecca Smith
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the positives of new clause 33 and its attempt to rectify things as they stand, is that it is not throwing private investment in our rolling stock out of the window? We have heard in evidence and throughout the Bill process, whether that is in Transport Committee evidence or the Bill Committee, that millions and millions of pounds have been accepted by this Government by the private sector for rolling stock investment. If we are not careful, we will completely dissuade them from being involved. We are already seeing them moving to Europe with that investment instead.
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. New clause 33(3)(a) to (d) is aimed at reducing short-term decisions and focusing more on long-term efficiency and savings. I am sure there are many former business people on the Labour Benches—or maybe not, actually—[Interruption.] I am glad to hear that there are. There are many former business people on these Benches, and all those who have run businesses will know that predictability of the future is one of the key drivers of economic success and of driving down costs. New clause 33 will help to achieve that for the taxpayer.
GBR will also be mandated to produce an annual public report that enables Parliament and the public to properly hold GBR to account. We have heard time and again how light the Bill is on the ability of the public and of Parliament to hold GBR to account; we are the representatives of the people and we are being denied, by design, the opportunity to do that adequately. Yet it will be spending £20 billion-plus each year, about 50% of which, at the current rate, is public money. Why are the Government running scared of public oversight of these operations?
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I think this is an opportune moment to ask a question, as a Derby MP with Alstom in my constituency— the only place in the UK now where a train can be designed, engineered, manufactured and tested. Under the previous Government, Alstom had to make thousands of redundancies because there was just no certainty about work and there were delays on various projects. Can the hon. Member explain why the previous Government did not take any steps to come up with a rolling stock strategy?
Jerome Mayhew
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and for standing up for the jobs in his constituency, which is something we all need to do. I cannot speak for the actions of the Government before I was even elected as a Back-Bench MP, but we are certainly looking to improve. I would be the first person to say that the status quo ante was capable of improvement. Privatisation did bring many benefits to the railways, particularly in encouraging innovation and focus on the customer, leading to the increase in passenger numbers, which I have already spoken about in previous sittings, but was it perfect? Of course not.
As has been trailed by the Government, this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to redesign and improve our approach to the railways, and I think that taking a long-term approach to rolling stock investment and creating this framework would be taking advantage of that opportunity to try to improve predictability for the supply sector—for Alstom, but also for Siemens and other manufacturers as well.
New clause 36 would require GBR to publish and keep under annual review a 15-year rolling stock investment framework that sets out future needs for new and existing trains. That includes—this is important—not just the replacement of trains but refurbishment, digital upgrades, decarbonisation and accessibility improvements. It would establish how private investors could finance rolling stock and related upgrades, promote energy-efficient technologies such as battery, hydrogen and hybrid traction, and set expectations for competitive, innovative and, importantly, predictable procurement. The framework must align with GBR’s business plan and control period funding, which are two very sensible requirements, and it must also provide transparency on procurement volumes and timelines, explain changes to plans and show how private investment will be used to reduce whole-life costs, improve train quality and support jobs in the UK rail supply chain.
The Government have thrown the sector into a period of uncertainty—that is inevitable with large-scale redesigns like the ones we are going through at the moment. My concern is that the way in which they have chosen to do this, through a process of drifting nationalisation before knowing the details of its replacement, has exacerbated that uncertainty and extended it over a prolonged period. As the hon. Member for Derby South has already noted, we are already seeing that uncertainty in the supply chain and the manufacturing base.
There is uncertainty—that is the problem. This is a shell Bill; it does not have the answers, and it does not give any confidence to industry that things will be better in the future. It relies on a whole raft of provisions in the 19 documents to which we have referred to time and again, but they do not exist. We do not know whether things will get better or worse, and neither does the industry. There is no supporting documentation on how GBR will function in practice. I am not sure the Government even know that yet, and they really ought to have done better than this. New clause 36 would point them in the right direction, and I certainly look forward to pressing it to a Division, should the opportunity arise.
New clause 37 would increase accountability by setting out a reporting and accountability framework for Great British Railways. The new clause states:
“Great British Railways must publish a business plan each year”,
which we have already considered, and it dictates:
“The business plan…must include…a summary of activities that Great British Railways intends to undertake during the following year”
and
“how these activities will support the delivery of the Rail Strategy”.
At the end of the year, GBR would be required to produce a second report setting out its progress against the business plan objectives, the first of which is passenger experience—we all know the Government substantially ignore passenger experience at the moment, apart from reliability in short trains, and have just brushed the other aspects under the carpet. The other objectives include
“freight growth…accessibility…passenger growth”,
which is also ignored by the Government in the Bill as drafted,
“integration with housing and local transport”
and
“the long-term infrastructure and service improvement.”
The ORR must assess GBR’s performance against the key performance indicators set out in new clause 2, which we have already debated but not yet voted on. If the ORR finds any material underperformance, it must give notice to the Secretary of State, who must publish a written response. This general approach is very business focused; it simply asks that GBR sets out what it is planning to do at the start of the year, and then having worked through the year, there is a process for GBR to mark its homework at the end of the year. Has GBR done what it said it would do? If it has not, the spotlight is on. It is also being assessed by the ORR, which retains its role as an independent expert adjudicator that is trusted by all parts of the rail sector.
Perhaps the best thing is that, in response to that, GBR must also set out what it will do to rectify any underperformance, and it must lay a report before Parliament and make a statement. The new clause would add critical levels of parliamentary and public scrutiny to GBR, allowing both to hold this new organisation to account, which we believe is paramount when such vast amounts of taxpayers’ money will be used. The current Bill is woefully short on accountability. It lacks strong incentives to encourage GBR to perform, to be held to account and to answer for its actions—or lack of action.
This all feels a little too comfortable. We have a nationalised industry reporting to officials from the Department for Transport, and it is not focusing on the experience of customers and passengers, passenger growth or all the other imperatives of rail in the future. The Minister will of course tell us that none of that is necessary. However, with the greatest respect, direct experience of running a business tells us that we need to design in strong incentives—this is crucial; it is not primarily a political point but a trying to improve this Bill point—so that GBR is inclined to focus on the right objectives, without having to respond to external direction. These new clauses would help to point GBR in the right direction. I look forward to the Minister’s support.
Olly Glover
I should have said earlier, Mr Western, that it is a pleasure to once again serve under your chairship as we debate another exciting group of amendments. I want to make some brief remarks on the Conservative amendments in this group. I eagerly await the Minister’s polite but withering put-down.
Amendment 26 is a matter of wording. Alas, unlike the shadow Minister, my only experience of the law is occasionally watching “Kavanagh QC”, a reference that no doubt reveals my age. I shall await the Minister’s comments on that amendment and shall reach a view in the no doubt incredibly nail-bitingly tight Division on it. On amendment 218, I agree with the shadow Minister that we need to get mayoral consultation right, and to have plenty of it.
New clause 33 seems sensible, given the Conservatives’ and Labour’s total obsession with rolling stock leasing rather than purchase, which I find utterly bizarre. Rolling stock leasing can make sense, particularly when gilt prices or the cost of capital is high, but it is quite expensive on a whole-life cost basis. Otherwise, why would rolling stock companies do it? There are some very nice people in them, but they are not charities. Rolling stock leasing happens elsewhere in Europe, but it is not as universal as it is here. However, that feels like either yesterday’s war or tomorrow’s—probably not today’s.
On new clause 36, I note that the shadow Minister has tabled amendments about the private sector to similar effect in group 36. I politely suggest to him that, in the same way that members of the governing party can sometimes be too ideologically committed to the idea that public sector is automatically better, the evidence does not necessarily support the view that private sector is automatically better in the rail context. It is context-dependent. ORR benchmarking from 2012 showed that our train driver and rolling stock maintenance costs, both of which have been in the private sector for some time, were generally significantly higher at that time than those of our European counterparts. I do not believe that those trends have changed significantly.
I would be interested to hear from the shadow Minister and from the Government the evidence that private sector is automatically better than public sector, or vice versa. I think it depends on the context. Perhaps more important is getting requirements and specifications for tenders right or deciding in each individual context the best way to get value on a whole-life cost basis. We definitely have a problem on the railway, and perhaps as a nation as a whole, with being obsessed with getting up-front capital costs down, but there is not quite the same level of attention for a decent appraisal of whole-life costs and deciding how to move forward on that basis.
On new clause 37, I understand the intention of an annual business plan, but my slight worry is that it could undermine the logic of the five-year funding review period. Perhaps the shadow Minister can address that when he sums up.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I have a couple of small points to make. Cornwall has a very well-developed local integrated transport plan and devolution of bus franchising as well. Will the Minister reassure Members representing non-mayoral areas that GBR will have some regard to the solid local plans we already have in place?
The shadow Minister commented on running businesses. In a previous life, I was an equity partner in a law firm. Some of us have done a lot of other things. It might be worth considering how many shadow Ministers now in opposition worked in the public services they ran as well.
Rebecca Smith
I want to make a few comments in support of the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham. He suggested that I might want to make some comments on amendment 218. I acknowledge the comments and the request for clarification and reassurance from the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth, who, like me, often speaks about issues with railway service in the far south-west. What is going on in Cornwall is good. It is a devolved county that has been given foundation status. Devon has something similar, but Plymouth is not part of that, so the way in which transport strategies are being developed at the moment is further complicated. Local government reorganisation will not solve that problem; it will take further devolution. I believe Devon has been told that it will not be in the next round of opportunities to be a mayoral authority.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member, who is advocating for her constituents. Within London, Transport for London operates at least four lines—the Elizabeth, Central, Lioness and Metropolitan lines—all of which leave the London boundary. They would therefore potentially enter the boundaries of strategic authorities. If the amendment were passed, which would Great British Railways need to have regard to: the mayor’s transport strategy or the strategic authority’s transport strategy?
Rebecca Smith
I believe that the Mayor of London’s transport strategy is already considered within the wording of the Bill. I did not draft the Bill; it is not my Bill. I am just highlighting those areas. Ultimately, many of those areas may well be further down the road towards becoming mayoral authorities. I am talking about the areas that are not even on that path. We know that certain counties outside London are doing so, but ultimately the point the hon. Gentleman is making is a valid one. However, I do not believe that it means we should not have the amendment that we are putting forward, because it would give strategic authorities the ability to communicate with the Mayor of London and with GBR. That is an additional layer of engagement and ensuring that those voices are heard. I do not see how that would be contrary to what is going on in London.
I will briefly speak to the new clauses and then bring my comments to a close. It is worth looking at the rolling stock leasing framework, and I was interested in the comments made by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage about pursuing a leasing framework. At the end of the day, let us be real: the Government and the country at this point in time are not in a position simply to buy new rolling stock just because GBR comes into ownership. Forgive me if I am wrong—I am not an expert on this—but ultimately there will be some requirement to continue leasing. As much as it would be great to have brand-new trains that all look identical and all do the same thing, realistically we are just not in that position.
That leads me to one point that has come up in some of the evidence sessions I have sat in, which is accessibility. I know that a lot is being done to ensure that accessibility is central to the Bill and that people who need access to trains are considered. The hon. Member for Hyndburn raised this issue specifically for those outside the disabled community, including people of particular ages who have mobility needs. We heard from Lord Hendy that it could actually be decades before we see an improvement to accessibility because of the rolling stock. I believe that the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham would give due regard to putting some system in place to ensure that that those accessibility improvements are looked at strategically and on a rolling basis—so to speak. I believe that the amendments add something, given the argument for accessibility.
We have talked a lot about supply chain manufacturing, which amendment 36 is about. I appreciate the comments of the hon. Member for Derby South. Ultimately, we need to ensure that a long-term strategy is in place for our manufacturing sector. I have already mentioned the defence sector; we have a huge requirement for our advanced manufacturing at the moment and we need that certainty. We have seen the role that private sector investment plays in the development of rolling stock. That is not to say that the private sector is better than the public sector—I happen to believe that they are both important in the right proportions—but we have had so much investment from the private sector while the railway has been privatised. To just walk away from that on an ideological basis does not seem right.
Rebecca Smith
Bear with me one second. Ensuring that manufacturing process in the long term will be important. I will give way to the hon. Member, who is much more learned on this matter than me.
Laurence Turner
Much of the investment that has been channelled through the private sector since privatisation has in fact been underwritten by the state, and by Government guarantees. I will not put her on the spot to list specific examples but it would be helpful if Opposition Members could give examples of an at-risk capital investment that would actually be endangered by this Bill. I do not believe that such examples exist.
Rebecca Smith
The Committee heard from some representatives of the private sector. Lord Hendy has also highlighted that Hitachi—I believe it was—has made multi-million-pound investments that the Government were very happy to accept. It may well be that that is backed up by Government, but that was welcomed by the Prime Minister, so to say that we do not want private investment seems a bit churlish—ultimately, it has been accepted by the Government in its entirety.
The new clauses in this group are pushing the accountability piece: the reporting back, to make sure that the Great British public has the opportunity to see what Great British Railways is delivering and whether it is holding itself to account in the right way. I do not understand why the Government do not seem to think that the new clauses are a good idea. If Great British Railways will be so wonderful, would it not be great if the British people can see what it actually achieves and hold it to account? Marking one’s own homework is never good, and being able to hold GBR to account in all its forms will be essential.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. My remarks will be incredibly brief, ahead of the Minister’s responses. To echo some of what my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth said, as a representative of Hyndburn in Lancashire—which is currently not part of a mayoral combined authority—I look for reassurances that GBR will have regard to Lancashire’s transport authority and the local transport plans. This Government are clearly committed to the important agenda of devolution, but it would potentially undermine some of those efforts if in the transition phase—while we are trying to move as quickly as possible for as many areas as possible to benefit from that full devolution opportunity—a national body is undermining the local plans and those on the ground who understand the complexities of the needs of somewhere such as Lancashire. I would thank the Minister for reassurances in that regard.
Keir Mather
I thank hon. Members from all parties for their well-considered contributions to this debate. I shall endeavour to give full answers to them.
First, on the point made by the shadow Minister about how GBR will handle conflicting priorities that emerge within different strategies, as laid out by mayoral combined authorities or otherwise. As part of the business planning process, GBR will need to demonstrate how its integrated business plan aligns with the objectives contained in the long-term rail strategy and the Scottish Ministers’ rail strategy, reflecting the role that they have as funders of the network. The Bill also requires GBR to have regard to the various other national and local strategies. Fundamentally, however, establishing no hierarchy between the general duties to which GBR is subject, in my view gives the necessary flexibility to allow it to manage competing priorities where those may arise. It will be the responsibility of GBR to ensure that its decision making demonstrates consideration of potentially competing requirements and strikes an appropriate balance in making trade-offs.
On the statutory role of mayors as part of the process, GBR must have regard to their transport strategies. Mayors of course will have the right to request services and work in active partnerships with GBR. However, I also hear clearly the concerns of not only the hon. Member for South West Devon, but my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth, and for Hyndburn about those who do not live in mayoral strategic authorities. I appreciate the hon. Lady’s scepticism when comparing this to our existing system. When it comes to engaging with private operators and with other arm’s length bodies, at the moment it feels as if parliamentary accountability cannot always be applied, and that where power resides is very diffuse, making it hard to tell who is responsible. We are actively trying to avoid and redesign that through the creation of GBR.
The hon. Member for South West Devon points to the fact that the business units might not have the teeth to engage properly and to reflect the needs of local areas, but I would say that we are creating a decentralised Great British Railways, where local areas are imbued with the powers to enter into dialogue with local authorities especially to avoid that being the case. That does not change the fact that the reason that within the Bill we have referenced mayoral strategic authorities is that we believe they are the right unit of economic and of demographic power to drive forward truly devolved change on the railway. That does not mean that we cannot not have regard to those who do not benefit from living within a mayoral strategic authority.
Keir Mather
I will give way briefly in a moment, but first I will build on the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford about how services can run across the boundaries of mayoral strategic authorities. Through GBR, we will be able to enter into processes that engage not only with a mayoral strategic authority, but with such authorities acting in a sense as a representative of pressures that exist in cross-border dynamics that may arise. That offers another useful lens through which to engage with local areas that do not have a mayor. I appreciate that the hon. Lady might want a little more reassurance, so I will give way.
Rebecca Smith
On those local business units, how large an area are they likely to be structured on? That has not been in the debate to this point, and may reassure me. I appreciate that that may be a detail that is coming later, but some indication of how many counties might be included within each business unit would help.
Keir Mather
The hon. Lady must have read my mind about that detail being forthcoming. If she will allow me to take away that specific point over the break that we are about to have, I might be able to come back to her when we resume the debate.
For the moment, I will quickly turn specifically to the amendments in the group. The lead amendment would require GBR and the ORR to “seek to achieve” the long-term rail strategy and devolved strategies, rather than to “have regard to” them. The existing wording deliberately reflects the nature of those strategies within the system. The LTRS will take a 30-year perspective and set strategic objectives, rather than define a narrow set of deliverables.
We of course want GBR and the ORR to have regard to the strategies in all decision making, but they must also have the flexibility to balance long-term objectives with the practical business planning processes that operate over fixed periods. To legislate that such a vision should be achieved would not be in line with that principle, or with the overall approach to the general duties that set the conditions for successful decision making, but do not dictate specific outcomes. As I have reminded hon. Members, GBR, not the Government, will be running the railway.
New clause 37 also relates to GBR’s delivery and looks to establish a statutory annual reporting framework. The Bill already provides robust reporting and accountability arrangements. GBR is required to produce an integrated business plan for each funding period, which must be published and kept up to date, and that will give Parliament and stakeholders a clear view of GBR’s objectives, activities and expected outcomes. A separate statutory annual delivery report would in essence duplicate that information. Furthermore, the ORR will have a role in monitoring GBR’s performance against its business plan and will provide independent advice to the Secretary of State. Such oversight ensures that GBR can be held to account without the need for an additional statutory reporting requirement.
New clauses 33 and 36 relate to GBR’s long-term approach to securing rolling stock. The former calls for the Secretary of State to publish a long-term rolling stock leasing framework and sets out a substantial amount of detail on what that should include. Within that detail, there are certainly points on which we can agree, including the benefits of longer leases and the proper consideration of whole-life asset costs, both of which have been made more challenging to achieve under the franchising model. However, I profoundly disagree that the Secretary of State should dictate the detailed approach that GBR should take to rolling stock leasing, and with the specific terms set out in the new clause. It is rightly for experienced industry professionals within GBR, guided by the Secretary of State’s long-term rail strategy, to secure the best value and achieve GBR’s other objectives through commercial arrangements with the rolling stock leasing market. It should not be for the Government to dictate the detail of those arrangements.
On new clause 36, I of course agree that GBR should have a long-term rolling stock and infrastructure strategy, which is why we are already working with parties across the industry to develop one. The strategy will be published this summer, and will remain a live document. GBR will inherit and implement it as soon as it is established. The new clause is therefore unnecessary, as by the time it would take effect, GBR will already be up and running with a long-term rolling stock strategy.
Amendment 218 would require GBR to have regard to the transport strategies of single strategic authorities. We are of course supportive of a more locally focused railway under GBR. The provisions in the Bill are pitched at mayoral strategic authority level, reflecting their growth across England, the vital role that mayors play in convening local partners and the scale and capability required to integrate rail into the wider public transport network. Nevertheless, all tiers of local government will benefit from empowered local GBR business units that are outward facing and actively engage local authorities on their priorities and local transport plans. That engagement will ensure there is sufficient opportunity for local authorities outside the mayoral strategic authority areas to collaborate with GBR on their priories and to consider proposals. I hope the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham therefore feels comfortable withdrawing the amendments.
Clause 16 places duties on GBR to have regard to the long-term rail strategy, devolved transport strategies and local transport plans. Overall, it seeks to ensure that strategic decisions on matters such as future services and infrastructure plans appropriately reflect national, devolved and local priorities. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Jerome Mayhew
This is now a common refrain in our deliberations. The Minister says, “Don’t worry. All these things will be taken care of at some future date in documents that have not been drafted and certainly haven’t been shared with the Committee.” With the greatest respect to him, I do not take it on trust that the Government are looking carefully and in sufficient detail at these matters, so I will press the amendments to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of non-recognition of Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine.
Today is 1,435 days since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It has been nearly 12 years since Russia’s invasion of Crimea, which many would say is when the war really began. The same fact stands as it did back in 2022 and back in 2014: we do not recognise the Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine as Russian. That is why the policy of non-recognition is as paramount today as it has ever been.
Ukraine is a sovereign state with established borders, including Crimea and the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions. Those borders are recognised by the United Nations and the majority of states worldwide. All the partially occupied regions voted in a nationwide 1991 referendum for Ukraine’s independence from the Soviet Union. We must preserve the principle of territorial integrity. Ukraine’s borders are internationally recognised and any changes achieved by force have no legal validity. That protects a core principle of international law: the prohibition on acquiring territory through military force. The policy of non-recognition prevents the creation of a dangerous precedent that would allow other states to change borders through military aggression, undermining the UN charter and international treaties. Non-recognition matters because resolutions and official statements on non-recognition provide the legal and political foundations for imposing sanctions, internationally isolating the aggressor and holding it accountable for violations of international norms.
Furthermore, maintaining the status of those territories as part of Ukraine protects rights related to citizenship and legal protection, as well as the future processes of de-occupation and restoration of control. Non-recognition of Russia’s illegal occupation of Ukrainian territories would send a clear signal to Russia, and other states willing to change borders by force, that there is a price to pay for aggression. It is crucial to remember that the weak international reaction to the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014 enabled the current wave of Russian aggression, which is much more extensive and violent.
I will address the immensely human side of why non-recognition of Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine is vital, as well as the horrors of occupation for children, civilians and detainees, and the eradication of Ukrainian identity through Russification. I will also address how there are shocking beliefs and disinformation about these atrocities not being true. Finally, I will detail the asks needed to uphold the prospect of non-recognition of Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine.
Non-recognition sends a single to the Ukrainian state and army that the international community supports its legitimate self-defence, including attempts to de-occupy all of its territory. Historically, non-recognition of illegal occupation made the reverse of such occupation easier, for instance in the case of the Baltic states’ occupation by the Soviet Union. It also sends a signal to our allies that international law matters, a signal to Ukrainian civilians in the occupied territories that the international community cares about their fate, and a signal to Ukranians who had to flee the occupied territories that they might be able to return.
There are some significantly grave atrocities being committed against Ukrainian civilians in the occupied territories. According to Freedom House, the index of civil and political rights in the Russian-occupied territories is minus 1. For comparison, North Korea’s index is 3. The Russian-occupied territories are the least free place in the world. More than 100,000 people in the occupied territories have been killed as of January 2026. If not killed, there are heavy efforts to engineer ideological control. In 2022, the Russian Ministry of Education dictionary instructed teachers on how to “re-educate” Ukrainian children based on Russian “spiritual and moral values”.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member on his work on Ukraine and on securing the debate. He is talking about the occupied territories, and I want to raise an issue that we have discovered. In the occupied territory of Alchevsk, there are currently 100,000 people without heating or any form of support, not because of attacks by Ukrainian missiles; it is down to Russia’s incompetence and failure to even look after the territories that they have occupied. Does that not show their lack of care for areas they say should be part of Russia? It is another nail in their coffin of lies. They do not have any interest at all in individuals; they just want the territories, and it is an abomination.
Alex Sobel
The right hon. Member is absolutely correct. There is no part of the occupied territories of Ukraine where the standard of living is anywhere near what it was prior to the occupation. People in those territories are being systematically deprived of their livelihoods and there has been a material decline in their standard of living. Obviously, those who object to the occupation have been tortured, mutilated or killed, as Freedom House has evidenced.
I would like to be the first to congratulate and celebrate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for this week being awarded the Ukrainian Order of Merit by President Zelensky. Since coming to this place, she has dedicated much of her time to working towards the return of Ukrainian children kidnapped by Russia.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for his very kind words. I am pleased that he has touched upon the issue of the stolen children, because there are still many thousands of Ukrainian children who have been abducted from their homes, and of course 1.6 million Ukrainian children are subject to militarisation and indoctrination in the temporarily occupied territories.
This week, Mykola Kuleba, the founder of Save Ukraine, warned that Russia has created a “legal cage” to permanently entrap Ukrainian children in these occupied territories, imposing exit bans on children under the age of 14, putting a limitation on escape routes for those who have been abducted, removing orphans overnight from where they are staying, and imposing processes to systematically erase Ukrainian children’s names and identities from their documentation. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to rejecting Russian recognition of Ukraine’s temporarily occupied territories, this House must also reject any recognition of the Russification of Ukrainian children and unequivocally condemn Russia’s attempt to erase Ukraine’s future, one child at a time?
Alex Sobel
I deeply thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. It is absolutely right that the most vulnerable children on this planet are Ukrainian children in the Russian-occupied territories, and Ukrainian children who used to be in the Russian occupied territories but who are now falsely imprisoned in Russia, either in camps or through false adoption by Russian parents, including members of the Russian Government. There is no greater symbol of how monstrous Russia is than its treatment of Ukrainian children.
Ukrainian civilians in the temporarily occupied territories are being abducted or unjustly imprisoned by Russia on a massive scale. At a minimum, several thousand Ukrainian civilians have suffered this mistreatment. Let me guide hon. Members through Russia’s systemic abuse of the Ukrainian civilian population in the temporarily occupied areas.
First, there is persecution, including the creation of blacklists and the monitoring of the activities of individuals who are associated with civic activism. Secondly, there are arrests in the temporarily occupied territories, which means detaining individuals expressing views that are deemed inconsistent with Russia’s position. Thirdly, there is deportation and forcible transfer, with the use of official and unofficial detention sites in over 30 regions across Russia and Belarus to forcibly transfer detained Ukrainian civilians. Next, there are enforced disappearances. Following deportation, many civilians disappear, and their location and condition remain unknown to their relatives. Finally, there are unfair trials and illegal imprisonment. After some time, often years, civilians are brought to court, where they receive a sentence on fabricated charges, mostly relating to terrorism or espionage, which is straight out of the playbook of Stalin’s Soviet Union.
The United Nations has identified more than 100 sites that have been used for these activities since February 2022, located in every occupied Ukrainian province and across Russia and Belarus. Frequently, ad hoc prisons were set up in seized towns, where police stations, Government buildings, basements, schools and industrial sites were used to detain perceived dissidents. Some of these facilities have become notorious. In Donetsk and Luhansk, which have been occupied since 2014, prisons such as Izolyatsia gained a reputation for the use of electroshock torture and beatings. Since 2022, similar filtration camps and makeshift prisons have proliferated across the Kherson, Zaporizhzhia and Kharkiv regions.
Today, the Holocaust Memorial Day debate is happening in the main Chamber as we speak. I do not draw parallels with the Holocaust lightly, but the secrecy surrounding these torture camps, in which Ukrainian civilians are persecuted, cannot be overlooked. Ukrainians have been through the Holodomor, the Holocaust and now, Russian occupation. Ukrainian identity is being continuously eradicated, both physically and mentally.
During Russia’s invasion, 664 cultural heritage sites have been damaged or destroyed. Moscow has made it clear that nowhere is immune from missile strikes, even close to NATO territory. Looking outside the occupied territories, at the live targeting of the Lviv region, we have immense fears for the civilian population. Journalist Jen Stout highlights that one of the reasons why Lviv’s historic city centre is so unique and was designated a UNESCO world heritage site in 1998 is that it survived both the first and second world wars intact, unlike so many other central European cities.
Haemorrhaging Ukrainian culture through the killing, forcible kidnapping and removals of civilians and children, and the obliteration of their historic landscape is not the only way in which the Russification of temporarily occupied territories is being carried out. Ukrainian teachers from the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions report that after the occupation they were banned from teaching Ukrainian and using the Ukrainian curriculum, and are required to accept the new system. Those who refused faced persecution, threats of violence and detention in the centres that I described. Many people have been forced to go underground or leave their homes to preserve their identity and safety.
Returning to the atrocities being committed against children, it is alarming that there are points of view about how these atrocities are not ongoing. Overcoming that disinformation with the credibility of non-recognition of Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine is essential. We cannot allow Russian misinformation to win.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Ukrainian language education has been banned, cultural heritage sites have been destroyed and children have been transferred to Russia under the guise of evacuation, as has been mentioned. Does my hon. Friend agree that those acts demonstrate that occupation is not merely territorial, but an attempt to erase Ukrainian identity, and that that makes the policy of non-recognition all the more vital?
Alex Sobel
Absolutely; Russification is the central policy of the Kremlin. It is happening today in the occupied territories, and we need to ensure that it ends and does not spread through the rest of Ukraine. That is why the self defence of Ukraine is so important.
Many of the abducted children have lost their parents, who have either been jailed in the detention centres I discussed earlier, or killed by Russian forces. Russian families come to the occupied territories of Ukraine, abduct the children of detained or murdered parents and take them to Russia. Some Members may have heard the interview on the BBC’s “Ukrainecast” in December about the so-called Russian “children’s rights commissioner”, who is the subject of an International Criminal Court arrest warrant for the allegedly unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children. She gave an interview in October on Russian talk show in which she openly discussed a child she claimed to have “adopted” from Mariupol. She described how Philip, a young Ukrainian boy, was reluctant to accept a Russian identity. She described how he spends his time—in Moscow, in her home—on Ukrainian websites and singing songs in Ukrainian, but also how she managed to “gradually” change his mindset to the “way things were”. Those abducted Ukrainian children will consequently be militarised and indoctrinated, and used as troops against their own people.
Those atrocities, along with the disinformation fed to Russian troops about how they are “liberating” Ukrainians by occupying their territories, needs to be called out consistently by the international community. The policy of non-recognition of Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine can help with that process. Temporary occupation, regardless of duration, is illegal and does not confer any territorial rights upon the occupying power. Journalists who have tried to document events have also become victims of torture and repression. Ukrainian journalist Viktoriia Roshchyna was abducted and died in Russian captivity after a prolonged secret detention with signs of violence.
An expert mission report by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe found that the arbitrary deprivation of the liberties of Ukrainian civilians has been a “defining feature” of Russian-occupied territories since 2014. These reports underscore that the perpetration of seven particular crimes against Ukrainian civilians by Russian authorities violate international law and likely amounts to war crimes and crimes against humanity. These seven interlocking crimes against humanity, which illustrate what I have spoken about today, are: persecution, illegal detention, deportation or forceable transfer, enforced disappearance, torture and other inhumane acts, sexual violence, and illegal imprisonment. They mutually reinforce one another to disable dissent and consolidate control over areas that Russia has illegally occupied during its war of aggression against Ukraine.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for initiating this important debate and laying before us the scope and scale of the atrocities going on specifically in the occupied areas, as well as in the whole of Ukraine. We have to remember that when—on the blessed day—peace arrives, it will take some time before Ukraine becomes safe. Given the amount of unexploded ordnance, the number of atrocities and the recovery that is required, does he agree that we need to consider options and futures for those Ukrainians to whom we have given shelter in the UK under the Homes for Ukraine scheme, to give them an option for when they return, rather than assuming that peace is the point at which they must return?
Alex Sobel
If we look back to the 1990s, and the UK’s role in Bosnia and Kosovo in particular, that gives us a model. Many of the people who sought refuge here during those wars were able to stay, but now many have gone back—after we de-mined, supported the process of reconciliation and provided mental health support and other things—and are prominent in society in Kosovo and Bosnia. I hope that in this case we can do the same, helping to support and strengthen Ukraine in the future.
I would like to highlight three main asks in addition to the overall policy, which we should retain, of non-recognition of Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine. First, we need to work with major British news outlets such as the BBC—including the World Service—Sky News and The Guardian to profile civil detainee cases, focusing on personal stories such as those of Serhiy Tsyhipa and Kostiantyn Zinovkin. We must reinforce the global legal consensus. Secondly, we need to support evidence-sharing initiatives with the ICC and European prosecutors working on war crime cases. Thirdly, we need to deter any attempts to normalise or legitimise aggression. That must be underwritten, of course, by legitimate and firm security guarantees for Ukraine.
I want to finish with the words of Artur, whom Jen Stout interviewed in 2022:
“To defend Ukraine, we’re defending all of Europe. The West would be next, they’ll capture your cities. Putin fancies himself an Emperor. If you don’t help us, there’ll be no more peace in your homes. I sacrificed my health at 22 years old, to protect the whole of Europe from Russian madness”.
I thank Dr Kseniya Oksamytna of the University of London; Tanya Mulesa of Justice and Accountability for Ukraine; Dr Jade McGlynn of the Centre for Statecraft and National Security; the Foreign Policy Centre; and the Ukrainian embassy in London for their help with this speech. Moreover, I thank the people of Ukraine, whose resilience ensures that Ukraine stays strong through the biting winters and beaming summers. Slava Ukraini!
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman for opening the debate, and remind all Back-Bench colleagues that you should continue to bob, please, if you wish to speak. Given the level of interest, if everyone can confine themselves to about five minutes each, we should get everybody in.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), who is chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine and who has advocated daily for Ukraine ever since the full-scale invasion.
The hon. Gentleman talked about Stalin, and that is a good place to start, because Russia’s attempt to dress up its occupation of Ukrainian territory as legitimate statehood is not new; it is very much from Stalin’s playbook. When Nazi Germany invaded Poland in 1939, the red army followed from the east just over two weeks later, and the Soviet authorities staged elections to so-called people’s assemblies in western Ukraine and Belarus. Those elections were rigged and held in an atmosphere of repression, with armed militia forcibly bringing people to the polling stations, so it is little wonder that those assemblies then voted to join the Soviet Union.
However, the fact is that Putin will never truly secure legitimate ownership of Ukrainian territory without the consent of the Ukrainian people, and that is consent they will never give. Max Weber said that
“the basis of every system of authority…is a belief, a belief by virtue of which persons exercising authority are lent prestige”.
Legitimacy is earned not through power or coercion, but through belief. Putin does not have that belief from the Ukrainian people and never will.
That has not stopped the Kremlin trying to manufacture the illusion. In 2023 Putin signed a decree defining residents of occupied areas of eastern Ukraine who refused Russian passports as stateless, exposing them to the threat of deportation. That is coercion dressed up as “choice”; it creates a paper trail designed to support a false narrative that Ukrainians are willingly accepting Russian rules.
That façade also exists in education and social services. In education, Russian occupation authorities claim that students in occupied Ukraine have the choice to continue learning Ukrainian and that most simply do not. The resulting decline in Ukrainian study is then presented as evidence of popular support for Russian control. In social services, the occupied territories are also being weaponised. A clear example is Russia’s maternity capital scheme—a state payment to citizens after the birth of a second or third child—which has now been extended into the occupied territories of Ukraine. By making that support conditional on parents and children holding Russian citizenship, the authorities pressure families to accept Russian passports for their newborns.
I would like to say something about the occupied territories in Donetsk, and particularly the fortress belt. Russia is not simply trying to hold territory on a de facto basis; it is trying to turn occupation into a reality even for those parts of Donetsk and Luhansk that it does not occupy and, through peace talks, to achieve on a de jure basis what it has not achieved by military means. It is for the Ukrainian people to determine what their war aims are and, through these peace talks, what, if anything, they are prepared to concede. However, they know the risk in conceding the strategically important fortress belt in the Donetsk oblast, because that roughly 50 km chain of fortified cities has formed the backbone of Ukraine’s eastern defences since 2014. Kremlin officials have demanded that Ukraine cede control of that portion of Donetsk as a condition for any ceasefire agreement. That is cynical; as the Institute for the Study of War notes, Ukraine has spent more than a decade reinforcing that line, and I think we can all forecast that conceding it would make life much easier for a further Russian invasion in the future. The institute also says that withdrawing would mean Ukrainian troops moving into less defensible terrain to the west, where any new defensive line would run through open fields and would abandon obstacles such as the Oskil and Siverskyi Donets rivers. Russia would win through diplomacy what it has not been able to win militarily, and Ukraine would be left with a weaker defensive line.
To conclude, non-recognition denies Russia the legitimacy it seeks, and blocks the laundering of conquest through sham votes, coerced passports and captured institutions. For 80 years, our security has rested on the simple principle that borders cannot be changed by force, which dates back all the way to the Westphalia treaty in the 17th century. If we allow that principle to erode now, we do not preserve peace; we invite further war. If we accept occupation, we do not buy stability; we promote permission.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for all the work he is doing on Ukraine and for securing this important debate on the non-recognition of the Russian occupied territories, allowing me and other Members of Parliament to state on the record that we utterly condemn Putin’s invasion of parts of the sovereign territory of Ukraine.
We must not allow aggressors to get away with the invasion and attempted annexation of another nation’s sovereign territory. That is essential if we are to uphold international law and the rules-based international order. Moreover, weakness, inaction and ceding to Putin will only embolden him, as indeed it already has. Not content with his invasion of Crimea in 2014, he launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The United Nations has repeatedly reaffirmed Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders. Russia has absolutely no right to try to assimilate the territories it is occupying into its own administrative systems.
Rather than repeat the excellent points made by colleagues about the legal framework, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) about the appalling kidnapping of Ukrainian children, I will mention some of the other aspects of the dreadful situation facing the citizens of Ukraine. On its last visit, the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine went to Vinnytsia, a city the size of Swansea in central Ukraine, which has welcomed, housed and supported 47,000 Ukrainians displaced from the temporarily occupied territories—47,000 individuals who have had to make agonising decisions about uprooting and leaving their homes, friends, family and work colleagues. Each of them will have their own story and will be worrying day in, day out about what is happening in their home towns, in the temporarily occupied territories, and about what the future holds.
We also met extraordinary business people who had come to Vinnytsia and re-established their businesses. One entrepreneur had relocated his factory there and had had to recruit new workers, while a couple who had a patisserie business were not only setting up new kitchens but establishing a whole new customer base in local cafes. We then visited a displaced university that had moved lock, stock and barrel to Vinnytsia. That was in just one city, and it is replicated across Ukraine, at a time when those cities themselves are under attack from Putin, when their resources are having to be prioritised for the war effort, and when many of their citizens are serving on the frontline. The challenges and pressures are enormous. I mention those displaced populations to remind us of their individual human stories and to highlight the impact of the exodus of talent from their home towns.
We have seen the devastation in the temporarily occupied territories. Buildings have been destroyed, and there has been a lack of water and power. Cities have had their physical infrastructure hollowed out, and have seen the loss of so many of their citizens, both on the frontline and by displacement to other areas of Ukraine and beyond. That has a significant impact on their resilience.
More than that, Ukrainian citizens are subject to Russia’s relentless attack on their very identity, being declared by Russia as Russian citizens, with some 3.5 million Russian passports issued and 300,000 people forcibly conscripted into the Russian military forces. Some 664 cultural heritage sites have been damaged or destroyed, and Ukrainian children are being forced to follow the Russian curriculum, with its narrative and worldview. We heard from the Ukrainian Ministry of Education and Science that it provides online materials, which families have to use clandestinely, to allow their children some access to Ukrainian education.
Ukrainians in the temporarily occupied territories have been subject to the most appalling abuse by the Russian authorities, with over 15,000 detained. There is an horrendous list of arbitrary arrests, appalling detention conditions, torture, sexual violence, unfair trials and people being detained either in the many detention centres in the temporarily occupied territories or after being deported to Russia. There is specific targeting of those who uphold Ukrainian civic identity, of local officials who will not collaborate with the aggressors and even of those who are just distributing aid. The inhumane and illegal treatment of Ukrainians in the temporarily occupied territories receives little news coverage, and too often does not feature in talks about a ceasefire or peace.
The Minister has taken a sustained interest in all these matters, so I would be grateful if he could tell us what the United Kingdom is doing, and what more we can do, to highlight and tackle these issues. First, we need to raise the plight of civilians and detainees in the temporarily occupied territories as widely as possible, particularly with appropriate international bodies and forums such as the United Nations and the G7. Secondly, we need to support international bodies such as the ICC in getting access and establishing accountability, and provide support for the Ukrainian authorities and NGOs trying to document this situation. Thirdly, we need to impose sanctions on those authorising and carrying out crimes against the civilian population.
As extraordinarily challenging as it is, it is vital that we work persistently with Ukrainian and international allies in raising the plight of those living under occupation and the illegal acts against them, particularly those held in detention. We must stress the accountability of their captors, and seek the location and release of those who are in detention or who have disappeared.
We need to look beyond the present to a time when the temporarily occupied territories come back under Ukrainian control, and prepare for the enormous task of reconstruction. That will not only be a physical task of rebuilding infrastructure, but will—crucially—require the rebuilding of communities.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), who has been tireless in raising the issue of our support for Ukraine. I was delighted to hear from him that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) has received the Order of Merit; it is richly deserved. I was proud to receive it when I chaired the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine, and I know that the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley was equally proud. It is a great honour.
The hon. Member began his remarks by saying, rightly, that this is day 1,435 of the full-scale war, but he also rightly pointed out that Russia’s attack on Ukraine began with the annexation of Crimea 12 years earlier. It was arguably even before that, when Russia made it clear that it believed Crimea was Russian territory and its Parliament voted that Sevastopol was a Russian city. The annexation took place in a flagrant breach of the Budapest memorandum, of which we were a signatory along with Russia and the United States. It was a breach of international law. As I have said before, I think the rather feeble response from the west to the annexation contributed to Russia’s belief that it could go further in attacking Donbas.
After the annexation of Crimea, we had the little green men and the separatist movement in Donbas, but we knew—the evidence was overwhelming—that they were not separatists. They were armed, funded and directed by Russia. Indeed, after the horrific shooting down of MH17 on to the territory by separatists, we had intercepts to show they were clearly operating under the command of Russians.
During that time I visited several parts of Ukraine, including those now under occupation. I went to Mariupol, a city on the Black sea. Even then, it was being squeezed by the Russians as a result of the blockade of the Kerch strait to prevent ships from reaching Berdyansk and Mariupol. Since then, Mariupol has been almost completely destroyed, with 75,000 civilians killed in the battle with the Russians. This was an area that Russia claimed wanted to be liberated. It argued that the people were Russian speakers who felt Russian, that their allegiance was to Russia and that they were somehow going to be freed from Nazi oppression in Kyiv. It is the Russian propaganda playbook. It had absolutely no basis in truth, and the fact that so many Russian-speaking citizens in Donbas have been killed in the war proves the cynicism of the Russians.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) talked about the conditions in Donbas. I just had a quick check. This weekend in Donetsk, the temperature will be between minus 11 and minus 18. People can expect to receive water every four days. They are predominantly elderly people, the young people having largely fled, and the conditions there are utterly appalling. What is happening in the occupied territories is horrific, and the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley is absolutely right to raise it.
As well as the ongoing fighting, we know that atrocities are being committed, as mentioned by the hon. Members for Leeds Central and Headingley and for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith). We had a meeting yesterday with Dr Jade McGlynn of the war unit in King’s College London, who has done a lot of research about Ukrainians’ plight. We heard that an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 Ukrainians have been detained or have disappeared. We were told that 92% of those who have been released have reported being tortured, ill-treated and systematically abused, with sexual violence used as a deliberate method of humiliation, initially triggering men but then also women.
I want to put two questions to the Minister, one of which relates to those atrocities. On the statute book, we have sanctions available for deliberate abuse of human rights. There is a list of individuals who have been identified as perpetrators of these abuses. Will the Minister look at extending sanctions to the people carrying out these appalling crimes?
My other question relates to a specific location in the Donbas area: Zaporizhzhia, which has one of the biggest nuclear power plants in Europe. It closed down in September 2022, but there are reports that the Russians intend to reactivate its first reactor. The head of the Ukrainian nuclear energy service has said that that risks “nuclear catastrophe”, that the Russians do not know about the safety systems, they do not have the details of the plant, and that to do so is reckless and potentially incredibly dangerous. We are told that it forms part of the discussions taking place between America and Russia but, given Chernobyl—also a Ukrainian nuclear power plant, and we know what happened there—I should be grateful if the Minister would say anything about that specific issue, or at least raise it.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for securing the debate but, most importantly, for his significant commitment to the people of Ukraine and everything he does. It is great to see Members across the House continuing to be united on this issue.
Jesse Jackson once said:
“If you fall behind, run faster. Never give up, never surrender, and rise up against the odds.”
Ukraine has embodied that spirit from the first day of Russia’s illegal invasion. Today, Putin insists that any peace deal must involve Ukraine surrendering territory. His agreement to any draft peace deal can only proceed, he claims, if Kyiv gives up land. Ukraine is right to reject that. Conceding territory would not be peace; it would be capitulation. International law is unambiguous: territory cannot be acquired by force, and the international community has consistently refused to legitimise borders drawn through coercion.
Along with our NATO partners, we maintain a firm policy of non-recognition of Russia’s illegal occupation and attempted annexation of Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Sevastopol, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. The Kremlin may talk about peace, but its actions and continued demands show no willingness to retreat. Ukraine is not about to raise the white flag, and we stand shoulder to shoulder with her citizens. Putin refuses to acknowledge the strength of Ukraine’s fight—its ingenuity, sacrifice, bravery and unshakeable determination—but we refuse to ignore it. The Ukrainians’ resolve in defending what is right has been nothing short of extraordinary.
Beyond politics and principles lies the human reality. In cities such as Mariupol, which has been occupied since 2022, citizens have lived through devastation, forced Russification and the dismantling of Ukrainian civic life. Residents describe it as “hell on earth”. Some 350,000 people fled; many are now refugees trying to build their lives away from home. As the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) said, those who stayed faced unimaginable hardship. Some sheltered in the basements of bombed-out buildings, including 75-year-old Angela, who refused to leave the stray animals she cared for and is living in a damp, windowless, freezing apartment. Others, including Larisa, said the only way to survive was to accept Russian documents. Without a Russian passport, they cannot get medical care, employment or even keep their own home—all while living under constant surveillance. Up to 90% of Mariupol’s buildings were damaged or destroyed, and there is no credible evidence that there has been any meaningful change in the situation there.
When I visited Ukraine last year, I saw the destruction at first hand: shattered buildings, disrupted communities and daily lives reshaped by war. What stood out more, though, was not the physical damage but the unbroken spirit of Ukrainians, whose resolve in the face of aggression is extraordinary, exceptional and enduring. They remain clear: they are Ukrainians, and they will remain Ukrainians.
As we have heard, the forced transfer of Ukrainian children from occupied territories into Russia raises grave concerns. It is a huge, serious humanitarian violation, and those children must be returned. We must stand firm in demanding that. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who is no longer in her place, for her outstanding work in continuing to champion this issue, and I congratulate her on her award and recognition this week from President Zelensky.
The road to restoring Ukraine’s territorial integrity will be complex, but the foundations of international law are solid. Sovereignty cannot be overwritten by force, and despite the scale of suffering, there is some hope. The Ukrainians’ resilience, the unwavering support of allies and the strength of international law point to a future in which Ukraine’s territory is restored. We should continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Ukrainians until that day comes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)
Order. As hon. Members will see, we have four speakers remaining. I want to start the Front-Bench speeches at about 2.28 pm, so that probably means that Members have about four and a half minutes each, I am afraid.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Having listened to all the excellent preceding speeches, I have to say that occasions such as this make me proud to be a Member of the British Parliament. I congratulate everyone who has spoken with such a united voice.
If I may, I will just make some brief elaborations on the opening comments and superb contribution of the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). He referred in particular to the non-recognition of the Baltic states, and it is worth looking at that a little more closely. The Baltic states were occupied and incorporated into the Soviet Union for approximately half a century; never did this country recognise that. If those of us who saw the Soviet Union at the height of its power in the mid-1980s had been told that one day the Governments in exile of those three absorbed republics would be able to step forward and pick up the torch of democracy owing to the collapse of their overlords, we would have said, “Well, we would love to think that would happen, but do we honestly think it is going to happen in our lifetimes? Probably not.” But it did, and when it did, the implosion was dramatic, unexpected and complete.
[Dawn Butler in the Chair]
Yet there are some people who regard the break-up—the dissolution—of the Soviet empire as a geopolitical disaster. Hon. Members know to whom I am referring in particular: Vladimir Putin. Given that that is Putin’s attitude, one thing that we can certainly deduce from the present situation is that there is no such thing as a peace deal to be had with Vladimir Putin and his cohorts. The fact is that if there is a deal of any sort—if there is a ceasefire—it is for one reason and one reason only: that Putin feels at the time of such a deal or a ceasefire that he cannot successfully go further. If then there is a cessation of fighting for a while, we can be equally sure that the moment Putin thinks he can go further, he will start all over again. So there is absolutely nothing to be gained, in terms of good will, or a basis for future relationships or stability, by giving any concessions to Putin whatsoever in terms of land exchanges or recognition of occupation.
Let me turn to another parallel with the 1930s—the fact that Putin made one big error. He signalled by his early occupation of Crimea what his intentions were, but he was not then able to carry them out for quite a few years, in which time the defensive capability of the Ukrainians had massively increased with the surreptitious help, I suspect, of certain western powers, including ourselves. As a result, Ukraine was able to put up a much stronger defence than anybody who was not part of that secret rearmament and training programme would have anticipated.
Sir John Whittingdale
I am listening with great interest to my right hon. Friend’s speech. He will remember Operation Orbital, during which the UK provided training and supplies to the Ukrainian armed forces in anticipation of the attack that then followed.
Sir Julian Lewis
Yes, that is entirely the sort of contribution that I have in mind. As a result of that, when Putin was ready to take his next bite, the Ukrainians were able to prevent him, yet many people, including me, thought the most that we could probably do was to offer the Ukrainian Government a Government-in-exile headquarters in London when the whole country was overrun. The whole country was not overrun. Hopefully, the whole country never will be overrun, but those parts of it that have been overrun must never be recognised as belonging to the successors of the Soviet Union—namely the gang around Vladimir Putin, the killer in the Kremlin.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for securing this debate and the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who made some very powerful points about parallels with the Baltic states that I completely agree with. I think all Members in attendance are absolutely clear that if a state that invades its neighbour and holds territory by force gains political or territorial reward for that, it is not buying peace; it is simply queuing up the next war. Borders should not be changed at the barrel of a gun.
At the same time, it must be said plainly that it is for Ukraine and Ukraine alone to decide what compromises, if any, it is prepared to make. It is not for us, not for allies and not for foreign politicians sitting far away from the frontline. That is why I am deeply concerned by suggestions that Ukraine is being asked to give up Ukrainian-controlled territory in the Donbas as a precondition for peace or even as the price of future security guarantees.
Let us be honest about what that means. My hon. Friend made the point earlier. The frontline in the Donbas is among the most fortified places on earth. It was built at great cost and defended with extraordinary courage. Thousands of Ukrainians have given their lives defending it, and they did not do so lightly or on a whim. One must have solid grounds to do so, and it must come concurrently with solid security guarantees.
History warns us where this road leads. In 1938, Czechoslovakia was forced to hand over the Sudetenland, where most of its defences were, in the name of peace, and that peace lasted months. By 1939, the country was occupied and its independence was destroyed. Concessions do not bring security; they can sometimes invite catastrophe.
When we talk about security guarantees, let us not overlook the most real and effective guarantee Ukraine has right now: the brave men and women of Ukraine’s armed forces. They are the reason why Ukraine still exists as a sovereign state. Their courage, discipline and sacrifice are what stand between freedom and occupation, and any peace must allow those forces to be equipped and manned at a level that deters future attacks.
I worry that parts of the international community are not doing their bit. In my view, the United States Administration has been leaning far too heavily towards accommodating the Kremlin. They are talking tough but failing to use the enormous economic, military and political levers they have to apply real pressure. I thank the Minister for the work he has been doing to make sure that British sanctions and support have been robust for Ukraine.
I am very concerned by data showing that overall military aid to Ukraine actually fell last year, even though countries such as the US, France and Germany stepped up their support. At this stage of the war, any drop in assistance sends the wrong signal. We need to give the Ukrainians everything they need and avoid the drip, drip of capabilities and arms that we have seen since the war began.
Finally, we need to be honest about how Russia has used frozen conflicts to its advantage. Across the post-Soviet space, including Transnistria, Abkhazia and the Donbas, Moscow has deliberately kept territorial disputes unresolved as a way of holding its neighbours in limbo. Those conflicts are not accidents; they are tools used to maintain influence, block stability and make it harder for countries to choose their own future or their own alliances. We should not kid ourselves about what these frozen conflicts really are. They are not peaceful compromises; they are pressure points. They allow aggression to fester, and they show us that peace built by accommodating an aggressor does not resolve the case; it simply locks injustice in place.
If, to stop the bloodshed, we have to accept non-recognition of occupied territories but de facto control by Russia—a frozen conflict—that again is for Ukrainians alone to decide. We must support them in their decision, but ensure that in this country we do not recognise Russian claims for one minute. A just and lasting peace cannot be built on coercion or enforced surrender. It cannot be built by asking the victim to pay the price for the aggressor’s crimes. I stand with all my parliamentary colleagues today in standing firm for Ukraine’s territorial integrity, its right to choose its own future and a peace that is real and genuinely durable.
Dawn Butler (in the Chair)
To get the last two speakers in, will Members stick to roughly four minutes or just under?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Ms Butler—it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I say a big thank you to the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for his continued focus on doing the right thing by the Ukrainian people. I want to set the scene in relation to Russia’s campaign of murder, their rape of girls as young as eight and women as old as 80, and their massacres and torture. When the Minister responds, we want to hear that those who have carried out war crimes are made accountable.
I chair the APPG for international freedom of religion or belief. I remember when the Russians first attacked Donbas and a number of Baptist pastors went missing. They were never found. They were kidnapped and disappeared. Their churches were destroyed and holy relics stolen and damaged. I wish to say very clearly that I am appalled by Russian aggression towards their neighbours and their determination to take what they want, regardless of the wishes of the Ukrainian people, or indeed of international law.
The hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley rightly spoke about advocating for using frozen Russian assets and the UK aid budget to rebuild critical energy infrastructure. Never was that needed more than it is now. If it was done with Libyan assets, it can be done with Russian assets. It frustrates me no end that we bind ourselves to laws that do nothing but protect the finances of aggressors and criminals. Once someone steps outside the law, we should have the capacity to ensure they do not profit from that country again.
We are all here to support the motion proposed by the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley. We can never recognise the Russian invasion and legitimise it by recognising its diktats. The refusal to recognise Russia’s illegal annexations is often framed as a matter of maps and mandates, but it is much more than that. Beneath the ink of international law lies a more urgent reality: the fundamental rights of millions of human beings.
I read an article recently that highlighted that non-recognition is our strongest shield against the erasure of identity. In the occupied territories of Ukraine we are witnessing a systematic campaign of forced passportisation. As documented by the United Nations Human Rights Office, residents are being coerced into abandoning their citizenship just to access basic survival. Without a Russian passport, a mother is denied medical care for her child. An elderly man is stripped of his pension. A worker is barred from his livelihood. That is not governance. It is administrative blackmail and we must never accept that faux governance.
I recently spoke to someone who carries out missionary work in Ukraine. They are from Faith in Action in my constituency and they outlined the despicable treatment of young Ukrainian soldiers. That goes back to my first point about the torture and physical abuses inflicted on young Ukrainian soldiers. Young men are abused in any way we can imagine—and in ways we would not like to imagine. Dirty bandages are deliberately used to cause infections. The types of people attempting to impose governance have no regard to dignity or indeed life. We must continue to remain staunch in our opposition.
We must also remain resolute in support of the Ukrainians and be very clear that we will not legitimise Russia’s illegitimate actions now or at any time in the future, whether it be Crimea, the Donbas or wherever. There is no sliding scale of sovereignty. If we concede an inch of the 1991 borders, we concede the entire UN charter. Putin is betting on Ukraine fatigue and western fatigue. He believes that if he holds territory long enough, the world will eventually blink and accept the new reality. This debate today must prove once again that our Government are not for turning. Let another sanction be added to my name and the names of many others here. We are not going to back down, either individually or collectively.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for securing this debate, and for all his work to advance the rights of the Ukrainian people. I also thank all hon. Members here today to debate non-recognition of Russian occupied territory.
It has now been more than 1,400 days since Russia launched a full-scale invasion, which we in this House, in the Government and in this country utterly condemn. Ukraine is a free country and has long enjoyed freedom, democracy and the right to choose its own destiny. It continues to have the sovereign right to decide its own future. We all agree that in attacking Ukraine, President Putin attacked democracy, freedom and the rights of nations across Europe to choose their own path. Put bluntly, we cannot allow that freedom to be snuffed out. I say to the people of Ukraine, who have endured unimaginable hardship for nearly four years, that Bournemouth stands with them and the UK stands with them. We all stand with their families and with their country.
For all the bombs, tanks and missiles that Putin has thrown at Ukraine, he has failed in his central aim: he has not broken the Ukrainian spirit. Theirs is a courage that refuses to be broken. He has not crushed the national will of a people determined to live freely. As we have heard today from hon. Members, that is important, because it means that Ukrainians will never give consent for Russian occupation. Ukraine’s future must be shaped by Ukrainians, not imposed by brute force. The Donbas must not be traded away in backroom deals, nor must any other part of Ukrainian territory.
I welcome the fact that our Prime Minister, along with European leaders, has been unequivocal that territorial integrity and borders matter, and that borders should not be redrawn by force. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), Europe learned those lessons the hard way, through devastation and bloodshed, and to forget them would be a grave mistake.
Russia may occupy parts of Ukrainian territory, but occupation is not ownership, control is not consent and this temporary military reality must never become permanent legal recognition. The NATO Secretary-General and leading legal experts have been clear that there is no legal, moral or political case for recognising land seized by force, nor should there be. Recognition would not secure peace in Ukraine, nor would it secure peace around the world. It would reward aggression and invite more of it.
We in this country need to be particularly cognisant of that, because we are repelling Russian cyber-attacks and disinformation every day. Every day, our security services fight against Russian spying and sabotage of our infrastructure. Those threats are, to a great extent, invisible to our public, and there is a sense that we do not want to draw too much attention to them lest we alarm people, but there comes a point when the scale, intensity and persistence of Russian attacks on our way of life need to be made public. One of the ways we can start to talk about that is by highlighting the threat of allowing Ukraine to in any way have its land ceded to Russia.
In closing, we know that we need a peace that endures, not merely a pause, because we know what Putin would do with a pause. We know what he is already doing while “talk peace” is ringing around capitals in Europe: he is instructing his Russian military to strike hospitals, he is killing civilians and he is leaving millions without power in the depths of a cold, cold winter. If Putin does that while promising peace, imagine what he would do in any pause.
We must strengthen our support for Ukraine and plan for a just peace, but we must also recognise Putin for what he is. We must intensify pressure on those bankrolling his war, including oil trades and the shadow fleet, and speed up the clean energy transition so that this country is no longer insecure and vulnerable to massive fossil fuel price hikes. We must always support Ukraine to defend herself and to exercise the right to choose her future, and because peace in Europe is secured by confronting aggression, we must never yield. We must never allow settlement to be imposed over the heads of the Ukrainian people.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) on securing this important debate. I will start by echoing the sentiment expressed by so many hon. and right hon. Members in this debate that any decision on whether to surrender territory is for Ukraine and Ukraine alone. Peace cannot mean carving up a sovereign European state behind closed doors; it cannot mean big powers forcing Ukraine to surrender its land and its people.
We must not accept the principle that borders can be changed by force or by coercion, whether in Ukraine or anywhere else in Europe. It is vital that we stand up for the rules-based international order, even more so because there are those who flaunt it. I do not believe Putin’s vision of peace. I do not believe it is peace at all. It is a pause that will allow Russia to re-group, re-arm and return. We have seen this before in Georgia, Crimea and the Donbas.
Every inch of occupied Ukrainian land matters, whether that be Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia or Kherson. These are sovereign Ukrainian territories occupied illegally under international law. That is why we must finally act on frozen Russian assets. Some £30 billion of Russian assets reside in the UK. Meanwhile, Ukrainian cities are bombed, children are abducted and civilians freeze without power.
In the coming days, temperatures in Kyiv will drop to below minus 20°. Thousands will freeze to death. Russia must be forced to pay for its illegal war of aggression. While our support for Ukraine is unwavering, it cannot be right that British taxpayers pay while oligarchs’ wealth remains untouched. The Liberal Democrats have been consistently clear that the legal and moral case exists, and to delay costs Ukrainian lives.
We in this House discuss the war in Ukraine often, and time and again those debates show that our support for Ukraine is near unanimous. We hear the feelings of those in this House, but the wider public conversation is often missing from those discussions.
Although we are united here, Russia is doing everything it can to divide opinion beyond these walls. It is sowing division through bots, fake accounts and co-ordinated misinformation. It is bribing politicians like Nathan Gill, the former head of Reform in Wales. It is seeking to influence elections, as I saw at first hand during my visit with the Foreign Affairs Committee to Moldova and Romania. It is painting itself as the victim despite being the aggressor, and it is brazenly attempting to rewrite reality in real time. The United States now has a President who openly flirts with the idea of handing Ukrainian land to Russia, and who has repeated Kremlin talking points.
The Minister for the Armed Forces spoke eloquently in the Chamber the other day when he said:
“there may not be a border but there is a frontline.” —[Official Report, 14 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 1036.]
I agree, but I would also go further. Each of us is on that frontline electronically: it is our phones, our social media platforms, our Twitter feeds. Wars are not just fought with weapons; they are fought with misinformation and disinformation, with lies dressed up as common sense and comment sections filled up with bots.
I am sure many of us here have been told in person or online that it was NATO or Ukraine that started this war. That is a lie. It is a lie spread by Russia, but it is a lie that gets repeated. We must speak the truth continually and relentlessly. It was Russia that started this illegal war. It is Ukraine that is defending itself.
Here today, we must reaffirm that non-recognition of occupied territories is not a diplomatic theory. It is a line that protects peace in Europe, because non-recognition does not just happen in this House, in No. 10, in conferences or on international stages—it must happen in people’s lives too. It must happen in what they read and |in what they share.
Yesterday, the Financial Times reported that the Trump Administration have indicated to Ukraine that US security guarantees may be contingent on Kyiv agreeing to cede the Donbas—that Ukraine should withdraw from its own territory as the price of peace. That is an attempt to strong-arm Kyiv into painful concessions that are demanded by Moscow. It is not peace; it is coercion.
Ukraine has been clear: security guarantees must come before any discussion on land. Yet pressure is being applied almost exclusively to Kyiv, not to Moscow. The rules-based international order—the one that many of us learned about in schools and university, and that created stability, prosperity and the possibility of peace—allowed small nations to thrive without fear of invasion. It was imperfect, but it was grounded in rules that we believed applied to everyone.
That order is now being dismantled by messages, tweets and decisions: in the humiliation of President Zelensky in the Oval Office; in the threats to invade Greenland; in random tariffs against allies and enemies alike; in the pausing of weapons to Ukraine; and in the quiet adoption of Russian talking points about territory and responsibility. It should deeply concern us that the US national security strategy was welcomed by the Kremlin as “largely consistent” with Russia’s view.
As Prime Minister Carney said in his powerful speech in Davos, middle powers have been quiet for too long—too submissive, too willing to rely on a hegemon that may no longer share our values. The UK must recognise that we are moving towards a multilateral world where co-operation between like-minded democracies matters far more than blind reliance on a single power. We may all agree that we must not recognise Russian-occupied territories, and that Ukraine must decide what happens to its territories, but agreement here is not enough if people outside are being convinced that Ukraine does not matter, that borders do not matter and that this war has nothing to do with them.
During a Foreign Affairs Committee session, I asked Nina Jankowicz, the former director of the US disinformation governance board, about Russian interference in UK politics. She was clear: she pointed to the convergence of Russian rhetoric with that of specific voice here in Britain—their narrative echoed, amplified and normalised. We should not be surprised that the person she mentioned had a show on Russian-sponsored TV. We should not be surprised because he has personal ties to an authoritarian Trump Administration who parrot Russian talking points. We should not be surprised because he said Putin was the leader he admired the most. We should not be surprised that neither he, nor any of his party, is here today condemning Russia.
If we allow misinformation to hollow out public support, our foreign policy becomes brittle. If people stop believing that this matters to their children’s future, Russia succeeds without firing another shot. Yes, we must act abroad with our allies—those who have consistently and constantly shared our values—with weapons, diplomacy and leadership, but we must also act here at home by taking misinformation seriously, defending truth, protecting our elections, and refusing to allow bots and lies to set the terms of any debate. Ukraine must not be forced to give up territory and we must not recognise Russian-occupied land—not in this House, not in the Government and not online. Russia is trying to divide us and, for Ukraine, we must not let it.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
It has been a pleasure to serve under both your chairmanship, Ms Butler, and Sir Jeremy’s. This debate is as important now as it was on the very first day of the illegal invasion. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), who is also chair of the APPG on Ukraine, on securing the debate and on his long-standing commitment to the cause. He set out a clear passion for not just ending the conflict, but exposing the horrific atrocities that Russia has committed in Ukraine. He also said that the peace we hopefully secure for Ukraine should be lasting and fair for its people.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), the former chair of the APPG, brought a wealth of experience to the debate and highlighted that we have a trio of Members in the debate who have the Ukrainian Order of Merit, showing the commitment over many years of Members across this House to supporting our allies. For many Members, it is not a new-found interest or cause; it has been of grave concern for a long time. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) gave us a history lesson, and spoke about the lessons that we should learn from history, which I will touch on later. Often, we do not learn the obvious lessons from the pages of our history books.
As pointed out by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), and others, it is easy to think of the Ukrainian conflict as something that purely happens elsewhere and not in our own country or on our own Facebook and X feeds —that it is not about Russia actively being aggressive to us through cyber-warfare. But addressing the misinformation that exists in our society is equally as important in fighting the conflict.
The Opposition remain steadfast in our commitment to the people of Ukraine and their right to defend its sovereignty, territorial integrity and the freedom and democracy of its citizens. This was an illegal invasion and we are clear that territorial concessions would simply be a reward for Putin. It does not take a degree in military history to know that if we appease a dictator with concessions, they will never be content with small gains—and, by the way, I have a degree in military history, and I know from my studies that if we acquiesce now, Putin will not simply stop with Ukraine or bits of Ukraine. He will come for our other allies in eastern Europe, and he will not be happy until NATO has been torn apart by Russia’s territorial ambitions and actions.
Russia’s demands have been deliberately excessive, with Russia no doubt intending to paint Ukraine as unreasonable for simply seeking peace in its own territory. As the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), has rightly pointed out, with this statecraft, Mr Putin has his KGB playbook out. We cannot accept that.
The recent trilateral talks once again highlight Ukraine’s sincere desire for peace. What is the British Government’s assessment of those talks and whether any progress has been made? Does the Minister agree that the onus remains squarely on Putin to prove that he is sincere about wanting an end to this war, in contradiction to some of the things that we have heard today? We all saw the disgraceful attacks on Kyiv that Putin launched against the backdrop of the talks. Any sincere attempt for peace must surely be preceded by an end to the killing of innocent people.
This war has been nothing other than barbaric. Russia has targeted civilians; women and children have been killed in indiscriminate attacks on Ukrainian towns and cities; children have been abducted from their parents; and strikes on energy infrastructure have led to power outages and no heating—while temperatures have hovered around minus 15°C for three weeks. The Ukrainian people are suffering, even in parts of the country where Russia’s military has not managed to penetrate.
What assessment have the Government made of the treatment of Ukrainian citizens in areas under Russian control, and what future guarantees will they seek for citizens in the event of peace being agreed? If a peace is reached with military guarantees from Europe, and British troops are sent to help facilitate that peace, what does the Minister expect the rules of engagement to be? How many troops does he envisage we would send? How would rotations work? What are his thoughts on the composition of the force, and would any British soldiers be actively involved in the policing and patrolling of any border or demilitarised zone? Finally, what air and naval assets might be provided as part of a multinational force for Ukraine?
To keep the pressure on Putin to end the war, we must continue to increase sanctions. Throughout the conflict, we have rightly sanctioned assets in the UK and Europe that could have been used to aid the Russians in their illegal war. Thousands of oligarchs and Russian elites received sanctions, including in 2022 when the regime attempted to construct a phony referendum in four regions of Ukraine. Will the Minister assure us that any attempt by Russia to fabricate legitimacy through a false cloak of democracy will continue to be called out for what it is? Does he have any updates on dialogue with Belgium about efforts to use frozen Russian assets for Ukraine’s war effort?
Tom Hayes
The point about democracy and elections is important. The Government have launched an investigation into external influences on our own democracy, particularly financial influences, in the wake of the Old Bailey sentencing Nathan Gill, the elected Reform politician, to 10 and a half years in prison for pushing out Putin’s propaganda in the European Parliament. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is unacceptable for any elected British politician to pump out Russian propaganda? Does he agree that it is a particular problem that is unique to Reform? Does he welcome the investigation that the Government have launched?
Mr Snowden
As I said at the start of my remarks, it is very easy to think that this is only happening over in Ukraine and is not something that is happening right here. The sentencing of Nathan Gill should prompt some real reflection by Reform UK on why that activity happened for so long, unchallenged, and why Nathan felt comfortable in that party. That is something that Reform UK should seriously reflect on—and their views.
When we were in government, we led the world in defending Ukraine. We committed to providing £3 billion of military support every year for as long as necessary, and we were one of the leading donors to Ukraine, providing over £12 billion in overall support since 2022. We were often the first mover on vital lethal aid, from Storm Shadow missiles to Challenger 2 main battle tanks. We benefited from cross-party support when we were in government, and it is in that spirit that I stand here today. The Conservatives stand ready to support the Government in doing whatever it takes to help our ally to defeat this monstrous invasion, and to determine and decide its own future.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Butler, and indeed it was a pleasure to see Sir Jeremy in the Chair before you. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for all his work on Ukraine, not just in leading this debate, but as envoy and, indeed, in chairing the APPG. I see many friends around the room—steadfast friends of Ukraine through many years, including some whom I have travelled with to Ukraine, where we saw at first hand the barbarity of what Russia has done there.
Given that the subject has been raised, I have to ask: where are Reform Members today? They are Putin’s admirers, and Members from across the House have set out their record. I also have to ask: where are the Green party Members? This week, apparently, they were saying that we do not need to spend money on defence. I ask them to tell that to the people of the Baltic countries, or indeed the people of Ukraine, because it is foolish and deeply naive.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The Minister mentioned the Baltic states. On Monday, 26 January, the Government published a strategy, in which 14 Baltic and North sea states are involved, to tackle the Russian shadow fleet. Would he reflect on the fact that that is an excellent lever to put pressure on the economy of Russia, so that Russia is less likely to make demands, and end the war? Equally, will he advise us what teeth the new strategy to tackle the shadow fleet will have?
Stephen Doughty
I wholeheartedly agree with what the hon. Gentleman said. Helpfully, I have just come back from the Baltic states; I have been in Lithuania and Latvia for the last two days. It is very clear that in tackling the shadow fleet and Russian aggression, not only against Ukraine, on which we stand in solidarity with one another and with Ukraine, but in defending Europe as key NATO allies, we are working very closely with our Baltic partners.
Members made many important points about the history in relation to this very specific issue. Just yesterday, I was honoured to share with my Latvian counterparts that, of course, Britain did not recognise the occupation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union throughout all that time, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who is a former Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, set out. That was a very important signal, which is hugely recognised and absolutely crucial. Similarly, we do not and we will not recognise Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine; for that reason, they have rightly been described as “temporarily occupied”. Internationally recognised borders cannot be changed by force.
In the Baltic states, I saw the reality of what we are discussing today. Just two days ago, I walked around a former KGB prison in Vilnius, as well as seeing the Holocaust memorial and recognising what we have been recognising today and all this week, but also the brutality of the Soviet regime and of Russian imperialism more generally. I heard tragic historical accounts of poisonings, killings, detentions, show trials, and the murder of priests and others.
This is all from the same playbook, and we know that President Putin and his regime continue to go by it. The Baltic states know that, we know it, Ukraine knows it, and Members were absolutely right to highlight the appalling atrocities against people in the temporarily occupied areas.
Sir John Whittingdale
I, too, have been to the Museum of Occupations in Vilnius. It is a remarkable fact that it is in the building that was occupied by the Gestapo, which was then simply taken over by the KGB, who continued to murder people in the basement. That tells us something about the similarity between the atrocities carried out by the Nazis and those carried out under communism.
Stephen Doughty
I completely and wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Member. It is a very powerful place to visit to see that reality.
Like many colleagues in the House, I have been in Kyiv when the city has been under attack. It is important to recognise the particular brutality of attacks in recent days and the loss of life. There have been attacks on trains, civilians, kindergartens and schools, leaving families not only in the cold but without access to water and without light. As part of our school twinning programme, I spoke just the other day with young children in a school in Kyiv that is twinned with a school here in the UK. Luckily, they had power at that time and could do the link-up, but there had been a major attack nearby. That reality should sit starkly in all our minds.
Of course, there is a proud link between my part of the United Kingdom and the temporarily occupied territories: Cardiff was twinned with Luhansk, and Donetsk was founded by a Welshman. We also have many links with Crimea: Welsh troops fought in the Crimean war, and that is why we have a Sebastopol in the south Wales valleys. These things echo down our history, and we stand with Ukraine today and will continue to do so into the future.
We will stand by Ukraine’s side until peace comes, and until those territories are returned. In the meantime, we welcome the continued US-led peace efforts, including last week’s trilateral talks. Let us be clear: Ukraine is the one showing its commitment to peace and to agreeing a full, immediate and unconditional ceasefire, and Russia is stalling, repeating maximalist demands and continuing to carry out vicious strikes against Ukraine’s civilian population, plunging families into freezing conditions and starving them of necessities.
Next month marks a solemn milestone: four difficult years since the full-scale invasion. Soon after that, it will be 12 years since the occupation and illegal annexation of Crimea. As Members have rightly highlighted, Russia’s occupation has always been rooted in repression, including systematic human rights abuses, the suppression of Ukrainian culture, language and independent media, and the deportation and attempts at the Russification of children. Schools have been forced to follow Kremlin curriculums, residents have been pushed to use the rouble and obtain Russian passports, and Russia has attempted to absorb the occupied regions into its legal system. That is not governance; it is despotism, and we should see it for what it is.
The humanitarian situation in the occupied territories is extreme. Medical facilities are overstretched, and often prioritise the Russian military’s needs over those of civilians. Civilians face arbitrary detention, deportation and strict movement controls, with independent monitoring simply impossible; I am glad that Members have raised individual cases today. We have spoken many times about the appalling and heinous crime of the forced deportation of Ukrainian children and their attempted indoctrination in so-called patriotism camps with military-style training. We stand with the children of Ukraine and all those seeking to return, identify and trace them. I pay tribute to the cross-party work that has gone on around that, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who is not in her place.
We have announced additional support in recent weeks to respond to humanitarian concerns, particularly on energy, including an additional £20 million for energy security and resilience to keep lights on and homes warm when civilians need it most. We will also be expanding our school twinning scheme, building resilience between our peoples, and ensuring that we continue to provide support for reconstruction and the development of Ukraine’s economy. We look to a time when there will hopefully be peace, when Ukraine can be reconstructed and we can get back to a situation where its people are able to thrive independently—and with hope—as Ukrainians in the future.
Accountability has rightly been raised many times today. Just before Christmas, I was proud to sign a treaty in The Hague that established a claims commission for Ukraine, providing a route for accountability and reparation, including for the families of illegally deported children. Last week, registered claims reached 100,000, with more categories to follow. That sends a clear message that violations of international law will not go unanswered, and we will continue to support the commission’s work, building on our role chairing the register of damage.
Sanctions were rightly raised, and we continue to increase the economic pressure on Putin. We have sanctioned more than 900 individuals, entities and ships, including 520 oil tankers. We are working with partners to counter the shadow fleet through further sanctions. We will also—although I will not comment on future designations—look at those who have been involved in the commission of atrocities, and of course Members rightly mentioned those who have been involved in the deportation of children. These measures are making a tangible difference: Russian oil revenues are at a four-year low and Russia’s economy is in its weakest position since the start of the full-scale invasion.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive and positive responses to questions. In a recent debate, I made a point about accountability for those who have committed massacres, persecution, rape and sexual abuse. It is very important that those who think they have got away with it do not get away with it. Is that part of the accountability process?
Stephen Doughty
It absolutely is. We are supporting the Ukrainian authorities with their own domestic accountability processes and through our work with the International Criminal Court, the special tribunal and the claims commission for the damage that Russia has done.
Our work through the coalition of the willing, which was raised by the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), is unwavering, because Russia’s aggression threatens not only Ukraine, but Europe and all of us here in the UK. The coalition of the willing is committed to delivering robust security guarantees. Importantly, the Paris meeting delivered a declaration of intent to deploy a multinational force and a vision for a multi-layered package of security guarantees supported by the United States. For obvious reasons, I will not get into specific operational details; the Opposition have asked us a number of times, but I do not think that would be helpful at this stage. However, Members can be assured that that declaration, as well as the additional support for training and equipping Ukrainian forces so that they can defend their country and deter against future aggression—Interflex, Orbital and other things were mentioned—is crucial.
Many different points were raised, and I will happily come back to Members on specific questions if I have not covered them. We are deeply concerned about the situation at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, which was mentioned, and have consistently underlined that the only way to ensure nuclear safety and security at Zaporizhzhia is for the plant to be returned to Ukraine. We continue to invest a huge amount in military support. We have invested £600 million in drones alone and delivered 65,000 military drones to Ukraine in just six months. We have invested £13 billion in total in military support. Many Members have rightly made it clear that they speak on behalf of their constituents who want to stand with the people of Ukraine. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) made that very clear.
The Government will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. We will continue working with our partners to hold Russia to account. Internationally agreed borders cannot be changed by force. Attempts to impose an Administration on Ukrainian territory will never legitimise any false claims by Russia. We will never waver in our support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Ukraine will endure and we will be by its side.
Alex Sobel
We had almost absolute unanimity; I think this is the most unanimous debate that I have taken part in during my time as a Member. Nearly every Member who contributed to it has been to Ukraine, sometimes many times—sometimes, unfortunately, they have had to travel with me. There may be one or two who have not been—I am not sure if the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden), has been. I travelled with the Minister when he was the shadow Minister, and I can tell the shadow Minister that he would be treated akin to a Minister if he went to Kyiv. I am sure that it is in his plans to go.
I thank everybody who contributed. I will rattle through them in the time that I have left. I thank the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) for his service in the military. We definitely need to consider the historical similarities, and particularly the fortress belt. As my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) said, we need to remember the temporarily displaced people. I was with her in Vinnytsia, where we met with the university and with businesses.
My two vice-chairs on the APPG on Ukraine, the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson), made excellent speeches. The right hon. Member talked about his historical experience of being on the Black sea, the first wave of Russian aggression, the nuclear crisis and the concerns around Zaporizhzhia. My hon. Friend talked about Mariupol, which was the bravest defence in the Ukrainian war.
The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), who often speaks alongside me in these debates, talked about the historical parallels of non-recognition. As I am sure he knows, my mother was from Lithuania and born during that era. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) talked about military aid. We need to ensure that the Ukrainians get sufficient military aid. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) contributes tirelessly to these debates. His work on religious freedom is hugely important. We should remember that non-Orthodox religious sites were attacked and clerics abducted. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) made an important point about NATO. NATO’s clear position is non-recognition, and we need to hold the coalition of the willing together in its entirety to ensure that there is no recognition.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of non-recognition of Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine.
River Habitats: Protection and Restoration
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of protecting and restoring river habitats.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the Making Space for Water campaigners, whose tireless work in championing our riverways is exactly why we are here today in Westminster Hall. It is a privilege to open today’s debate and see it so well attended, as we make the case for practical solutions that will protect our riverways, restore river habitats and boost water quality in all of our rivers and streams.
It is essential that I outline the significant challenge facing both nature and rivers up and down the country. Unfortunately, most of our rivers are in crisis, plagued by pollution from both agriculture and sewage. Subsequently, they are on the brink of ecological collapse. Only a third of UK rivers are in good health, making our rivers some of the most polluted in Europe. Looking closer, 85% of the UK’s rivers and streams have been heavily modified, which is stripping away habitats and accelerating a big fall in biodiversity. Yet we all know that our rivers are crucial for both nature and communities. Riverways are a vital source of fresh water. They support wildlife, boost biodiversity and help to regulate the climate locally.
Take my home county of Dorset. Our county is fortunate to play home to one of the world’s rarest habitats: chalk streams. The high mineral content and year-round moderate temperatures mean that local chalk streams such as the Stour and Frome are home to a broad array of wildlife and habitats. I am so proud that on the Isle of Purbeck, in my constituency, we hosted the first official wild beaver release in England, some five centuries after they were hunted to extinction.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I commend the hon. Member on securing this debate. On the point about beavers, this week we have had massive flooding in the west country, in Dorset and in Devon. I am hearing from farmers in my patch who agreed to have beavers released into rivers on their farmland that there are complications. Does he agree that cannot be a one-off action, but rather needs sustained engagement from the Government as well as financial support such as the sustainable farming incentive?
Lloyd Hatton
I agree that a co-ordinated approach that works with farmers, landowners and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is required. That extensive work took place in my constituency, and it meant that the release was broadly seen as a success story. We would certainly like to replicate that across the west country and the UK.
To continue the saga of the beaver, their release in Purbeck has been a success story, and I am so pleased that the beavers can call the expansive freshwater and dense woodland at Studland their new home. Of course, that is also a good news story for restoring nature and boosting water quality. Beavers are nature’s engineers. By creating wetland habitats, they can help to retain water during floods and release it during droughts. Finally, they also help to filter polluted water and improve its quality further downstream. They play a crucial role in aiding nature’s recovery. However, the mighty beaver cannot and must not act alone. Like many Members present, I am committed to help restore nature across all our riverways, creating the conditions for wildlife and habitats to flourish in our rivers once again.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for bringing this issue to the House; he is absolutely right to do so. The state of the waterways is a growing concern for us in Northern Ireland. Agricultural run-off, outdated waste water systems and storm overflows are putting rivers such as the Lagan, the Bann and the Foyle under pressure, threatening biodiversity and public health. We must improve water quality, tackle agricultural pollution and invest in sustainable water systems to ensure that our rivers and freshwater species are protected for future generations. That can happen through the Minister and the Government, but it can also happen across the regional Administrations. Does the hon. Member feel it is important to address the issue collectively across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Lloyd Hatton
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; it is almost as if he had an exclusive sneak peek at my remarks.
I will turn to the damaging role of water companies. Sadly, many firms have a sorry track record in protecting rivers and boosting water quality. For far too long, many water companies have profiteered, despite polluting our rivers and streams. Unfortunately, the previous Government did too little, too late to reverse the worrying trend. To name just one shocking example, Wessex Water, my local water company, killed some 2,000 fish in Melksham after a sewage pumping station failure. It was slapped with a fine for the damage on its watch, but by then it was too late, as untreated sewage had leaked into nearby rivers. I am sure we will hear many more horror stories in this debate, with failing water companies found culpable for environmental destruction within our rivers and streams. The days of water companies polluting with impunity and hiding behind weak regulation must end.
That is the mess we are wading through. Looking ahead, I am pleased that the Government are beginning to take all the necessary steps to clean up and better protect our rivers and streams. From the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which finally gave regulators the power to curb water bosses from collecting undeserved bonuses, to the £104 billion secured in investment to start to rebuild water infrastructure across the country, the Government are beginning to get to grips with this scandal.
In Wessex Water’s case, Government action led to a £500,000 fine—the second largest ever issued to a water company—for the Melksham sewage failure. It also led to a ban on Wessex Water bosses receiving their undeserved bonuses. The water White Paper, released just last week, further strengthens the regulation of the big water firms. I welcome the Government’s commitment to create a single, integrated, tough regulator, which will replace the current patchwork of regulatory bodies and hopefully deliver a more proactive, targeted and rigorous way of holding water companies to account.
We must be honest about the challenges still ahead. Despite new legislation, which I was proud to support, water companies continue to hide behind opaque and complex corporate structures, shielding themselves from scrutiny while our rivers and streams pay the price. Earlier this month, it emerged in The Guardian that the chief executive and the chief finance officer of Wessex Water received some £50,000 in previously undisclosed extra pay from a parent company. Just a few weeks before that, we learned that a former chief executive at Wessex Water had been handed a whopping £170,000 payment, again from a parent company. Both those payments happened in exactly the same year that the firm was correctly banned by the Government from paying undeserved bonuses. From the reports on just how Wessex Water is choosing to operate, we can safely say that something extremely fishy is going on.
If bonuses can simply be rebadged as undisclosed payments from another arm of a large web of companies, the bonus ban is at risk of becoming unenforceable. That weakens public trust, undermines the authority of our regulators and allows those responsible for gross environmental damage to be rewarded for failure. I firmly believe that the Government, working closely with a new, single regulator, must tighten the rules to prevent water companies from exploiting corporate structures to disguise what are clearly bonuses in disguise. Without that, I fear the bonus ban will not change the corporate culture and wrongdoing within these big firms, and water companies will continue to pollute our precious rivers and streams.
Alongside strengthening regulation and ensuring that pollution certainly does not pay, further work must be done to restore wildlife and reduce flood risks along our rivers. Again, I should stress that the Government are taking the necessary action. The recently published environmental improvement plan includes an important target to double wildlife-friendly farms by 2030, and I know that that is welcomed by a huge range of farmers in my constituency of South Dorset. The commitment of £500 million for landscape recovery will hopefully play a vital role in revitalising nature while helping communities better withstand floods.
The recent announcement by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the sustainable farming initiative will go some way to ensuring that farmers and landowners can play their part in protecting rivers and wildlife. However, I remain concerned that gaps remain in the role that nature-based solutions can, and must, play in cleaning up our rivers. That is why I support the Making Space for Water campaign run by the Riverscapes partnership, which is a broad coalition of the Rivers Trust, the National Trust, the Woodland Trust and the Beaver Trust—safe to say, there is a lot of trust in the campaign.
Farmers and landowners are currently standing on the front line of our environmental crisis, and the role that they play, and will play in the future, when it comes to protecting our riverways and enabling nature recovery is absolutely critical. They are seeing, at first hand, the pressures facing our rivers and the threat of flooding all year round. As has previously been remarked on, just this week Storm Chandra brought absolute havoc to my home of Dorset. The heavy rainfall has flooded rivers, left fields waterlogged and livestock areas almost completely unusable, and severely restricted access to farmland. Farmers and landowners are not just experiencing these challenges; they are absolutely critical to solving them. The decisions they make about their land shape the quality of our water, the health of our rivers and the survival of our wildlife.
In my constituency, from Purbeck to Wool to Weymouth, many farmers and landowners are already stepping up, carving out space for nature alongside their nearby rivers and restoring the landscapes that we all depend on. But they cannot carry that burden alone, and it is abundantly clear that they still lack some of the financial support that they need to best protect our riverways. To that end, targeted and simplified financial incentives must be considered, and be given to farmers and landowners to restore and enhance our rivers and streams. That is the key and, I believe, most important ask of the Making Space for Water campaign. With the right support in place, that will allow farmers and landowners to create river buffers and wetlands alongside their land. It would allow them to plant riparian trees and floodplain meadows, and to reintroduce beaver populations, just like they have already done in Purbeck.
If successful, that will all help to create a network of connected, nature-rich river corridors. Clean, functioning river corridors are a good news story for everyone: they help nature to recover and water quality to improve, biodiversity is no longer in freefall and our countryside becomes much more resilient. Where already implemented, healthy river corridors slow down the flow of water and reduce the risk of devastating floods and prolonged droughts. They act as natural infrastructure, storing water when we have too much and releasing it when we have too little.
The benefits go beyond flood protection. Restored river corridors trap pollution before it reaches our waterways. They support farmers, strengthening the resilience of their farmland without undermining food production. If we are truly serious about restoring nature, protecting rivers and boosting water quality, making space for water must be at the heart of the Government’s approach.
I know that the Minister is an enthusiastic advocate for our rivers and streams, and has met the team behind the Making Space for Water campaign. Indeed, she spoke proudly at the campaign launch just last year. I hope that today she will take the opportunity to set out what further action her Department can take to protect our riverways. I would welcome any further detail that she can give us on exactly how this Government, alongside a new, tough single regulator, will block failing water company bosses from receiving bonuses through the back door. From conversations, I know that the Minister shares my view that a tough bonus ban is critical to challenging the corporate misbehaviour that is all too present across the water sector. By embracing this important campaign, we can boost water quality, aid nature and biodiversity recovery, and enhance rivers and streams across the country. Indeed, we can make space for water once again.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for securing this debate and all colleagues here today. As the Minister is well aware, protecting and restoring river habitats is a subject very close to my heart and the hearts of my constituents in North Herefordshire; I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak about that further today. I thank the organisations behind the Making Space for Water campaign, too.
Our rivers must not be seen as drains. They are the veins and arteries for what is the lifeblood of our land and everything that lives on it. They are integral to our collective health, our communities, our environment and our economies. They are essential channels for the circulation of that lifeblood of fresh water. We ignore them and pollute them at our peril. If we make space for water, we get multiple benefits. It helps us to be resilient to flooding, protects us from the risk of drought, helps farmers to deliver food security—crucial for us today—and, of course, helps to boost nature and biodiversity resilience.
I will speak first about flooding. That affects my constituency of North Herefordshire horrendously frequently and it is only going to get worse. I have already spoken numerous times in the House about the fact that climate change is increasing the severity and frequency of flooding incidents. If we make space for water, if we give room to our rivers, we will of course enable ourselves as communities to be more resilient. We saw the devastating effects of the floods last November in Monmouth and Skenfrith, just over the border from my constituency. We know that if we invest in Making Space for Water and looking after our rivers, that will have numerous protective benefits for us all as an economy.
I have seen that in practice myself, on an Environmental Audit Committee visit last year to the Netherlands. People there are really innovative on this issue. They have a huge project called Room for the River, through which they have taken it hugely seriously. They have started by identifying the problem and what the solutions could be, and then ensured that there is public support and Government commitment behind that. I have strongly urged the UK Government to take a similarly strategic approach to managing water and flood resilience in our communities, because this problem is only going to become more and more challenging. It has devastating effects on people’s lives.
I turn now to river pollution. One of the first things I did when elected to the House was to set up the all-party parliamentary group on water pollution. That is such a significant issue across the country and especially in my constituency of North Herefordshire. The hon. Member for South Dorset referred to the outrageous pollution caused by sewerage companies and the profiteering that has happened for decades at the expense of the natural environment and, indeed, the pockets of consumers, citizens and bill payers. It is clear to me and to the rest of the Green party that water should be in public hands. This is a natural monopoly. It is a service that should be provided only for the public good.
It is absolutely right that the Government are taking action to tackle the problems caused by the water and sewerage companies. Yet, as I have emphasised previously, if we look only at the water and sewerage companies, we are not looking at half the problem—in fact, more than half the problem, because we know from the Government’s own data that agricultural water pollution is an even bigger contributor to water pollution than is sewage. Yet in last week’s White Paper, it merited only one page of the 48-page document. That is deeply disappointing. It signals that although the Government talk about cleaning up our rivers, lakes and seas, they are not taking a holistic, joined-up approach to this problem. We cannot deal with these issues in isolation.
Agricultural water pollution is even more of a problem in my constituency; more than 70% of the phosphate pollution, which has had a devastating effect locally, comes from agricultural run-off. That has impacts on nature—in the suffocation of important species such as ranunculus, for example. It has impacts on people, who no longer feel able to swim in the rivers that they have swum in for their entire lives. It has huge impacts on the economy. We have had a planning moratorium in North Herefordshire in the Lugg catchment since October 2019, which has cost the economy at least half a billion pounds. Huge amounts of effort have gone into trying to resolve the issue locally, and I pay tribute to the work of the council and the local citizen scientists, who have done everything they can to address it. However, without proper Government support, local actors are stuck.
People care passionately about this. The citizen scientists in the Wye catchment have done about 50,000 water sample tests since 2020—in just the last five years. That is an amazing piece of work. Farmers are stepping up and doing fantastic work themselves, out of their own pockets and motivation, coming together under the auspices of initiatives such as the Wyescapes project. That brings together 49 farmers throughout the Wye and Lugg catchments to work together on a proposal for a landscape recovery scheme. But they need Government support.
At the minute, we have a White Paper with just one page on agriculture. We have a diffuse water pollution plan on the Wye catchment, published at the end of last year, that says that, even with perfect implementation of all available measures, we will get nowhere close to solving the pollution problem that is totally gumming up our environment, communities and economy in North Herefordshire.
I ask the Minister: what more will she do? It is clear that we urgently need more. We need more support for farmers, we need funding for projects like Wyescapes, and we need a commitment on a proportion of the funding that has been committed to landscape recovery under the revised environmental improvement plan. How much of that will go to river corridors? How much of it will go to projects like Wyescapes? We also need more funding and teeth for the Environment Agency, to make sure that there is a level playing field for all people in the area. Fundamentally, we need a water protection zone for the River Wye. We need the Government to ensure that that option is fully and properly assessed.
Our rivers are the veins and arteries of our communities, economies and environment. They are not drains. They are essential to the health of our environment. We need Government support for citizens and farmers, and everybody else working to protect and restore our river habitats.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton)—my Dorset neighbour—for securing this really important debate. This issue matters an awful lot to him, and he represents it perfectly on behalf of his constituents. I note that this is the debut of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, my good friend the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), who is responding to the debate. I am pleased to see her in her place and look forward to hearing what she has to say.
This is a timely debate: in the last day, a severe flood warning has been issued for the lower Stour at Iford Bridge Home Park and across Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, due to Storm Chandra. The levels of the River Stour are rising rapidly. I put on the record my thanks to my constituents, who have put up with Storm Chandra and the disruption involved. Many of them have had to be evacuated, and they have been stoical.
My constituents’ lives have been made harder, though, because the electrical supply was unsafe at Iford Bridge Home Park, which is what forced evacuations. That was avoidable: the power supply was left unprotected by the owner, Hampshire Mobile Park Home Enterprises Ltd. It was fined over £27,000 last summer for failing to carry out 33 required actions that would, among other things, have improved electrical safety, but it has also failed to do that since. I will be seeking a response from the owner and pressing for answers, because my constituents deserve to feel safe in their own homes—always.
Equally, there needs to be greater maintenance of our rivers. We need to dredge up and get rid of everything that raises the river bed so that, when flooding happens, what washes through streets is not detritus and sewage, which make people’s recovery from flooding so much harder. I thank the BCP council’s teams, and the Environment Agency, for responding and standing alongside my constituents in that difficult time.
Water quality is uppermost in the minds of my constituents; it comes up often in my surgery appointments, on the doorsteps weekly and in my community visits. It is also particularly on the minds of my school students. Already, this calendar year, I have been to Avonbourne—a fantastic school doing amazing things—to speak with students on a youth enterprise scheme, and to St Walburga’s, Malmesbury Park, the Epiphany school and St James’ academy. Pretty much every question that I was asked in those classrooms was about the quality of water.
Younger people care passionately about our planet, about its protection and about their right to swim without being washed over by sewage. They want the Government to get this right. At St James’ academy, I went into two different classrooms and spoke with the eco-councillors. They talked at great length, with great eloquence and expertise, about what we should be doing, so I wanted to talk a little bit about that in this debate.
I also want to put on the record my thanks to Christchurch Harbour and Marine Society, which has been working with citizen scientists to make sure that Christchurch harbour’s water quality can be improved. In so doing, it is setting an example to the young people in the schools I mentioned. The society is calling for a dedicated conservation policy for the harbour. I know that is important, and I know, from testing water quality in that harbour, that much could be done to improve the situation.
I know, too, that those school students are concerned about the situation in the River Stour. That is not surprising, really: as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset was saying, our rivers have been heavily modified and are not fit for purpose. An estimated 85% of the UK’s rivers and streams have been altered from their natural state. Landscapes cannot cope with the pace and the extent of climate impacts such as flooding from storms and heavy rainfall. Indeed, 20% of UK homes and 80% of UK farmers have already felt the negative impacts of those changes in our environment.
On the same front, the UK faces a growing water-scarcity crisis. England alone will need an additional 5 billion litres of water a day by 2050 to support our growing population. We already use 14 billion litres a day, so that is equivalent to 35% of our current consumption. As we just heard from my hon. Friend, we have some of the unhealthiest rivers in Europe, thanks to the inheritance left us by the Conservatives. Only a third of the UK’s river stretches are in good ecological health, with many in dire states as a consequence of physical modifications, intermittent agricultural and road run-off, and continuous discharges from sewage treatment.
Lastly, biodiversity across the UK is declining. On average, UK species have fallen by 19% since 1970, and just 3% of England’s land is effectively protected and managed for nature. Pollinators, native mammals and freshwater species such as Atlantic salmon or brown trout, which once thrived in our rivers, are on the brink of collapse. Is it any wonder that the younger generation are outraged and want us to act?
And we are acting: this Government got to work quickly. It was a pleasure to sit on the Water (Special Measures) Bill Committee with my hon. Friend the Minister, where we heard much flim-flam from the Opposition. In spite of that, we managed to crack on with introducing significant measures, be it the banning of executive bonuses if firms fail—[Interruption.] I beg your pardon, Ms Butler; the Minister has made me laugh now.
Sir Ashley Fox
At the risk of delivering more “flim-flam”, I should say that the hon. Member has just told us that it was the Water (Special Measures) Act that announced the ban on company bonuses. Would he concede that that was actually introduced, in regulations, by the last Conservative Government? In fact, his Government have just put a regulation into statute; that did not actually change the law at all.
Tom Hayes
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think that is a perfect example of leading with one’s chin; there is a little bit of brass neck involved in that. When we speak with our constituents and with the water sector, they are abundantly clear about the difference that this Labour Government, and these changes in particular, have made.
We just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset about the poor performance of Wessex Water’s chief executives; earlier this year, its chief executive and chief financial officer took £50,000 in undisclosed extra payments from the parent company and a former Wessex Water chief executive was handed a huge £170,000 payment—again, from the parent company. I struggle to remember any significant fining of water companies under the Conservatives. Indeed, I have spoken to people from the water sector, and they told me that they felt it was like the wild west. They welcome the fact that we finally have a Government who are getting the situation under control.
I welcome the Minister’s work on the Water (Special Measures) Act, which banned executive bonuses at failing firms and introduced “jail if they fail” for executives, automatic penalties for a range of offences, and mandatory real-time monitoring. I also welcome the Government’s work since, with the commitment to seeing sewage pollution and storm overflow spills reduced by 50% by 2030, as well as 10,000 water quality inspections per year, and with the Environment Agency securing a record £22.1 billion in investment over the next five years. I am particularly pleased to see investment of around £230 million by Wessex Water in my constituency and the wider area, and I have been to both sewage treatment plants to see how the work is going.
I am pleased that we are making progress, and that includes the replacement of Ofwat, which has been failing for a long time, with an independent regulator. However, there is more to do. We need to protect communities from the dangers of flooding and drought through the creation of multi-benefit mosaic habitats. In so doing, we can unlock their full potential for nature recovery, carbon storage and flood mitigation. We need to help farmers to continue delivering our food security, by prioritising the deployment of buffers on marginal agricultural land so that farmers benefit financially and can mitigate impacts on food production. We need to boost biodiversity and nature recovery by enhancing river corridors and making space for rivers to return to their natural function. In so doing, we can boost biodiversity and nature recovery through the creation of new and more connected natural habitats.
We also need to clean up our rivers. In the words of Martin Lines, the chief executive officer of the Nature Friendly Farming Network, healthy and functioning river corridors are
“a practical way to improve water quality, reduce flood risk and restore biodiversity.”
He says that farmers
“are part of the solution”—
he is right—and that
“with the right backing, these nature-rich corridors can help futureproof both our land and our livelihoods.”
Richard Benwell, the chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, says:
“Carving out space to re-naturalise rivers would bring ecosystems to life, reduce flood risk and bring joy to millions.”
In closing, I echo my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset in welcoming the first ever licensed beaver wild release in England, in our beautiful county of Dorset. It is good news for Dorset, it is good news for our country and I feel sure there is more good news to come.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
Nothing shapes a landscape more than a river. Nothing brings a landscape to life more than a river. If we ask ChatGPT, “What is a river?”, it will tell us:
“it is a natural stream of flowing water that moves downhill across land”—
and that tells us precisely why Members of Parliament should never use ChatGPT. A river is life—abundant life. Rivers are not just streams of water; they are amazing ecosystems. Globally, rivers are home to over 140,000 specialist freshwater species.
We think of water as being everywhere, but 99% of the water on this blue planet of ours is unusable by humans. Of the remaining 1%, which comprises freshwater, almost seven tenths is locked up in ice caps and glaciers, leaving just three tenths of 1% of the water on our planet in lakes, marshes and rivers. It is strange that something so vital to all life on our planet should be so scarce and so vulnerable.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this debate to focus the House’s attention on how we can better protect and restore our precious riverine habitats. Others have set out the dire statistics. Sadly, it is true that 87% of rivers outside our national parks do not meet the minimum ecological standards set out in law. Even inside the supposed protection of our national parks, only four out of every 10 riverine systems meet those legal minimum standards.
With a new water Bill, the release of the land use framework and updates to the environmental land management schemes, 2026 is a particularly significant year for the health of our rivers. I welcome the publication of the water White Paper last week and the fact that it commits to implementing many of the recommendations of the Cunliffe review. Chief among those is a commitment to shift the focus of water companies towards pre-pipe solutions for water pollution. The Government say that they
“will ensure legislation, funding streams, and regulatory mechanisms”
to tackle the root causes of pollution, but those must be properly funded and backed up by a regime of thorough monitoring and swift penalty enforcement for infringements.
We politicians have made much of the failures of the water companies over the past few years and the totally disgraceful exploitation of bill payers to line shareholders’ pockets while companies fail to address pipe leakage, combined sewers and sewage outflows. Equally, I entirely support the outrage expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset and for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) about Wessex Water and its motley leadership crew. However, they are not solely responsible; there is also the agriculture sector, whether that is chicken farms on the River Wye or eutrophication from nitrogen fertiliser run-off. The Government must drive the solutions to river habitat restoration.
ELMS is the key part of that. When it was first launched by the previous Government to replace the EU’s agricultural subsidies, the £2.4 billion was to be split into three equal funding pots of £800 million a year. Landscape recovery was one of those pots, but last month’s environmental improvement plan set out the new headline commitment of just £500 million for landscape recovery projects. Now, £500 million is a lot less than the £800 million initially promised, but wait: that £500 million is not a year, like the £800 million; it is £500 million over 20 years. That is a paltry £25 million a year, making a total mockery of the idea that the Government are taking landscape recovery seriously.
Will the Minister therefore publish the evidence and modelling showing how the combined ELMS offer will add up to deliver the Government’s environmental objectives and legal commitments on water? Can she direct me towards evidence that demonstrates that £500 million for landscape recovery is sufficient to deliver the Government’s environmental objectives and legal commitments, in terms of both our 30 by 30 commitments and our longer-term EIP and Environment Act 2021 targets?
Will the forthcoming water reform Bill go further than the water White Paper and put nature-based solutions at the core of tackling water pollution, including actions to prioritise and fund catchment-based measures at scale? Will the Government consider embedding an overarching commitment, within the Environment Act delivery plans, to create a national river corridor network that prioritises the restoration of river habitats, along the lines proposed by the Making Space for Water campaign? Finally, when will the Government deliver on their commitment to update the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 so that protected landscapes are given stronger powers and clear duties to drive nature recovery, including river habitat restoration?
The water Bill must embed the use of nature-based solutions in a way that has not happened so far. The water White Paper’s comments on exploring the use of green bonds to help investment in nature-based solutions is therefore welcome, but we cannot simply leave it to private investment to get us to where we need to be. The Government should empower the new super-regulator’s chief engineer to direct companies to prioritise and scale up nature-based solutions, mandating, wherever possible, a change from grey infrastructure to green. The ministerial directions to Ofwat and Natural England during the transition phase should pave the way for that—[Interruption.] Excuse me.
Barry Gardiner
I would be very grateful to my hon. Friend if he intervened.
Lloyd Hatton
My hon. Friend is making an eloquent speech about the importance of cross-society working between Government, regulatory bodies and the stewards of our riverways and countryside. Does he agree that, unless we have that collaborative approach, we are unlikely to see the change we both so desperately want in order to restore the health of our riverways and allow nature recovery to take root in environments across the country?
Barry Gardiner
I am grateful to my hon. Friend— I did not know his constituency was the manufacturer of Benylin. It has certainly worked on my cough on this occasion, so I thank him very much.
Nature-based solutions are the cost-efficient, multi-benefit, long-term solution. They recognise that enabling nature to thrive is the best way to restore our rivers, our wetlands and our riparian habitats. I particularly want to single out the work of the West Cumbria Rivers Trust and the West Lakeland farmers group. With their work on the Rivers Irt and Bleng, they have shown that the shade offered by restored riparian woodland brings river temperatures down to safe levels for threatened native species such as Atlantic salmon and brown trout. That shows how the health of a river is about not simply what toxins are put into it, but the whole natural ecosystem and how it is managed. Riparian woodlands also stabilise riverbanks, reduce erosion, and control sediment and nutrient input from adjacent land. Looking at the whole ecosystem, not just the river itself, is so important.
I commend the Making Space for Water campaign, which provides an evidence-driven framework for river restoration, and I urge the Government to support it fully—indeed, I know they do. The Rivers Trust, National Trust, Woodland Trust and Beaver Trust are all calling for support to create a network of connected nature-rich river corridors that include river buffers, river wiggling, beaver reintroduction, which has been mentioned, and wetland restoration.
It has been my privilege to canoe down some of the most wonderful rivers in the world. My great desire, before I shuffle off this mortal coil, is to canoe down all the great rivers of the world. I have done the Amazon, the Mississippi and the Congo, but there are so many more to do. Rivers are an incredible joy in life; we really must understand them, promote them and restore them, and we must ensure that we give them health—because they give us life.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on his well-made speech opening the debate.
The state of our rivers is a near-perfect metaphor for how badly we have got our priorities wrong as a society. Through a combination of carelessness, greed and wilful neglect, we have managed to poison and exhaust one of the essential elements of life. Not a single one of England’s rivers, which quite literally shape our country, is in good overall health. All of them are polluted with toxic chemicals.
Clean waterways teeming with life—places that can refresh body, mind and soul—should be the absolute right of every English citizen. As it stands, we have squandered the vast natural wealth of our rivers and streams. In doing so, we have robbed the future generations of our nation of the best part of their inheritance. Restoring our rivers and streams is, above all, a question of changing what we mean by growth.
Experiencing the glories of nature is one of the joys that make life worth living. That is what we should be focusing our efforts on—not on abstract GDP figures that mean next to nothing to anyone outside the imagination of the Office for Budget Responsibility. Instead of more chemicals, more concrete, more consumption, we will do far more to improve the wellbeing of all of our citizens from every background by returning to them the burst of mayflies at the start of summer, the chance
“To turn, as swimmers into cleanness leaping”,
as Rupert Brooke once did, without worrying what filth we might be swallowing; or even just the chance to mess about in boats in the streams that once flowed fully, but now have been choked to a pitiful dribble. A more potent symbol of national decline would be hard to invent.
All the polling shows that the public are overwhelmingly in favour of decisive action to restore nature in this country. The inspirational efforts of groups across North East Hertfordshire such as RevIvel, the Friends of the Rib and Quin, and the River Beane Restoration Association prove the grassroots passion for seeing our rivers and especially our chalk streams restored.
My party, the Labour party, should know this deep in its heart. Since the first inception of our movement, the demand of politics by the people for the people has always been to protect the natural world and to open it up to all so that ordinary working-class citizens can enjoy it, too. When politicians constantly attack the very nature that our voters love and the Office for Environmental Protection has to investigate the Government for their utter failure to deliver the statutory targets for rivers to be in good condition by next year—set out in laws that we politicians passed—it is little surprise that faith in politics is so miserably low.
When we make promises to restore nature, we must never again fail to honour our words with action. If that means the Treasury has to adapt its plans, so be it. I will be explicit on this point. I know some people believe that putting more and more power in the hands of profiteering developers will somehow magically resolve stagnant productivity, but our model of speculative house building, combined with the legal obligation for water companies to supply water to new developments, is increasingly incompatible with healthy rivers in many parts of the country. There are environmental limits on the amount of water we can use without wrecking our freshwater systems, but currently we are just pretending that they do not exist. The over-abstraction from the aquifers that feed our precious chalk streams is a clear case in point.
In a country as wet as ours, it should take a true organising genius to produce water shortages, yet a combination of planning, deregulation and a profit-motivated private market has contrived to do just that. It is time for a “chalk streams first” approach that protects them from over-abstraction and for long overdue recognition that genuine, sustainable development means accepting that environmental boundaries cannot be compromised. The truth is, if we measure economic success by the genuine improvement of our constituents’ lives and by the provision of good, meaningful work for all, the restoration of our rivers is in fact a huge opportunity.
My plea to the Minister today is simple: go back to colleagues in the Treasury and tell them about the missing half of the clean jobs revolution. Tell them about the huge expansion in the number of ecologists and conservation experts we need to monitor the health of our rivers and advise our local authorities and hard-working farmers. Tell them about the thousands of skilled jobs needed to re-wiggle our rivers, and tell them to create and maintain riparian buffers such as carr woodland and floodplain meadows around all our waterways. Tell them about the jobs and vast increases in natural capital that could be created across every part of the country by restoring the small waters like ponds and headwater streams, and integrating those crucial areas at the top of river systems into the water framework directive. And tell them about the national mobilisation needed to prevent the next river pollution scandal from the highway run-off filling our rivers with a nightmarish cocktail of microplastics, heavy metals and herbicides.
There are thousands of unpermitted and in many cases barely monitored highway outfalls across the country that must be urgently investigated, maintained and upgraded if we are genuinely to improve the health of our rivers. Collectively, those are tasks that would not just upskill and employ thousands of people, but would immeasurably enrich our nation by restoring our streams and rivers as the crown jewels of England’s countryside that they always ought to have been.
Dawn Butler (in the Chair)
I hear congratulations are in order for the debut of the Lib Dem spokesperson, Rachel Gilmour.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
Thank you, Ms Butler. It is a pleasure to serve under you. I thank the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) for his kind words. I should start by declaring a couple of interests: before I came to Parliament I was head of strategy for the Environment Agency, specialising in water flooding and the water framework directive. Before that, I was the director of communications for the National Farmers’ Union—the first woman to sit on their board in 100 years. Despite my nerves about my first outing, I feel calmly confident that I have got a grip on things.
I congratulate my colleague from the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton), on securing the debate. I was particularly interested in his comments about the beavers on the Isle of Purbeck, because we have had similar issues in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Ian Roome). I was touched to hear the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) talk about the rivers of this country being like veins in a body, echoed by the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner). The edifying and incisive observations in the debate show that this is clearly a matter close to all our hearts, whatever political party we come from—although it matters to a couple of us more than others.
Across the country, we are witnessing storms of increasing frequency and ferocity, and it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the devastating flooding that has swept across my part of the world in the south- west in recent days. Events that were once expected every 300 years and then once every 100 years now seem to strike with alarming regularity. Our rivers, which are among Britain’s most precious wildlife habitats, are bearing the brunt of environmental decline. According to the Rivers Trust, and it is not the first time this has been mentioned, not a single English river is in “good chemical health” and only 15% are considered to be in good ecological condition. That is a sobering reality. Freshwater ecosystems are collapsing and this country now has some of the unhealthiest rivers in Europe. The species that depend on the waterways, from fish to invertebrates to birds, are struggling to survive. Our rivers desperately need a reprieve.
England is home to 85% of the world’s chalk streams: rare, crystal-clear, ecologically distinctive waterways found almost nowhere else on earth. Part of the challenge lies in the withdrawal of the Environment Agency from stewardship of many of our rivers. For years, maintenance of watercourses has been inadequate; now, with the EA stepping back for whatever reason in further parts of the country, including my own, the burden of looking after the waterways has become heavier still.
We must recognise that farmers are on the frontline of environmental challenges and that the relationship between land and water has changed significantly and dramatically over the past century, encapsulated in the European water framework directive, which is not a complicated piece of legislation. That is why my party consistently emphasises the vital role of farmers as custodians of the natural world. They work tirelessly to reduce run-off and protect habitats, but they need support. Agricultural run-off, slurry, fertilisers and other such chemical cocktails continue to enter our waterways. That has patently been exacerbated, given the recent devastation caused by Storm Chandra in which huge swathes of the west country were submerged, washing pollutants into rivers and compounding the ecological damage.
It will come as a surprise to no one that blame must be laid at the feet of water and sewage companies and their conduct. I had a meeting with South West Water on Monday, and it was obvious that their obscene greed and incompetence had inflicted immense harm on river habitats across the country and, indeed on my constituents in Bampton. Grotesque quantities of sewage have been allowed to spew into British waterways and there have been discharges on an industrial scale, with catastrophic consequences for aquatic life. It is an absolute insult; heads, I fear, must roll. The Liberal Democrats are sadly disappointed by the Government’s water White Paper, as it falls short of the promise to bring about fundamental regulatory reform. We believe that the current model of private ownership has utterly failed. Frankly, only a complete overhaul will do.
The Liberal Democrats would introduce a system in which water companies are mutually owned by customers and run professionally in the public interest. We also call on the Government to finally end the scandalous sewage cover-up by forcing those crooked water companies to publish the volume of dumped sewage and not just the duration of spills. After all, sunlight is the best disinfectant. The Government’s plans—I am really sad about this because I am usually on side—do not cut the mustard. The decision to abolish Ofwat is welcome, but it is only the first step. We will continue to press the Government to establish a new, robust regulator, with real teeth and real accountability, as a matter of urgency.
Turning to other causes of harm, water abstraction has risen sharply, reducing river flows and placing ecosystems under severe stress. Many rivers now run perilously low, especially during dry periods. Moreover, centuries of physical modification—straightening, damming, embanking, diverting and disconnecting—has fundamentally altered the natural character of our rivers. Those changes have inevitably disrupted fish migratory patterns, fragmented habitat connectivity and in turn diminished resilience to climate change. A river that cannot move, meander or naturally flood is a river that simply cannot thrive. Restoration efforts should focus on allowing our rivers to re-wiggle—I love that word, which means to return to their natural meanders—reconnecting them with flood plains, and rebuilding the diverse physical habitats that sustain life. In many cases, the best thing that we can do is to step back and let mother nature take her course—in essence, to rewild herself. That would include removing barriers such as weirs and small dams to aid fish passages, creating riffles, pools, wetlands and woody debris to enhance biodiversity, establishing nature-rich corridors along river banks and expanding natural flood management systems.
Interventions such as these are not just environmentally beneficial; there is a major economic element to this. Healthy waterways provide essential services to all our systems. They are our lifeblood.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on securing this debate; it is a welcome opportunity to talk about the importance of our rivers and the vital need to protect and restore them. He is right to say that we need to improve the health of our rivers.
This has been a good debate. I enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns). She is correct to describe our rivers and streams as the “veins and arteries” of our environment. I noted she said that she wants water companies to be taken into public ownership, but she did not say how she would pay for it. I am left wondering if it is Green policy to confiscate those assets from the shareholders, or to pay compensation. If it is to pay compensation, how much and who pays for it? Dare I say, that is an error that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), also fell into. She said that she was in favour of a radical policy, but did not explain how she intended to pay for it.
I enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes). I agree with him on the need for more dredging of our rivers. It is unacceptable that the Environment Agency has withdrawn from main river maintenance. The hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) described rivers as amazing ecosystems, and I agree with him. I also agree that when water companies break the law, they should be punished swiftly and severely. The hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) described the beauty of the countryside as one of the joys of life. I am with him on that, even though he and I may not agree on many other things.
I congratulate my Somerset constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead, on leading for her party in this debate. She said that farmers are “custodians of the natural world”, and I agree. Next time she speaks on water, I hope that she will give us the price tag for her party’s policy of renationalising the water industry.
The River Parrett flows through my constituency. It is rather too high for comfort at the moment. Some of my constituents are watching the water level with concern. I sincerely hope that their homes are not flooded over the next few days. The Parrett hosts an abundance of species, from heron to eels—anyone who is lucky may even see an otter. It is also important for the wider ecosystem, including roe deer, which we are fortunate enough to enjoy having in Somerset.
I was fortunate to have the opportunity to support a local campaign in my constituency to save the Pawlett Hams in the first weeks after I was elected to Parliament. Pawlett Hams is a beautiful natural habitat, bounded on three sides by the Parrett, which impacts that environment. I was pleased that that campaign was successful in defeating EDF Energy’s proposal to create an unwanted saltmarsh there. I raise this because I understand the importance and beauty of our rivers, and I know how passionate many of our constituents are about preserving and protecting them.
The previous Government started the process of improving the health of our rivers, but there is much more to be done. Their plan for water introduced the water restoration fund, which channelled environmental fines and penalties into projects that improve the water environment. The Environment Act 2021 introduced legally binding targets to reduce the length of rivers polluted by harmful metals from abandoned mines, to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollution from agriculture in the water environment by at least 40%, and to reduce phosphorus loadings from treated waste water by 80%. We also substantially increased the monitoring of water quality. When Labour left power in 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were being monitored; today, that figure stands at 100%. It is thanks to that progress that we now understand the scale of the problem.
In terms of their ecological health, only 15% of our rivers enjoy “good” status. That is not good enough. There are various reasons for pollution, including sewage treatment works, waste water, storm overflows, agricultural pollution, and urban and transport run-off. Invasive species are also threatening native animals. Between 1960 and 2019, the number of non-native freshwater species more than doubled, from 21 to 46. I invite the Minister to comment in her response on what work the Government are doing to support the restoration of wetland or freshwater species, which have experienced a decline. Despite their promises to fix the water system, the Government’s recent water White Paper was surprisingly slim. That is disappointing, given the detailed and thorough examination of the sector by Sir Jon Cunliffe’s independent review.
The Government have said that their transition plan will be published this year. When she responds, can the Minister guarantee that it will actually be published this year, and that it will be published when Parliament is sitting, not on the last day before a substantial recess—or, in fact, during a recess? Will she also acknowledge that, for all her Government’s talk about improving water quality, the Water (Special Measures) Act, which they passed last year, consisted of regulations already announced by the previous Conservative Government that they repackaged as a statute.
Tom Hayes
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Based on the start of his speech, he is clearly a dedicated environmentalist and conservationist. He represents Bridgwater, which is covered by Wessex Water, whose former CEO, Colin Skellett, got £12.6 million in pay and bonuses across a decade, with those bonuses totalling £3.4 million. Over a decade of Conservative rule, executives of the nine largest English and Welsh water and sewage companies got £112 million in pay and bonuses. If the Conservatives provided regulations, why did they let water bosses line their own pockets and allow them to pump out filth?
Sir Ashley Fox
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I do not think it is for the Government to regulate the salaries of the private sector. It was the Conservative Government that introduced the necessary regulations that enabled those water companies that were failing to be prevented from paying dividends and bonuses. He might argue that we came to that a bit late, and I might agree with him. However, he should acknowledge that we were the ones who took that action, and it is those regulations that form the basis of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025.
I want to take this opportunity to ask the Minister about our canals. Members may have seen the recent incident involving the collapse of a canal embankment in Shropshire. Two narrowboats were left at the bottom of a trench in the canal bed, with a third left hanging over the edge. Many other boats were left grounded. I understand that the cause of the breach is still being investigated, but what assessment has the Minister made of the age and structure of the UK’s canal network, and the impact that have on the natural environment? Is she satisfied that the current funding is adequate?
To conclude, Britain’s rivers and waterways are an integral part of our environment. It is important that we improve their quality, and we will scrutinise the Government to ensure that they keep the promises they made at the election.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
It is a pleasure, Ms Butler, to serve under your chairwomanship in Westminster Hall for the first time.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for securing this debate and for all the passion, care and interest that he has consistently shown in this issue. I share his excitement about the wild beaver release. I was quite jealous that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), the Minister for nature, got to be there at the beaver release and I could not—I could not wangle an invite—but it was an incredible moment to see and truly exciting.
I agree with so much of what my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset said about how protecting and restoring our river habitats is one of the most urgent environmental challenges we face. I loved the imagery given by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) about seeing rivers as the lifeblood and living veins of our country. That is a wonderful, poetic way of explaining why they matter so much. I completely agree that they are not drains; they are places that are full of nature and full of life—but I would say that, of course, living near the River Humber. I know how important rivers are.
However, communities see the problems that rivers face every day, through reduced water quality, declining biodiversity and rivers that are no longer the thriving ecosystems that they should be. Rivers are under pressure from multiple sources, as has been mentioned, including business activity, agriculture, waste water treatment, urban development, recreation, transport and, of course, the growing impacts of climate change, which have quite rightly been mentioned. These combined pressures have directly contributed to declining water quality and the loss of freshwater biodiversity across many catchments.
That is why we are committed to delivering the most ambitious programme of water reform in decades, including by strengthening regulation, which will definitely be done. Indeed, I can assure the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), the Opposition spokesman, that he will definitely see the transition plan, not just this year but, I can even say, early this year.
In addition to strengthening regulation, we will improve oversight of the water system and ensure action across every source of pollution. That is all set out in the White Paper, which was published earlier this month. As has been mentioned, among key measures, we are establishing a single empowered regulator for the entire water industry, backed by a chief engineer—it is astounding that the water industry did not have a chief engineer before, but it has one now—to drive long-term planning, improve performance and, importantly, prevent problems before they occur.
We have also committed to delivering an enhanced, better, joined-up regional water planning function, to help to identify lower-cost and high-impact solutions to improve water quality and supply, considering opportunities across the sectors. It was really interesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West talked about catchment measures, looking at the entire river basin, and looking at how it is all interconnected. That is exactly my vision for the regional water planning function: to look at all the different impacts on that water body.
I could not agree more about how important nature-based solutions are and what they can deliver. We have already had a change-around in how we address flooding, through the change in the flood funding formula— I would really like us to embrace that—but we have to be honest: if we are embracing nature-based solutions, we are also embracing an element of risk. They do not carry the same certainty as adding chemicals to something, which makes it possible to predict a certain outcome. Nature is not like that, but nature is powerful, and I want to see it used more.
It was really interesting to listen to so many Members talk about the way that rivers have been engineered. I visited a beautiful chalk stream not too far from where I live, to see how it was done. These rivers were straightened, as has been said, and this is our industrial heritage. Many were straightened to power the mills that ground corn, or for navigation, and that is why they wanted to create straight channels. Let me say to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) that I love the word “rewiggling”—it is a great word. When we look at where we can rewiggle them, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) was right that they can hold more water when they are rewiggled. They can literally create more space and protect more communities.
On that point, I thank all the emergency services and everybody who has been involved in the response to Storm Chandra. My sympathy and support goes out to everyone who has been impacted. The latest update that I have had from the team is that the overall flood risk remains at “medium”. That means that rivers impact is probable in parts of south-west England today. I really hope that does not result in properties being flooded, although I accept that the impact on the farming community has already been huge.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) always makes me smile. I love the fact that he is constantly championing his constituency and wants to protect and look after the people there who have faced such awful flooding, and he is quite right to call out poor behaviour wherever he sees it. I liked hearing about all the different schools. I love an eco-council group—they are just fantastic. Any Member who ever feels slightly jaded by politics—which, of course, would never, ever happen—should go and spend time with primary children. They will come away feeling so uplifted, because primary children are so passionate and they care so greatly, so good on all of them. I ask my hon. Friend to pass on my congratulations; I hope that they continue to challenge us, as we take all our work forward.
As we have mentioned, we are also accelerating nature-based solutions, looking at where we can restore wetlands, reconnect floodplains and improve river corridors—that came up a lot, and quite rightly so: how do we make river corridors to create healthier, more resilient catchments? That work is happening alongside the reform of regulatory powers, cracking down on poor performance, improving transparency and ensuring that the polluter pays.
For the first time, our river systems will be managed in a fully integrated way, ensuring that every sector, including agriculture, plays its part in restoring the health of our waterways—I also welcome the hon. Member for Bridgwater to his place. That work builds on some of the work we have done through the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. Our revised environmental improvement plan has been mentioned, and that has ambitious Environment Act biodiversity targets, including to
“restore or create more than 500,000 hectares…of wildlife-rich habitat outside protected sites by 2042”.
Creating and restoring river habitats and wetlands will be vital to achieving that.
I really enjoyed the launch of Making Space for Water, which I thought was a fantastic event. There was so much passion and willingness to collaborate in that room. Making Space for Water calls for incentives for land managers to help to create nature-friendly river corridors through the ELM scheme, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West mentioned—I will get him a response from the Minister for farming on some of the more specific details.
Through those schemes, we include specific actions in the sustainable farming initiative, which pays farmers for establishing and managing buffer strips beside watercourses. We also agree with Making Space for Water that it is important to reconnect rivers to floodplains, restoring natural processes and enhancing biodiversity. There are two pilot rounds in the landscape recovery scheme that we are looking at, and we have provided 56 projects with development grants to support farmers, landowners and environmental organisations in developing strategies for long-term nature recovery. Collectively, these projects aim to restore 600 km of rivers, helping to reconnect rivers to their floodplains.
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire speaks with passion and knowledge about agriculture pollution. She is quite right that it is one of the most significant contributors to pollution in our rivers, affecting over 40% of our water bodies. Agriculture pollution, including nitrogen, nutrients and soil or sediment run-off, has a profound impact on the health of freshwater environments and the biodiversity that depends on them. Under the Environment Act, we have set a clear long-term target to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment from agriculture entering the water environment by 40% by 2038.
There are various means by which we want to achieve that. We committed in the White Paper to simplifying and improving the regulatory framework for agriculture, developing a single robust, England-wide regulation and, where necessary, strengthening standards. We are doubling funding for the Environment Agency’s farm inspection and enforcement team, enabling at least 6,000 inspections a year by 2029, and we are strengthening local advice through our catchment-sensitive farming, as well as through the new £30 million farmer collaboration fund, which we announced earlier this month at the Oxford farming conference.
Just this week—in fact, just yesterday; I am losing track of which day is which—I held a roundtable with farming representatives, not just the NFU but people from different farming sectors, alongside environmental organisations and water company representatives, to talk about the problem of agricultural pollution. The reason I wanted everyone in the same room is not just that I wanted everyone to hear the message I was giving, but that I wanted everybody to hear from everybody else: the water companies could hear from the environmentalists and the farmers; the farmers could hear from the environmentalists; and the environmentalists could hear from the farmers. Everyone could gain an understanding of one another’s points of view and how we are going to work on this together.
During that meeting, I announced that we had launched the consultation on reform of how sewage sludge is regulated in agriculture. The consultation document, which went live this week, looks at the option of an environmental permitting regime, as recommended by the Independent Water Commission. That group of people has been working together on the issue of agriculture pollution. We brought together different stakeholders, and there was much consensus and much willingness to tackle the issue. It is far better that we try to do something collectively; farmers, environmentalists and water companies working together is the best way to tackle this. That work continues.
Dr Chowns
I thank the Minister very much for the update, and I agree that working together is important. I have written to the Minister to request a meeting between her, me and other MPs across the parties—Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem—in the Wye catchment. In that spirit of working together, will she commit to having that meeting soon?
Emma Hardy
I have seen the hon. Lady’s letter. I will get told off by officials for saying this, but I am basically looking at whether I can come back to the Wye and do something there with everybody. If not, we can do something in Parliament. I went to the Wye last year, and we announced our £1 million research fund to look at what is happening in the Wye. It would be quite nice to go back and see what has been happening. It is on my radar, and I will get her a proper answer in writing.
As Making Space for Water highlights, it is crucial to connect river habitats at the catchment scale. I emphasise the importance of catchment partnerships to improving water quality and restoring natural processes. The partnerships are well established and effective in co-ordinating local collaboration and delivering projects with multiple benefits. They include the Dorset Catchment Partnerships, which is leading work on the River Wey and other Dorset rivers to improve water quality, reduce run-off and restore natural flows.
This is why, earlier this month, we announced that we are investing £29 million from water company fines into local projects that clean up our environment, including doubling our funding for catchment partnerships, providing them with an extra £1.7 million per year over the next two years. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) said, it is essential that we support and pay tribute to the growing number of grassroots organisations and the work they do to protect our natural environment. Doubling funding for catchment partnerships should help them to continue to do that work.
That is part of the Government’s commitment to giving communities greater influence over water environment planning and decision making. Fundamentally, communities know their water areas the best. Through our increased funding, we expect to support more than 100 projects that will improve 450 km of rivers, restore 650 acres of natural habitats and plant 100,000 new trees. The additional funding is expected to attract at least a further £11 million from private sector investment, resulting in even greater benefit for local communities in all hon. Members’ constituencies.
Restoring chalk streams—another of my favourites—is a core ambition of our water reforms. We are home to 85% of the world’s chalk streams. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead, said, we are one of the only places that has so many of them. They are home to some of our rarest, and keystone, species, such as the Atlantic salmon. As the Making Space for Water campaign rightly highlights, protecting keystone species is key to healthy rivers and streams. I could say so much more, but I am conscious that I have been talking for 14 minutes, so I will move on.
Chris Hinchliff
I am afraid the Minister has slightly walked into this. Previously in this Chamber, I extended an invitation to her to come and visit RevIvel in my constituency. That is a campaign to restore the Ivel chalk stream. It has a pilot project looking at taking the Chalk Streams First approach, which would potentially restore that aquifer, and not just help the Ivel but see the return of chalk streams that have completely ceased to flow. It would be really exciting to talk to my hon. Friend about that and some of the challenges that people are experiencing with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs water restoration fund. I just put that back on her agenda.
Emma Hardy
I did walk into that, didn’t I? I thank my hon. Friend. If he wants to send that through to me, I will of course take a serious look at it. I am very keen to be getting out and about when it is a bit less wet—but rain should be what I am used to.
Restoring the health of our rivers is fundamental to safeguarding nature, supporting resilient communities and securing our water environment for generations to come. The Labour Government are committed to delivering the most comprehensive programme of reform ever undertaken. It involves strengthening regulation, boosting enforcement, investing in innovation, supporting local partnerships and empowering farmers, land managers and water companies to play their part. From national action on agricultural pollution and chalk stream protections, to ambitious local projects in South Dorset, we are driving real, long-term improvements. Together, those measures demonstrate our unwavering commitment to cleaner water, thriving habitats and a healthier natural environment across England.
Lloyd Hatton
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their thoughtful and constructive contributions in today’s debate, and particularly the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) for outlining eloquently the really quite damaging and concerning impact of agricultural run-off. That issue does not get the spotlight that it needs. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), who sadly cannot be with us at the moment, for highlighting the urgent need to pass on to the next generation healthier rivers and cleaner water than that which we have inherited, and for calling time on some of the severe shortcomings of Wessex Water. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for emphasising the need to protect our riverways with essential collaboration between Government, regulatory bodies, farmers, landowners and environmentalists. I really welcome the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), who made a doughty and strong argument in defence of our unique chalk streams. That is our unique environmental inheritance in this country. We must ensure that we protect it.
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), for vividly illustrating the sorry track record of so many of the big water companies, including South West Water. Perhaps rather interestingly, I enjoyed some of the political gymnastics on display today from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox). It was some light relief on a Thursday afternoon. In all seriousness, I think it is really important that we work on a cross-party basis in realising that the culture around bonuses—not pay, bonuses—for water bosses got totally out of control over a number of years. This Government have taken some important steps to tackle that, but there is definitely work to do to be more effective and I hope there is cross-party support for that.
Finally, I thank the Minister responsible for water for her comments. There was plenty there to welcome, including a reaffirmation of the Government’s commitment to engaging with the Making Space for Water campaign, and a pledge to continue the work with farmers and landowners to have a truly joined-up approach to tackling agricultural run-off. I welcome the commitment to ensuring that polluters always pay for the projects that go so far in cleaning up our rivers and streams. I was equally happy to hear a defence of our chalk streams and their revival. Success here is surely critical to restoring nature and boosting biodiversity in our chalk streams across the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of protecting and restoring river habitats.
Science, Innovation and Technology
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is right to mention the impact on supply chains. In the west midlands, we recently had the cyber-attack on Jaguar Land Rover. That had a significant impact not just on that company, but on the supply chain, which has its roots right through the west midlands. That essential part of our economy was brought to a grinding halt by a cyber-attack. Will he confirm that this Bill will help prevent such instances from happening in the future?
Ian Murray
… I should say to my hon. Friend, and I will come to it later, that Jaguar Land Rover and other private organisations are not in the scope of this Bill.
[Official Report, 6 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 174.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Digital Government and Data, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray):
Ian Murray
… I should say to my hon. Friend, and I will come to it later, that Jaguar Land Rover and certain other private organisations are not in the scope of this Bill.
The following extract is from the Second Reading debate on the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill on 6 January 2026.
Kanishka Narayan
With the exception of data centres, reportable incidents that affect operators of essential services would need to have affected the operation of significant network and information systems right across the entity, and to have a significant national security impact.
[Official Report, 6 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 227.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan):
Kanishka Narayan
With the exception of data centres, reportable incidents that affect operators of essential services would need to have affected the operation of network and information systems, and to have a significant impact.
Other Correction
George Freeman
Flooding
The following extract is from the debate on flooding on 28 January 2026.
George Freeman
I welcome the comprehensive spending review funding announcement of £2.6 billion for flood and coastal erosion management to protect 65,000 homes. The insurance sector tells us that 18 million homes will be at risk—one in four—over the next 10 to 15 years, and flooding is costing £66 billion a year to the economy.
[Official Report, 28 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 905.]
Written correction submitted by the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman):
George Freeman
… The insurance sector tells us that 1.8 million homes will be at risk over the next 10 to 15 years, and flooding is costing £6 billion a year to the economy.
Capacity Market Units: Consultation on Location Changes
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
I am tabling this statement to inform members of the publication of a consultation response relating to the capacity market titled “Government response to consultation on proposal regarding locational changes of capacity market units”. It sets out the Government’s intention to amend the rules that allows for notification of a change of address in the CM to prevent new build capacity market units and DSR CMUs from changing address between prequalification and delivery. This change will apply to all future CM agreements starting from prequalification 2026.
The Government recognise that the ability to change components is necessary for DSR CMUs. It is worth noting that only five change of address requests have been made by DSR units under the rule being changed through this consultation, and the rules will still have options for DSR CMUs to change component addresses after these changes have been made. Unproven DSR can notify component addresses ahead of the delivery year through rule 8.3.3a and proven DSR can reallocate components within the delivery year under rule 8.3.4.
Since its introduction in 2014, the CM has secured reliable capacity for when there is greater demand for electricity in Great Britain. This capacity is acquired through competitive annual auctions held four years and one year ahead of their respective delivery years. The Government regularly amend the framework underpinning the capacity market before auction cycles to ensure it is fit for purpose, cost-effective and meets broader strategic objectives such as clean power by 2030.
The Government intend to introduce these changes for the 2027 auctions coming into force for prequalification in summer of 2026. This will give participants clarity and certainty ahead of their entrance into prequalification and allow them to adapt to the changes the Government have made.
[HCWS1288]
Prison Capacity: Annual Statement
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
Today, I am publishing the second annual statement on prison capacity. This marks the second annual statement delivering the Government commitment to transparency and accountability in the criminal justice system.
This annual statement sets out updated prison population projections and supply forecasts. It shows that, when the impact of sentencing reforms is factored in, supply is expected to keep pace with demand in the central scenario. This is a significant step forward, but there is no single quick fix. The prison estate remains under pressure, and we will continue to take bold action to protect the public and restore confidence in the criminal justice system.
This Government inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. At one point in 2024, fewer than 100 places remained in the adult male estate. Had prisons overflowed, courts would have been forced to suspend trials, the police to halt arrests and public safety put at risk. That was the legacy of years of neglect, during which only 500 net places were added to the estate in over 14 years.
That is why we acted decisively. In December 2024, we published the 10-year prison capacity strategy, setting out plans for the largest expansion of the prison estate since the Victorian era. We committed up to £7 billion between 2024 to 2025 and 2029 to 2030 to deliver 14,000 new prison places by 2031. This year’s statement shows the significant progress we have made. We have already delivered over 2,900 places and around 5,000 more are under construction, meaning we are on track to meet our target.
However, prison building alone is not enough. Without further action, the prison population is projected to rise by an average of 3,000 annually, outpacing supply even with our build programme.
That is why we launched the independent sentencing review and will deliver reforms through the Sentencing Act 2026. These reforms—including a presumption to suspend short custodial sentences, the extension of suspended sentence orders, an earned progression model, tougher community-based sentences, changes to recall and remand, and earlier removal of foreign national offenders—are expected to reduce the prison population by around 7,500 places by 2028, while keeping the public safe and improving outcomes for victims.
The Probation Service is central to the safe and effective operation of the criminal justice system, to the delivery of the Sentencing Act 2026 and managing demand on the prison estate. The statement therefore outlines key information of probation capacity, including caseloads and workforce. It also sets out progress to date and the steps being taken to strengthen probation capacity over the coming years. This includes investment of up to £700 million in probation and community services by 2028 to 2029, continued recruitment, and ongoing digital transformation to free up capacity and improve performance.
The new Sentencing Act 2026 places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament and publish an annual report on prison capacity. This fulfils a promise made in the previous annual statement to commit to making publication a statutory requirement, to ensure future decisions on prison demand and supply are evidence based and transparent. These steps mark a turning point: increasing capacity, strengthening accountability, and building a safer, fairer system for the long term.
[HCWS1291]
Lanarkshire AI Growth Zone and AI Opportunities Action Plan
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
Today I am updating the House on a number of developments: the designation of Lanarkshire as the UK’s newest AI growth zone, the establishment of the AI and the Future of Work programme, the expansion of the AI upskilling programme, and progress on delivery of the “AI Opportunities Action Plan”, one year on from its publication.
Lanarkshire AI growth zone
The Government are today designating Lanarkshire as the latest AI growth zone, marking a major step in our modern industrial strategy and strengthening Scotland’s position in the UK’s growing AI economy.
The Lanarkshire site will be delivered by UK company DataVita, in partnership with CoreWeave. It will support more than 3,400 jobs over the coming years and will crowd in £8.2 billion in private investment, with a further £540 million committed over 15 years to support the local community. This will fund skills and training packages, after school coding and digital clubs, and support for local charities and food banks.
The 9,000 acre site will be one of the most advanced AI campuses in the world, drawing on on site renewable energy to power up to 500MW of compute and exploring how excess heat generated by data centre cooling could support nearby facilities such as University Hospital Monklands, Scotland’s first fully digital and net zero hospital.
Lanarkshire becomes the fifth AI growth zone announced since the launch of the action plan, joining Oxfordshire, north Wales, south Wales and the north-east. AI growth zones are expected to support up to 15,000 jobs and at least £28 billion in private investment.
Establishment of the AI and the Future of Work programme and expansion of the AI upskilling programme
The Government are establishing a comprehensive AI and the Future of Work programme to ensure the UK is prepared to benefit from and adapt to the profound changes AI will bring to jobs, workers and the labour market. This includes launching a new cross Government AI and the Future of Work Unit and appointing an independent expert panel drawn from industry, academia, civil society and trade unions to guide this work.
Building on last year’s commitment to provide free AI training for all workers, the Government are expanding their national upskilling programme—delivered with major industry and now public sector partners—to equip 10 million workers with AI skills by 2030, up from the original 7.5 million ambition.
This forms part of a wider effort to ensure that AI-driven transformation delivers opportunities, supports economic growth, and helps workers and communities benefit from technological change.
AI opportunities action plan—delivery update
AI growth zones were a core commitment of the AI opportunities action plan, which the Government published a year ago to ensure the UK leads in shaping the AI revolution.
One year on, we have moved decisively from ambition to delivery. We have now met 38 of the action plan’s 50 commitments, and today we are publishing our one- year-on update. Per the action plan, we have focused on three goals: laying the foundations to enable AI, changing lives for the better, and securing our future.
Laying the foundations.
We have designated five AI growth zones, accelerating data centre build out. We have expanded national compute capacity, with Isambard AI switched on in Bristol and committed to procure to increase the supercomputer capacity at the University of Cambridge—already home to the DAWN supercomputer—sixfold by spring 2026. We have also begun the biggest AI skills drive in a generation: over 1 million AI training courses have already been delivered in just the last six months.
Changing Lives.
AI is already delivering practical benefits for citizens. AI-assisted diagnostics are supporting one third of NHS chest X-rays, improving detection and treatment times. We have announced trials of AI tutoring tools to support learning and reduce teacher workload.
Securing our Future.
UK AI companies raised more than £6 billion last year, and there are now over 185 UK tech unicorns valued at over $1 billion. The Government have now established the Sovereign AI Unit, backed by up to £500 million, to invest in UK AI companies and support them to become world-leading in critical parts of the AI value chain.
There is much more to do to seize the opportunities of AI. Over the coming year we will continue to bring AI growth zones from designation to delivery, operationalising the Sovereign AI Unit—backed by up to £500 million in funding—and equip millions of workers with the skills they need for the AI age.
But our achievements over the last year show what is possible when ambition meets delivery. If we sustain this pace, Britain will continue not just adapt to technological change, but to shape it in the public interest.
[HCWS1289]
Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme Levy 2025-26
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
The Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme (Levy) Regulations 2014 require active employers’ liability insurers to pay an annual levy, based on their relative market share, for the purpose of meeting the costs of the diffuse mesothelioma payment scheme. This is in line with the insurance industry’s commitment to fund a scheme of last resort for persons diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma who have been unable to trace their employer or their employer’s insurer.
Today I can announce that the total amount of the levy to be charged for 2025-26, the 12th year of the DMPS, is £24 million. The amount will be payable by active insurers by the end of March 2026.
Individual active insurers will be notified in writing of their share of the levy, together with how the amount was calculated and the payment arrangements. Insurers should be aware that it is a legal requirement to pay the levy within the set timescales.
I am pleased that the DMPS has seen 11 successful years of operation, assisting many hundreds of people who have been diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma. The 11th annual report for the scheme, along with the annual statistics were published on 27 November 2025 and is available on gov.uk. I hope that Members of both Houses will welcome this announcement and give the DMPS their continued support.
[HCWS1287]
Jobs Guarantee
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
Every young person deserves a fair chance to succeed. When given the right support and opportunities, they will grasp them. But for too long young people have not had access to the opportunities and support they deserve. Nearly a million young people are not in education, employment or training, locking them out of meaningful work, denying employers the workforce of the future and holding back economic growth.
At autumn Budget 2025, we announced an £820 million funding package to overhaul support and give a generation of young people a bright future through the youth guarantee. This investment will break down barriers to opportunity and ensure every young person can access the support they need to earn or learn.
Today I am pleased to announce the launch of the jobs guarantee grant application window for phase one, a central element of the expanded youth guarantee.
The jobs guarantee will provide every eligible 18 to 21-year-old who has been claiming universal credit and looking for work for 18 months a guaranteed, fully subsidised six-month paid job. This will include wraparound employability and in-work support to help participants succeed in their roles. The aim is to support young people in taking that crucial first step into sustained employment. Once fully rolled out, the programme is expected to support around 55,000 young people over the next three years, contributing to the Government long-term ambition to increase employment and reduce long-term youth unemployment.
We know that young people need support quickly and that is why we will begin the delivery of phase one from spring 2026 with over 1,000 job starts across six areas with some of the highest need: Birmingham & Solihull, East Midlands, Greater Manchester, Hertfordshire & Essex, Central & East Scotland, South-west & South-east Wales. This will be followed by a national roll-out of the jobs guarantee across Great Britain, later in 2026.
The application process for this stage of the jobs guarantee grant will be open from today until 28 February. Details can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/jobs-guarantee The Department for Work and Pensions will award grants to selected delivery organisations in the six defined geographic areas. Successful applicants will administer the grant on behalf of DWP, bringing their experience of the local labour market to source suitable jobs and match young people to roles. They will also use their expertise to provide ongoing support to young people while they are on the scheme.
I would also like to thank the more than 60 employers who have already committed to providing jobs for participants of the scheme, including E.ON, JD Sports, Tesco and TUI. Once delivery partners are in place, they will work with employers to help secure these employment opportunities, with support from DWP for those large employers with a national footprint.
[HCWS1290]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the Committee that, if there is a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes from the sound of the Division Bell.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to begin the third day of Committee with this group of amendments, starting with the proposition in my name that Clause 15 not stand part, as we see no justification or real purpose for it. It is not clear why the Government seek to confer yet more powers on the Mayor of London by secondary legislation. I hope other parties will join me in my concern about this clause.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, pointed out at Second Reading that the Mayor of London has already been given more and more areas to oversee and a budget of approximately £21 billion. I ask the Minister: what more powers does he need? What is more, rather than giving the London Assembly more powers to represent and scrutinise on behalf of the whole community, Clause 15 will give powers specifically to the mayor. This is not community empowerment but instead gives the Government a mechanism to empower an already powerful individual, without any explanation as to why. Surely this Bill’s priority should be empowering local communities to scrutinise and ensure that services are being delivered effectively and funds used efficiently by those at the top. Can the Minister explain what consultation took place to inform this clause, and with whom?
Clause 15 is further evidence that the real purpose of this Bill has not been made clear. If it is about genuine community empowerment for all England then allowing the Secretary of State to confer further powers on the Mayor of London is hardly a priority. We do not see why London should be put on an ever-higher pedestal. The Committee deserves to know the Government’s exact reasoning behind this clause.
Amendment 70, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, seeks to insert a new clause extending the category of people whom the London Assembly can require to attend its meetings or produce documents. You cannot have effective meetings if the necessary people are not there. We on these Benches welcome Amendment 71, also tabled by the noble Baroness, which would replace the current two-thirds majority required to change the Greater London Authority’s consolidated council tax requirement with a simple majority. This is entirely sensible. It would improve decision-making and may make better budget-making in London.
Amendments 72, 73, 74, 96 and 182, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, seek to establish a London local authorities joint committee. We are hesitant about creating more committees, but I look forward to his contribution and explanation of this matter.
Amendment 75, from my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley, asks us to go back to basics and initiate a review of the London governance model, covering its effectiveness, accountability and, in particular, outcomes. If the Government want to reorganise local government across the country, why not bring London in line as well? This is a perfect opportunity to cut costs and strengthen local democracy in our capital city.
The Government must come clean about their intentions for London. If reforms are made, let them strengthen local democracy and cut bureaucracy, not empower an already powerful mayor. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, in speaking to this group of London-related amendments, I should declare my former roles as a London borough leader, a member of the London Assembly and a founding chair of what is now London Councils—indeed, I am one of its current co-presidents.
Before I speak to the six amendments in my name in this group—together, they seek to address a long-standing anomaly in London’s governance arrangements—I want to say a brief word about the other amendments in the group, drawing on my previous experience. In particular, I wish to comment on the interesting remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, who seems affronted at the idea that the Mayor of London and the whole GLA network are somehow trying to accrue on to themselves—or the Government are trying to give them—more and more powers. I respectfully remind your Lordships’ Committee that London is the engine of the UK economy, that without London the UK’s economy would founder, and that it is therefore very important that London retains its status as one of the few great world cities. For that purpose, having strong and effective mayoral and governance arrangements in the capital city is crucial.
I was involved in the discussions with the then Government around the creation of a mayor and assembly for London, and then in the passage of the Greater London Authority Bill when it was in your Lordships’ House. The London devolution settlement was carefully devised by Nick Raynsford, the then Minister for London, and was the first of its type. That settlement has remained largely unchanged for over a quarter of a century.
I have some sympathy, therefore, with Amendment 75, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, which suggests that there should be a review of that settlement. However, I have reservations about her amendment, as I do not see why it should be a requirement of legislation. My noble friend the Minister could simply announce today that it is going to happen. Given that extensive consultations and discussions would be needed as part of a review, a year is too short a timescale. In doing such a review, one should look at the role and number of London boroughs. Does having 32 of them, plus the corporation, really make sense more than 60 years on from their creation?
I have some sympathy with Amendments 70 and 71, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. As a member of the first London Assembly, I always felt that the role of AMs was not sufficiently defined or purposeful enough. Strengthening and widening the scrutiny role of the assembly makes a lot of sense, as does changing the two-thirds requirement for amending the mayor’s budget—a threshold that has never been passed, although I gather that the London Assembly is considering the mayor’s budget today, so perhaps something surprising will happen. However, changing that requirement might oblige the mayor to work more closely with AMs—something that has not always been evident over the first three mayoralties. Such a power might be usefully extended to assembly consideration of mayoral strategies. Such a change would, however, alter the balance of the existing governance model in London. Rather than being done in a piecemeal fashion, it should be considered as part of the putative review suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill.
I turn now to Amendments 72, 73, 74, 96, 182 and 183 in my name. They seek to address an anomaly—an omission in the original Greater London Authority Act. My understanding is that they have the support of all three parties on London councils, as well as that of the mayor’s office. At their heart, these amendments are about addressing a simple but persistent problem: that the collective body of London’s boroughs is not recognised in statute and is unable, as things stand, to receive government funding directly.
London boroughs work together extensively. Through London Councils, they co-ordinate delivery, share expertise and engage with government on issues ranging from transport and housing to retrofitting and the charging of electric vehicles. In many of these areas, boroughs are the primary delivery agency of policies that sit squarely within the devolution agenda. Despite this, London Councils lacks a clear statutory footing. As a result, it cannot receive Section 31 grants directly from national government. Instead, funding must be routed through a nominated lead authority and then passed on—an arrangement that is administratively cumbersome, slower than it needs to be, and inefficient for both local and national government.
These amendments would provide a straightforward solution. They seek to establish a statutory joint committee, made up of London’s borough leaders and the City of London, enabling London Councils to receive and distribute funding directly and ensuring that London boroughs are properly consulted where legislation envisages consultation with local government bodies. Crucially, these changes would allow resources to flow more efficiently to the boroughs that are responsible for delivery, reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and making better use of the collective capacity that already exists within the London system. They would strengthen the clarity of consultation arrangements, ensuring that London borough voices are heard in a coherent and structured way.
I should be clear that these proposals are entirely complementary to the role of the Greater London Authority. They would not impinge on or duplicate the powers or strategic status of the mayor, the GLA or the London Assembly. Rather, they would strengthen the overall London governance system by clarifying the collective role of the boroughs within it. That is why I am pleased that the GLA is supportive of London Councils becoming a statutory joint committee, recognising that this change would improve co-ordination, efficiency and the effective delivery of devolved priorities across London.
In short, these amendments are firmly aligned with the Bill’s broader aims of empowering local government and improving the effectiveness of devolution. They would correct an anomaly that has been recognised for some time and replace it with a solution that is sensible, efficient and long overdue.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I know that it was suggested that the Bill would not include London, but I wonder whether this is an opportunity to consider the future governance of London, as well as a chance to put right historic legislative changes. That is what my Amendment 75 is about.
I remind noble Lords that I am still a councillor in the London Borough of Bexley. I was leader until 5 November—no Guy Fawkes jokes, please—and was the longest serving leader in London when I stood down. Previously, I was an executive member and the Conservative lead for London Councils for many years. I am now a vice-president, as is the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
London was the first mayoral arrangement. It is more than 25 years old now, so is it time for a review? It is interesting that no other mayoral arrangement since then has involved a governance structure similar to that of the Greater London Authority. Nobody seems to be suggesting that the London model should be replicated. Therefore, could London governance be more effective and efficient for the benefit of London taxpayers? It is not lost on me that the proposed mayoral precept that is apparently being discussed today will exceed £500 per council tax payer this year. It seems sensible to consider whether that is value for money.
The structure we currently have is quite costly. While some call for greater powers for the GLA, it often frustrates progress. Due to the two-thirds voting rule around the budget, which is referenced in Amendment 71, it is unlikely that the GLA will ever be able to override the mayor’s budget proposals. If you watch some of the question time sessions, it is pretty clear that the mayor does not consider that he is being held to account by the assembly. Some of those frustrations can be seen in Amendments 70 and 71, from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and my noble friends Lord Gascoigne and Lord Moylan.
The current structure does not encourage the mayor to work with the boroughs. Elsewhere, the relationship between the mayor and borough leaders has been more productive in achieving better outcomes. As a borough leader, especially in outer London, I often thought that the mayor would be more effective if there was a grown-up conversation about what matters to London. London is a very diverse city and not all 33 boroughs are the same, although unfortunately some do not recognise that. The involvement of the borough leaders would allow them to bring to the table their invaluable knowledge of their borough. We should be learning from other mayoral structures. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has suggested the importance of London, and I would not disagree with that, but there is no reason why London should not be efficient and effective.
We know that London leaders recognise that the world does not end at their borough boundaries. There have been many examples over the years when leaders have made pragmatic decisions that are beneficial to London, following debate. Those of us in outer London also have relationships with the councils outside London, especially those on our borders. Amendment 72, from the noble Lords, Lord Harris of Haringey and Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, seeks to establish a London local authorities joint committee. I would suggest that this would just bring about another layer of governance which will no doubt have cost implications and which seems shortsighted when we can learn from other governance structures since the inception of the London model. Surely we do not want to impose more costs on council tax payers. If learning suggests that a revised structure would be less costly in addition to more effective, the taxpayers and councils could benefit. Would not we all like to see vital money being spent on services rather than on structures?
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as one of the co-presidents of London Councils. Since the previous two speakers gave their entire London political history, I cannot resist the temptation to do the same.
I was a London borough councillor for 40 years, and leader of that council for 13 years. I cannot resist saying that it has been under Liberal Democrat control for 40 years already and is now no doubt well on its way to 44 years. I am looking forward to it reaching 50 years, by which time I shall have just about reached my century. I stood down as leader of the council to fight the GLA elections, and was elected for its first eight years, along with the noble Lord, Lord Harris. At the beginning, we had many happy meetings trying to work out what on earth we were there to do, how on earth we should do it, whether we really needed committees and, if we did, which committees—and so on.
I spent some not so happy and very long nights in this place working on the GLA Bill, which took a lot of time and consideration. I have had a long interest in London and its governance. I was briefly even a London Member of Parliament, before all those other things. I always felt that that was the best apprenticeship for being a London borough councillor, but nobody else tried it that way round.
I came here at the request of London Councils to express support for the six amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. My name is attached to one of them but should have been attached to all six, as they are a package, and I certainly support them all. They propose sensible arrangements to enable London Councils to distribute government grants, which it is unable to do at the moment. I do not need to go into the details of exactly how it would work, but the proposal to have a statutory joint committee seems entirely sensible. That is the real point of it: the mechanics of exactly how it would work are not for us to determine, as long as there is an ability to make those arrangements. I am strongly in support of that.
I had not intended to join the discussions on the other issues that have been raised today. I noted, not for the first time, the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to get rid of what he calls small London boroughs. I suppose that that is the only way Labour would ever win most of them. I do not agree with that, not surprisingly.
I suspect that a review of London governance is not likely to happen, but I think it should. I was not entirely happy with the one that happened just before 2000, which resulted in the arrangements that we have now. If we are to have a serious review of London governance, I would welcome it, but I reserve my welcome for whatever its results may be. I would greatly welcome a proper consideration of the role of the borough councils, the Greater London Authority and particularly the London Assembly.
As I said, my main purpose for being here is to support the proposal for a London joint committee. I had understood that it has all-party support; it certainly has the support of the Liberal Democrats, for whom I can speak, as co-president. I am pleased, therefore, to support those amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and my noble friend Lord Pitkeathley, I have added my name to Amendment 72 and the others already spoken to by my noble friend Lord Harris.
I have to say only two things. These amendments would provide the appropriate vehicle, as some of the tasks that fall within London are cross-borough. A lot of tasks and responsibilities fall to the GLA, and some fall quite clearly to the boroughs, but some are cross-borough. It is important that we have the correct vehicle for that to happen, both for statutory consultations and, as has already been mentioned, to make it possible to spend money in that way, rather than it having to be funnelled through a particular lead borough. It is therefore useful and probably necessary.
I do not agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, said about it being another level of government. That is absolutely not the intention. There is a non-statutory vehicle there, which is immensely useful, but there are a couple of things that it cannot do. It seems to me that defining it in statute would fill a gap and would be better for the people and boroughs of London.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I am not a London councillor, nor am I a vice-president of the Local Government Association, so I suppose I have a bit of an independent view here. I am just a provincial councillor from Norfolk. However, I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. It is time to have a look at governance in London, because 32 plus one is quite a lot. There is also an assembly and a mayor—arguably, London is over-governed.
It is time to have a look at this, because it is out of kilter with elsewhere. Outside the M25, the Government are proceeding on the basis that all local authorities must be half a million people or more, covering huge territories. Norfolk, where I come from, has over 900 parishes. It is 85 miles wide and 40 miles long. If you were to start here in Westminster and then travel down to the south coast, the width of Norfolk would take you 30 miles past Brighton and out into the English Channel before it ran out. That is the size and scale of the territories we have in the shires. In Norfolk, over 9,000 electors are needed to elect a councillor. In Essex and Kent, it is between 12,000 and 15,000. In London, just 3,108 electors are required to elect a borough councillor—and of course there are other representatives too. These London boroughs are much smaller territories and much more tightly defined—they do not have 900 parishes. As a result, not only is democratic representation diluted to an unacceptable extent outside the M25, but we end up with the nonsense of the borough bike wars. If you ride a Lime or a Forest, there is an inexplicable invisible line in the middle of the road that applies the brakes as you ride up the King’s Road.
London is overrepresented; there are more councils and more councillors. In fact, there are more councillors within the M25 than in all the county councils of England. This review should happen. I associate myself with the remarks of the London councillors who have spoken. You cannot reorganise local government everywhere else and leave London to sit it out. That is not good for democracy, councils, governance or the country, and it certainly is not good for the principle of equality of democratic representation.
In the other place, all the constituencies have been equalised, plus or minus 5,000, so that there is an equality of representation. The value of everybody’s vote is the same, wherever you are in the United Kingdom. In London, because of the excess number of councils and councillors, the vote representation is up to five times greater than it is outside the M25. That alone should be an example and a reason to go into a governance review. London cannot just sit it out any more while, elsewhere, there is wholesale reorganisation.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I too have a history in London local government, though nothing like as illustrious as that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill or the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I was a councillor for 28 years, in a borough that has been Conservative for 60 years. I am looking forward to it continuing to be Conservative for another four, or indeed 40, years, so that it reaches its centenary as a Conservative-held borough. I was a member of the executive of London Councils, and chairman of the transport and environment committee of London Councils for a number of years.
That is probably half my speech, and I only felt obliged to make it so as to keep up with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and all the others who have recited their credentials for participating in this brief debate.
Lord John of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, this debate feels like getting the gang back together around this table. I declare my political interest as a former chair of London Councils and leader of Southwark Council. It is particularly nice to see so many colleagues from those days. I acknowledge the significance of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. They are useful and necessary, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, almost made the case for them during her speech. We have a very clunky system at the moment, in which London Councils makes decisions but cannot be the accountable body for them. Money has to be funnelled through the City of London or, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, referenced, during Covid the City of Westminster had to contract on our behalf for additional mortuary provision. London Councils, having made decisions about this, should be able to contract and receive money on its own behalf. These amendments do perhaps tidy things up but they are none the less very important.
I know that the Government are reluctant to embark on a widespread review of London government at this time, but there are three good reasons why we should consider very carefully the noble Baroness’s amendment. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, I should make it clear that I do not advocate a review of the 32 boroughs; my approach at this time would be to leave it alone because it works.
First, as others have mentioned, it is nearly 30 years since we properly reviewed London’s governance, which is a long time. Secondly, the London system is unique, again as others have referenced, but I do not think it is necessarily unique in a good way. Thirdly, and I think this important for the Government to consider, if they do review London governments there is an opportunity to make very real savings in how London government operates, and make it more efficient.
Why do I say that? First, we have no formal decision-making link at present, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referenced, between the mayor and the boroughs. In stark contrast to all other combined authorities, there is no requirement for the mayor to have that link with the boroughs. Everything that happens is effectively dependent on the good will of the mayor at that time. While this has worked to date, that is not necessarily the best way of operating. The mayor and the boroughs are two entirely separate entities and, while their paths cross over, the mayor can make decisions that have a massive impact on the boroughs, from planning and housing targets to issues such as the Freedom Pass. I recall mayoral candidates making commitments about Freedom Pass which then had to be funded and administered by the boroughs. That is not a satisfactory way to progress.
Every government fund that is devolved to London has to be the subject of individual negotiation. That is not particularly sensible either. For instance, negotiations on how to agree and distribute proportions for the first round of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund took over six months to agree, because there was no formal structure in place for the mayor to work with the boroughs. For the second round, the Greater London Authority unilaterally changed the rules and proportions that had been agreed with London Councils. Again, that is a defect in the system of how London government currently works. Here is a real opportunity for us to look now at whether there could be a better model of how the mayor works with the boroughs. I have great sympathy for the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill.
The second point I should reference is in relation to the London Assembly. I am nervous because obviously we have some great figures here from the London Assembly’s history, but we have to recognise that it is a body utterly divorced from the work of London’s boroughs. That is the reality. It operates in parallel to the boroughs. I cannot remember a single occasion when there was a joint meeting, for instance, between London’s leaders and the London Assembly. The assembly does some very good work—I do not knock the work of great figures such as the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon—but there is no crossover with the boroughs and no requirement for any. When we look at the future governance of London, there is an opportunity to consider the role and function of the assembly. Could that important scrutiny function that it delivers be met in a slightly different way?
While I recognise that the Government might not be keen on this review of London governance, there is an opportunity to look at these issues and I ask the Minister what reassurance she can give us today that the Government will force London to look at itself. I know that she thinks that the mayor and the London councils are having these conversations. I am not convinced that those conversations are happening in the way in which she would like them to be happening. What reassurance can she give us that those conversations will take place in earnest, because it is an important opportunity for London to review the way in which it governs itself?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Other than that, I can declare only a very modest involvement in councils in London. I twice unsuccessfully ran for Camden Council in the days when the Green Party was in a different position from where we are today.
I first want to address Amendment 71 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I entirely agree with the noble Lord’s simple cry, “Democracy now”. We have a London Assembly and it needs to be able to hold the mayor to account on spending much more strongly than it is able to now by nature of the constitutional arrangements. That is a clear and obvious step forward. It is no secret that the Green Party is no fan of the strong leader model. We believe that the more voices there are and the more input you have into decisions, the better. The London Assembly has been denied the input into the budget that it might have by those arrangements.
I respect the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, and agree with him on lots of things but in this case I do not. Scale is not an appropriate way in which to think about the size of London boroughs and how they are divided up. This is by title a community empowerment Bill. Different London boroughs have different community lives and demographics. I think of the fact that, for example, Barnet and Camden are in one territorial London Assembly member seat but they are two very different places. It is important that we have that representation. We are seeing significant under-representation in the rest of the country rather than too much representation in London.
I strongly support Amendments 182 and 183 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and others. Local representatives in those boroughs need to be able to get together and work together. They do as much as they can, but that would be a simple step forward.
Finally, on the review of London’s governance model, I might be coming at that in Amendment 75 from a different direction from some others, but it is worth highlighting and celebrating the great work that the London Assembly does, even with the restrictions on its powers. We have not talked about what that is. I draw attention to a practical piece of work done by Caroline Russell, a London Assembly member, about the provision of public toilets in this city. A lot of people care about that very much. People do not regard it as an exciting political subject but when campaigning, listening to Londoners and hearing, particularly from disabled, disadvantaged Londoners and people with small children, one sees that that kind of step is important. It shows what the assembly does.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak initially to my Amendments 70 and 71 in this group. It is a pleasure being here with noble Lords; it feels like a reunion of assembly or London Councils meetings. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, who I know is not able to be here today, for adding his name to Amendment 70, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for adding his name to Amendment 71. Both noble Lords have direct experience of the GLA and London government as a whole. Like other noble Lords, in drafting these amendments I bring 26 years’ experience as an assembly member and a London borough councillor.
Amendment 70 is about the power of summons. The law as it stands means that the assembly has relatively limited powers of summons over individuals and documents. It can summon the Mayor of London only in his or her role as chair of one of the functional bodies. For example, you could summon the mayor to a meeting as chair of Transport for London, but you could not summon them to come to a meeting if there was a huge failure or difficulties in their housing or solar programme and you wanted a detailed discussion. That makes no sense.
Furthermore, the assembly is prevented from summoning those delivering services in London. Noble Lords might well think that that does not matter because people will go and give evidence, so we do not need this power, but I will give the Committee a concrete example. Many years ago, I led an investigation into High Speed 2—then an initial programme that was going to have a huge impact in west London. High Speed 2, admittedly at that time under different management, refused to come before the assembly to give evidence to our inquiry. Despite huge amounts of correspondence, including the Department for Transport trying to put direct pressure on this body that was accountable to it, High Speed 2 refused to give any evidence at all. Yet it was delivering a project affecting London with huge amounts of public money.
Similar bodies, including the Environment Agency, the Port of London Authority and even London Councils, may attend if requested, but they, too, have at times decided not to. That cannot be right when we are trying to look at services delivering for London. This power would strengthen the assembly, allowing it to fully carry out its scrutiny role. It sits well with Amendment 72, which proposes a London local authorities joint committee, because there would need to be scrutiny of that body and this new power would allow the assembly to carry that out.
As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, is unable to be here today, but in correspondence last night he said that he was happy for me to explain his support for this. He comes at it from a different point of view. He used to work for the former Mayor of London and he said that, although we come at this from different angles—he would brief the mayor ahead of scrutiny and I would be there as a scrutineer—he feels that these scrutiny sessions are serious, healthy, important and substantive and he does not see any potential for these powers to be abused because you would use them only in exceptional circumstances. He feels that, ultimately, if the mayor turns up, they may not answer the questions put to them, but at least you would have that opportunity—so he was keen to support this amendment. This issue has had cross-party support on the assembly for years, so I hope that the Minister will seriously consider this amendment.
Of course, if more powers are given to the mayor, as was discussed at the start of this group, the assembly should be strengthened alongside this. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned London being up on a pedestal but, actually, Manchester has more power than London in certain areas, such as health, and it feels as though London potentially needs to catch up.
Amendment 71 would remove the anomaly that, to amend the Mayor of London’s budget, a two-thirds majority is needed at the final stage. For many years, this has meant us, as assembly members, sitting there and rejecting the mayor’s budget and then it still going through at the final meeting because the threshold has not been reached. Such a threshold does not exist in any other part of local government, and I do not understand why it is needed here for London. I ask the Government to remove this requirement so that any mayor has to work with the assembly to ensure that a budget has majority support.
The other amendments in this group cover the establishment of a London local authorities joint committee and the power to pay grants to it. This would, as we have heard, put in place formally what is already taking place through other means. I am happy with these amendments. They have cross-party support and support from the London Assembly. As I said, they complement my amendment on the power of summons for the London Assembly, because I think that this joint committee should be subject to scrutiny as well.
Amendment 75, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, makes a reasonable point—the noble Baroness and I exchanged some correspondence at the weekend about it. As many of us have said, reviewing how the London system works and what lessons there are for other areas does not necessarily need to be in the Bill. I come at this from a different point of view. I am really keen to increase the powers of the London Assembly and to look at stronger scrutiny arrangements across the country with the rollout of mayoral and combined authorities. For me, that is the gap in the model that is being rolled out.
At the moment, there is little to no real scrutiny of billions of pounds-worth of expenditure across the country. This is a huge deficit in these new mayoral models. This scrutiny must be carried out by members who are not conflicted through other roles, such as being leaders of authorities. This is probably where I differ from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord John, because I think that council leaders can be conflicted. They want to secure funding for their borough, and that can cause tension—they may not want to get into the bad books of a mayor. That is where the benefits of the GLA model, with scrutineers who are directly elected, comes in. They can look at things more independently, ask the tough questions and, sometimes, produce very tough reports.
I disagree with the suggestions we have heard in the debate on the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Harris, about reducing the number of London boroughs. I do not think that that would be right. The amount of work, including casework, that borough councillors have to do in London is unbelievable compared to their colleagues elsewhere. That would not be a realistic option.
I look forward to the Minister’s response with interest. I hope we can start to see some movement to strengthen the powers of the assembly and to support London Councils on this matter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey and the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Bybrook, Lady Pidgeon and Lady O’Neill of Bexley, for their amendments relating to London devolution. As a mere veteran of what the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, described as provincial local government, I feel a little hesitant about sticking my head into the lion’s den of London local government—but it is my job, so I will do it anyway.
I start with the stand part notice in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, which would remove Clause 15 from the Bill. It is vital that the devolution framework works for the unique circumstances of London’s governance. Clause 15 must stand part of the Bill in order to signpost to Schedule 25 to the Bill and the GLA Act 1999. This enables the Government, among other things, to confer functions on the Mayor of London, the Greater London Authority and its functional bodies. Contrary to the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about putting London on a pedestal, the provision enables us to confer powers on the mayor and the GLA. If the GLA was excluded from Schedule 25, it would then be the only strategic authority that would require primary legislation for the conferral of functions, and there is no rationale for creating a divergent approach just for London. Schedule 25 will ensure that the Greater London Authority benefits from the devolution framework and can deepen its powers over time.
The noble Baroness asked a question about consultation. Ahead of the Bill being introduced, the Government engaged the mayor, the GLA and London Councils on proposals in the devolution White Paper.
I thank my noble friend Lord Harris for bringing his wealth of experience and knowledge of London to our debates on this Bill. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Neill, Lady Pidgeon and Lady Hayter, and the noble Lords, Lord Tope, Lord Moylan and Lord John. I have not yet been able to add up their joint years of London experience, but it is of significant breadth and depth, and it is welcome to have that informing our discussions on the Bill. For the record, my local council was formed in 1971 and has been a Labour council to this day. It does not quite meet the 60 years mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, but we are not far away, and we are a new town.
We are currently engaging positively with London Councils and the Greater London Authority on this matter. In the context of that ongoing work and the need to continue to work jointly towards a constructive resolution, I do not feel that it would be appropriate to rush in a legislative change for the unique arrangements for London governance through this amendment. I am very happy to meet my noble friend Lord Harris and other London partners, if he feels that that would be helpful before Report, because I understand the points he has made.
On Amendment 70, in the English devolution White Paper the Government committed to strengthening scrutiny in strategic authorities. As the noble Baroness knows, London is unique among strategic authorities, in that the mayor’s work is scrutinised by the directly elected London Assembly. It is my understanding that the mayor is committed to appear before 10 sessions each year for scrutiny. If he does not do so, or misses more than a number of those sessions, he can be sanctioned by the GLA.
As the Government consider the best way to strengthen scrutiny in strategic authorities, it is right that we tailor our approach to the arrangements in London. We will engage the GLA and the London Assembly on any potential changes. I have much sympathy with the frustration about key partners and providers that spend public money and then refuse to come before scrutiny bodies. I will not go into my particular pain over bus companies, but I understand the point that the noble Baroness was making there. This amendment would significantly alter the powers of the London Assembly and preclude the Government’s ongoing work on this issue, which is being taken forward in close discussion with combined authorities and the GLA.
Similarly, on Amendment 75, London’s model is unique among strategic authorities and has successfully served the people of London for the last 25 years—I think the noble Lord, Lord John, referred to the successful part of London governance. The Government are regularly in contact with the GLA to understand how its governance, scrutiny arrangements and partnership working arrangements are delivering for Londoners. As London’s devolution settlement evolves, the Government want to continue to see positive working between the GLA and its partners, including London borough councils, to deliver on shared priorities. We hope to build on these where possible. Therefore, we do not believe that a formal review is necessary.
I listened to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, about issues around boroughs neighbouring London, Lee Valley park, the London grants scheme and so on. I will reflect on those. A meeting might be helpful, because I did not quite understand the balance between “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix” and there being things that need to be fixed that we should have a look at to see what changes would be necessary. It would absolutely not be right to interject a legislative knee-jerk into this space without the work that is needed between all parties to determine a way forward. I hope that we can move that forward before Report.
Amendment 71 seeks to introduce simple majority voting for the London Assembly to amend the Mayor of London’s final draft budget. This Bill includes measures to unblock mayoral decision-making. Primarily, this is by stipulating that most decisions in combined authorities and combined county authorities require a simple majority including the mayor, but also by making some functions, such as those concerning police and fire, exercisable by the mayor only.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
We talked about a review of the scrutiny arrangements of other metro mayors, if you like—mayoral and strategic authorities. Is the Minister able to give us a timescale for that? We also talked about discussions with the GLA; the GLA is made up of the Mayor of London and the London Assembly. Is the department talking to officers and members of the London Assembly, because the Civil Service often uses the term “GLA” when it means just the mayor’s office.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My understanding is that discussions are with the GLA, but I will double-check on that and respond to the noble Baroness in writing.
We are putting in place a robust system of overview and scrutiny for the combined authorities. We are also considering, as we discussed with the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, the other day, whether a system of local public accounts committees might also be relevant.
Lord Moylan (Con)
There is a certain sleight of hand going on. The noble Baroness referred to scrutiny arrangements and, of course, the London Assembly is largely a scrutiny body; that is what it spends most of its time doing. But when it comes to budget setting, it is a co-decision-maker. That is a crucial difference. Setting and amending the budget is not a scrutiny activity by the London Assembly; it is a co-decision-making function with the mayor, which strengthens democratic oversight of the mayor’s expenditure of what are now very large amounts of money—£20 billion-plus—on the people of London.
The question is what an appropriate position and appropriate balance of power for the assembly is in that co-decision-making role—not its scrutiny role, but its co-decision-making role. We are now into 26 years of existence of the London Assembly. The fact that that threshold has never once been met illustrates that it is not allowing the assembly to function as intended, as a co-decision-making body. It needs to be adjusted. One might say that the mayor’s executive functions would be hampered if democracy were improved, but of course the mayor’s executive functions would be further unhampered if there were no democracy at all. The London Assembly is meant to be a democratic body. Why is it not allowed to function as a normal democratic body in this one area where it has a co-decision-making power?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I was referring to the difference between the combined authorities and the combined county authorities, which are made up of the constituent members from the local area. The GLA does not work like that, as we all know. It is not a body that represents the London boroughs; it is a different, directly elected body and it has a different scrutiny function. I was not trying to engage in sleight of hand; I was just pointing out the difference between the two bodies.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to noble Lords’ contributions, for which I am very grateful. It is so refreshing to hear about London local authorities. I have talked for a number of years in both Chambers about local government, but we very rarely have a proper debate on London governance. It is very refreshing and I thank noble Lords who have, it seems to me, hundreds of years of experience in the great city’s governance. It is seriously refreshing.
To the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I say that of course I understand the role of our great capital city and its importance in the economy of our country, but I do not think that that means that we cannot at times challenge it and scrutinise it from here, and I think that that is what we are doing. It is our genuine desire to ensure that community empowerment, efficiency and localism should apply to London as well when we are looking at the rest of the country.
Clause 15 remains wholly unclear, both in its purpose and its intention. Empowering one individual further without compelling justification or evidence is not the right direction of travel in our opinion. It may be that we need to review London before we give these further powers, as we are doing for the rest of the country. Are we giving these powers to an authority that is as efficient as it can be in governance, just as the rest of the country is being challenged to be before it gets those powers?
If there is a case for expanding the powers in London, I suggest that the Government look at that governance before they make that decision, which is why the amendment was tabled. If such a case exists, I believe that it should be laid before Parliament transparently rather than delivered through secondary legislation at a later stage in a way that limits our scrutiny and public understanding, which is important.
Equally, amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, have highlighted a real concern about the existing governance arrangements and structures, although I remain unconvinced that more layers of committees are the answer. None the less, not only are the Government taking, in our opinion, the wrong direction of travel, but they are also missing a great opportunity in this primary legislation. The proposal to reduce the two-thirds majority to a simple majority, as we have heard, for changes to the GLA council tax requirement would empower councillors, as we are trying to do in this Bill. My understanding is that, when the budget is debated, many of the issues in the budget are voted down by the GLA but, when it gets to the budget decision, that decision is lost. That does not seem right and the Government need to seriously look at this again.
The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley—I thank her for all her work in the London boroughs—would give us exactly the opportunity that we want in order to assess what currently works, what does not work and where genuine reform, rooted in efficiency, transparency and local empowerment, might be needed.
I suggest that the Government are not listening to what we are saying. It seemed to me that, at different levels, there was pretty much cross-party agreement. I believe that they must explain with much more clarity why Clause 15 is necessary without some sort of review of London, who it benefits and what problems it seeks to solve. We all want a London that works for Londoners, for the people who come here to enjoy our wonderful capital city and for the economy that it feeds in this country.
I also believe that the Government’s arrangements for our city should be proportionate to those for the rest of the country. Further empowering an already powerful mayor without a real, robust rationale does not achieve that. I urge the Minister to reflect carefully between now and Report. In the meantime, I will withdraw my stand part notice but will be considering what we bring forward on Report.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Lord Gascoigne to Clause 16, allows for whatever period that there could be the overlap of both the Mayor and MP retaining both offices.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne, who unfortunately cannot be in his place today. Amendments 76, 78, 79, 81, 83, 84, 86, 88 and 89 were tabled by my noble friend to highlight what he regarded, when he first saw the Bill, as an egregious error; namely, the Government’s original proposal to ban Members of Parliament from serving as mayors. More than that, he felt that it seemed to undermine the very essence of the Bill.
The Government’s own impact assessment stresses the importance of mayors and how well recognised they are—in some cases, more so than MPs. It states that
“people think more power should come down from national government”.
It therefore seems remiss to want to prevent at least some of our mayors—not all—sitting in Parliament. We have, after all, recent examples of where this has worked and there has been a successful transition—the best, I am sure we all agree, being Boris Johnson, and perhaps Sadiq Khan less so. They are two individuals who have combined the roles, even if only briefly.
To be clear, these amendments are not about personalities and it is not about the individual. But, for ease of reference, let us call this the Burnham amendment. We all know that the Mayor of Greater Manchester wants to return to Parliament—some, including the deputy leader of the Labour Party and former Deputy PM, are even encouraging him. Yet after the last few days of melodrama in the Labour Party, he was blocked, allegedly by allies of the Prime Minister. It makes us wonder whether this provision was originally designed so that the Prime Minister could stop him—or “burn him” off. Despite this, it is assumed that the electorate are being taken for granted, because it is assumed that he would have won, should he have stood. I am therefore delighted that the Government have now tabled their own amendment allowing a brief period of overlap between being a mayor and an MP. Despite that, we will have to wait a little longer for the return of the “King of the North”.
Turning to the Bill, we would have preferred that the period not be so tight or so rigidly defined. We are not sure that it should create such stark delineations between local and national politics. Devolution should mean bringing local voices to the fore, not erecting new barriers between the two similar worlds. Some may argue that the roles are incompatible, but that is a political judgment and one that should be made by the electorate. If a candidate seeks to serve as mayor while sitting as an MP, they do so in full view of their constituents. If the public believe the roles cannot be combined, they will say so at the ballot box. That is how democracy works. Let the people decide. When so much power still resides in Whitehall, there is arguably no better place for a mayor to be than in Parliament, making their case, arguing for money and banging the drum for investment in their area.
These amendments seek to provide flexibility and freedom, and to widen participation in our democratic institutions—something that we hope all sides of the Committee can support. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out why the Government initially opposed any overlap at all in the original drafting, as well as what has changed since the Bill was introduced. Perhaps she might also explain the logic behind the specific eight-day period that is now being proposed. For now, we are pleased that the Government have moved away from their earlier position and accepted the argument that a period of overlap should be permitted. I beg to move.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my opposition to Clause 16 standing part of the Bill. It in no way conflicts with the series of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne, so ably presented by my noble friend Lady O’Neill. I agree with the thrust of all she said. There is no doubt that, if Clause 16 is to be sustained, improvements to it, alongside those in the government amendments, would be useful. However, I do not favour that approach. I just do not believe that any part of Clause 16, which amounts to an unjustifiable fettering of the electorate—elect a good candidate or otherwise hand it to an elected mayor in office—should be sustained. Therefore, none of it should stand part.
The public are tiring of funny business in elections. I have laid amendments to later parts of the Bill that would make the cancellation of local council, mayoral and PCC elections illegal without the super-affirmative procedure, which would require a vote in both Houses. Labour is playing fast and loose with democracy—a cancellation of a vote here and a postponement there, asking those with the most to lose whether they would like to stay a little longer, and bogus capacity excuses from councils that do not even run the elections. We read today in the Daily Telegraph a Labour NEC member of many years standing disclosing threats with menaces to Labour council leaders to connive to strip the franchise from more than 4 million electors this May.
When I was a young man, my noble friend Lord Pickles told me, “If you don’t trust the folks, don’t go into politics”. He was right then, and that advice is still correct today; it should never go out of fashion. We need to encourage as many people as possible to serve the public at every level. In my public life in local government, I took the view that I did not have the time to be a double hatter, or even triple hatter, by seeking to serve my community as a parish, district and county councillor—combining it with a business career was quite enough for me—but that is not how it is for others.
The fundamental principle here is that the public should get to choose their elected representatives. If somebody wishes to serve at more than one level, that option should be available to them, but they should be accountable to the electorate, not anyone else. It is the public’s choice. We often have people who serve at more than one level, amplifying the experience they gain at one level to the benefit of another; that was not for me, but it worked well for others.
I listened carefully to what my noble friend said, but Clause 16 is nothing more than a grubby stitch-up to prevent the public having their free say. It would stain a banana republic for certain citizens to be denied the chance to stand, especially those who had demonstrated a track record of success. I have not had time to consult my noble and learned friends but I am sure that I could get an advisory opinion that such action is contrary to international law. You would think that that would be enough to put the black spot on it, but not for this Government.
I sense that, in drafting Clause 16, there was some intent to prevent my noble friend, who served with distinction as mayor in the north-east—and whom the public elected once, then again—standing as a mayor and being in the legislature. It might have been the case that, as in the last Parliament, a county council leader is also an MP. In those cases, the Bill would force that person to choose, but, if you believe in democracy, it is not for him to make that choice—it is for the public, via the ballot box. Clause 16 is state overreach and a case of party-political interference. That why it should be deleted. I read the newspapers and have been in politics long enough to know what is going on here.
It transpired in the past week that the Labour Party’s own internal rules prevent a Labour mayor from sitting in Parliament. That is a choice for Labour and one that should be available to other parties, but it is not a compulsion to be forced on parties that have a different outlook and better principles. Do not just take my word for it. There are others who cherish democracy more than this Government. The Electoral Commission and the Speaker of the other place have had cause to criticise the debased commitment to the sanctity of the vote. We heard from the Prime Minister himself earlier this week that the reason why the Mayor of Manchester cannot stand in this mother of Parliaments is that it is part of Labour’s rules and has nothing to do with the candidate’s suitability—it makes no judgment on whether the candidate has the appropriate experience. No, the Prime Minister told us that the decision was driven solely by the unwelcome financial cost to the Labour Party of running a second-order mayoral election—so not by statute but by internal rules, which we all know change from time to time. That was coupled with the inconvenience of spreading more thinly the campaigning capacity of Labour’s demoralised and depleted activists.
The Government may have thought that they were being clever with Clause 16, by preventing local leaders from exercising national influence, but they have been pricked by the back-draught from the good folk of Gorton and Denton, which tells me that there is widespread support for the notion that Clause 16 should be excised from this Bill. The public know a lemon when they see one. The former Deputy Prime Minister, who introduced this Bill in the other place, now appears to have a case of buyer’s remorse, as the measures that she published are now being used to deny her Manchester mate from putting himself forward to the voters. That is some irony: it is not just back-draught; it is blowback. Of course, in the case of the Manchester man, that is for future service. However, I am anxious that in other cases there might be a question of retrospection. My noble friend highlighted Johnson and Khan, which is a case in point.
When I was the leader of the council in South Norfolk, which is an electoral authority, I was always careful, in so far as elections were concerned, to separate my role as leader of the controlling group from the administration and operation of the election and electoral matters. If successive returning officers who served me were here, they would confirm that approach. However, that is not how it works in Clause 16. The Prime Minister told us that he would put country before party, but those who continue to promote this Bill clearly did not get the memo, because Clause 16 is about putting the wants of the Labour Party before of the needs of the electorate. It prevents the electorate from having their say on who should be elected, especially somebody who has done rather well in one area of politics and who might do well in the other. It is an abuse of the people, the law and democracy.
We have heard it said that your Lordships’ House is standing in the way of the will of the Government and somehow it is improper and, as a result, we need to be reformed. However, with these amendments, we show that noble Lords are standing up for democracy and community empowerment. The denial of a free vote on candidates is the pure expression of community disempowerment. Labour should be ashamed of itself for Clause 16. It does not trust the folks, as my noble friend Lord Pickles advised all those years ago. No, for them, it is party first and public second. This clause proves this, which is why it must go.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
Can I just make a brief statement? While it is right and proper that each and every amendment and clause is debated, I deeply regret how party-political the last two contributions have been. What we are all doing here is trying to do the best for this country and not make these things party-political. I deeply regret some of the comments that have been made by people opposite.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I am sorry if the noble Baroness regrets those, but the facts stand. A mayor who has done a rather good job in one part of the country is now going to be prevented from standing as a result of applying Labour’s rules for all the other parties. That is a statement of fact. I do not deny that Labour has the right to have its internal rules, but those rules should not be forced on all the other parties. I am sorry that the noble Baroness feels that way, but that is how we in the other political parties feel when another party’s internal rules are applied to everyone else. It is anti-democratic. As I say, I am sorry that she feels that way, but the feeling is equal on this side of the Committee. That should be placed on the record, too.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, these have been an interesting set of interventions. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, that it is important that party-political contributions are kept to an absolute minimum when we are debating a Bill.
There is a basic issue in this group. The public have a right to expect that elected individuals do not end up with two jobs: being a mayor and being an MP. In some circumstances, it might be possible for the electorate to knowingly vote for that. However, that would be most unlikely to be the case. There is a question as to where, geographically speaking, the mayor might be the MP; it might be within the mayoral authority and it might be elsewhere. Either way, there is a clear conflict of interest, because Parliament judges the allocation of funding, for example, to the mayoral authority.
I do not think that you can have one person doing two jobs. Amendments 76 and others in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, would allow that, for whatever period, there could be an overlap of both mayor and MP retaining both offices. To be absolutely clear, we think that that is wrong. I say to the Minister that these matters are important and should not be for political parties to judge alone. It should instead be clearly understood that, when people have been elected to one of the posts, they should carry out the responsibilities that they have been given by the general public.
On Tuesday, I said that if, in a mayoral authority, there had been a large number of commissioners appointed by the mayor but then that mayor decided to become a Member of Parliament, he or she would leave the mayoralty and, as the Bill is currently drafted, all the commissioners would lose their jobs as a consequence. When politicians are elected to a job, they must see the job through and do it to the best of their ability, given that the public have expressed confidence in them doing so. They have an obligation to fulfil their contract with the electorate.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I will add something to the wise words of my colleagues. To us, this is about the concentration of power in the hands of one person. The powers being given to new mayors are considerable and I understand them; to some extent, I agree with them—as a directly elected mayor for 16 years, of course, I would say that, wouldn’t I? I see the two roles as completely different: a role in national government is completely different from a local, regional role. There could be massive conflicts of interest, but the key thing is that this concentrates too much power. Conservative colleagues have talked about that, but then they are quite happy to let somebody do both jobs. To our mind, that is just not rational.
The key thing is that this creates more political opportunities for more people. It also encourages mayors. The key thing about a mayoralty is that the mayors can develop their own local, independent mandate, rather than being overshadowed by national party politics. They are very different and distinct and they could be in direct conflict with each other. That is why we absolutely believe in that separation of powers.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we have had an interesting debate. In essence, we are debating a philosophical issue here. I firmly believe in democracy. Elections take place; your Lordships would be surprised to know that I do not always like some of the decisions that the electorate make, but I will defend every time the public having the opportunity to elect whom they want to represent them. That is a priority.
Just because I do not like it or just because they have a second job that I may not think appropriate, they should have that opportunity. We need some protections in place for fraud and other things, but I believe in democracy and, in essence, that is what the comments of my noble friends Lord Fuller and Lady O’Neill are about, and I associate myself with them. We should not prevent people standing for election; we should allow the electorate to make their choice. That is what democracy is. We may all have our views about whether a job is too big and therefore we cannot have somebody doing two of them but, if you believe in democracy, you believe that the electorate should have the facts presented in front of them and they should be given that choice. That is my strong philosophical view. We should not be telling the electorate, “No, you cannot have this person because they are already too busy”. Therefore, I genuinely believe my noble friend’s comments and that it is right that we should trust the electorate.
I appreciate that that may not align with certain party rules on different things, but there is no reason that the law has to mirror a certain party’s rules. I have no problem with whatever party having particular rules for the candidates they choose. That is the right thing to do. I know, from my own experience as chairman of the LGA, that the Conservative group had some very different rules from the Labour, Liberal and independent groups for how long people could stand and who was eligible. That is fine; I would not criticise the rules that Labour or the Liberals had, and I hope they did not criticise our rules. That was a choice; we were not imposing them by statute.
I very much support both the amendments of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne and the proposal that this clause not stand part of the Bill from my noble friend Lord Fuller. If Clause 16 stands part, the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Gascoigne would introduce a certain amount of flexibility. Given the amendments that the Government are proposing, what would happen if an election were to take place, let us say, 10 days before the end of a parliamentary term? Would the Government really want to impose a mayoral election? I am not quite sure that 10 days works, but I am sure your Lordships get my gist. If Clause 16 were to stand, a certain amount of flexibility would be beneficial, notwithstanding my previous comments.
I also agree with the Government’s amendments, assuming that eight days is the correct period and would give time for an MP to stand down and so forth, but I have a particular question on this. It may be very unlikely, but what happens if an election for a mayor happens when Parliament is not sitting? My understanding is that an MP cannot resign when Parliament is not sitting. Could the Minister at least consider that? I am not necessarily expecting an answer here, but a written answer would be helpful for everyone.
The fundamental point is why this Government believe that the electorate are not the right group of people to decide who represents them, even if they decide that it is Andy Burnham.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne and Lord Fuller, for their amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, for moving the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, on members of legislatures disqualified for being a mayor of a strategic authority, and for probing whether Clause 16 is needed.
It is not the job of this Committee to debate the Labour Party rulebook or decisions of its national executive committee. Your Lordships must trust me that they do not want that job. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for their interventions on that issue.
Clause 16 will prevent individuals being a Member of Parliament, or of the devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and a mayor at the same time. This is an important clause for two reasons. First and most critically, the post of mayor is a vital role at the forefront of delivering change—whether that is economic growth, public services, planning for the strategic area, transport or many other issues—and its responsibilities will only increase with this Bill. The role must demand a person’s full attention as a full-time post, rather than being a part-time position done alongside another vital public service role.
Secondly, elected members and mayors have a duty to represent the constituents who elected them. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised the potential issue of having different constituencies. Fulfilling two different roles on behalf of different geographical areas could lead to conflicts of interest or undesirable trade-offs. This is absolutely not party political; it is common sense. Indeed, it is now the case that those mayors who are also police and crime commissioners—Andy Burnham and Tracy Brabin—cannot be Members of a UK legislature at the same time.
I know that this House operates on a slightly different basis, but when I joined it, I was still leader of my council. As a Minister you cannot do both jobs at the same time, but even before I was a Minister, I would not have dreamed of trying to do so. They are different jobs; both carry a heavy level of responsibility, and it was important to me to focus on one.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Can the Minister clarify that what she just said about PCCs and Members of the legislature concerns the elected Members? We have to be very careful here; we are part of the legislature.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I apologise; I could have been clearer on that. The noble Baroness is quite right: it is the elected legislature. In view of my comments, I ask that noble Lords do not press their amendments.
Government Amendments 77, 80, 82, 85 and 90 will modify Clause 16 to introduce a grace period in which a mayor can hold office and simultaneously be a Member of a UK elected legislature without being disqualified. The period will be eight days. To answer the question from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, the eight days enables the Chiltern Hundreds process to happen—that is the period required for going from being an MP to being a mayor. To go from being a mayor to being an MP, it enables the mayor to put their affairs in order before they take up their post as an MP. In the event that a mayor is running to be a Member of a UK legislature, it will be eight days beginning on the day when they are elected to that legislature.
I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, as I do not know the answer to his question. It is important that Members are given reasonable time to get their affairs in order and to ensure their resignation from the respective legislature. These amendments address concerns raised in the other place about ensuring that an orderly transition can occur in the event that an MP is appointed as a mayor. Similarly, mayors running to be a Member of a UK legislature would otherwise be disqualified immediately on election. Introducing the grace period provides a period of transition for the outgoing mayor to get their affairs in order. I commend these government amendments to the Committee.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I raised another point in relation to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne. With a very strict timetable of eight days, one could envisage situations where any sensible person would stand back and ask, “Do we really want to have a mayoral election for the sake of two, three or four weeks?” Will the Government consider a bit more flexibility?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I apologise; I meant to say to the noble Lord that I will write to him about the situation in which Parliament may not be sitting when that election takes place.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I appreciate that the Minister will do that, but I was also making the point that the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, would at least provide some flexibility. The common-sense approach would be to ask, “Why would I have a mayoral election this month when there’s one happening next month anyway?” Can there be a bit more flexibility? As the Labour Party has rightly said, it costs a lot of money to run an election in Manchester.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will reflect on that question and come back to the noble Lord.
“(1A) If a person—(a) is elected as the mayor for the area of a combined authority, and(b) is, on the first day of the mayoral term, an elected member of a legislature in the United Kingdom,the person is not disqualified under this paragraph for holding office as the mayor at any time in the period of eight days beginning with the first day of the mayoral term.(1B) If a person—(a) becomes an elected member of a legislature in the United Kingdom, and(b) is, when the person becomes the elected member, the mayor for the area of a combined authority,the person is not disqualified under this paragraph for holding office as the mayor at any time in the period of eight days beginning with the day on which the person becomes the elected member of the legislature.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would stop the new disqualification from applying during an 8 day “grace period” beginning with the day when it would otherwise apply (in the absence of this amendment). This would give time for an orderly resignation as legislator (where the person becomes mayor) or as mayor (where the person becomes a legislator).
““first day of the mayoral term” , in relation to a person who is elected as the mayor for the area of a combined authority, means the day that would be the first day of the person’s term as the mayor if it is assumed that the person is not disqualified under this paragraph.””Member’s explanatory statement
This makes clear that the effect of the new disqualification provision must be ignored when working out what is the first day of the mayoral term.
“(1A) If a person—(a) is elected as the mayor for the area of a CCA, and(b) is, on the first day of the mayoral term, an elected member of a legislature in the United Kingdom,the person is not disqualified under this paragraph for holding office as the mayor at any time in the period of eight days beginning with the first day of the mayoral term.(1B) If a person—(a) becomes an elected member of a legislature in the United Kingdom, and(b) is, when the person becomes the elected member, the mayor for the area of a CCA,the person is not disqualified under this paragraph for holding office as the mayor at any time in the period of eight days beginning with the day on which the person becomes the elected member of the legislature.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would stop the new disqualification from applying during an 8 day “grace period” beginning with the day when it would otherwise apply (in the absence of this amendment). This would give time for an orderly resignation as legislator (where the person becomes mayor) or as mayor (where the person becomes a legislator).
““first day of the mayoral term” , in relation to a person who is elected as the mayor for the area of a CCA, means the day that would be the first day of the person’s term as the mayor if it is assumed that the person is not disqualified under this paragraph.”Member’s explanatory statement
This makes clear that the effect of the new disqualification provision must be ignored when working out what is the first day of the mayoral term.
“(1A) If a person—(a) is elected as the Mayor, and(b) is, on the first day of the Mayoral term, an elected member of a legislature in the United Kingdom,the person is not disqualified under this section from being the Mayor at any time in the period of eight days beginning with the first day of the Mayoral term.(1B) If a person—(a) becomes an elected member of a legislature in the United Kingdom, and(b) is, when the person becomes the elected member, the Mayor,the person is not disqualified under this section from being the Mayor at any time in the period of eight days beginning with the day on which the person becomes the elected member of the legislature.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would stop the new disqualification from applying during an 8 day “grace period” beginning with the day when it would otherwise apply (in the absence of this amendment). This would give time for an orderly resignation as legislator (where the person becomes Mayor) or as Mayor (where the person becomes a legislator).
““first day of the Mayoral term” , in relation to a person who is elected as the Mayor, means the day that would be the first day of the person’s term as the Mayor if it is assumed that the person is not disqualified under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This makes clear that the effect of the new disqualification provision must be ignored when working out what is the first day of the Mayoral term.
Baroness Thornhill
“(3A) After subsection (13) insert—“(14) When making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to identify and minimise any conflict, overlap, or duplication between the functions of the Mayor and the functions of other authorities or public bodies.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State, when making regulations under section 30 of LURA 2023, to consider and minimise any potential conflict, overlap, or duplication between the Mayor’s functions and those of other authorities or public bodies.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 91, I will speak also to Amendment 92. These amendments are the only ones in the group and concern mayoral powers and functions. Interestingly, I note that some of the wise and pertinent comments made by the noble Lords who are now not in their place regarding issues with London boroughs and the mayor, born of hard-lived experience, will apply in the new structures. So there are real lessons to be learned. I am hoping that my amendments might help avoid some of the issues raised in group 1.
The Bill, as we know, gives mayors significant new powers, and none of us underestimates what that means; hence our collective concerns. The Government clearly support mayoral ambitions as a means of fulfilling their political objectives, many of which we might all agree with. But power alone does not equal good devolution or good governance. Both depend on clarity about who does what, who decides what and who is ultimately accountable. The last thing mayors need are fuzzy boundaries if they are to do the job effectively, as I know from bitter experience. These amendments simply require the Secretary of State—let us not forget that a lot is going to be left to the Secretary of State—when making regulations or orders about mayoral functions to
“have regard to the need to identify and minimise any conflict, overlap, or duplication between the functions of the Mayor and the functions of other authorities or public bodies”.
Let us be clear, the new mayors will be involved in all of this and will, quite rightly, have their fingers in every pie. If they are to make a significant difference to the regions that need them most, and to the country as a whole, they will need to be doing that. But these powers, as we know, come with a new complex structure and therefore these amendments are necessary. They simply make sure that at some point when new powers are designed, someone asks a basic question: how is this going to work alongside what already exists?
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to these amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who asked a number of important and timely questions.
Let me use her first amendment in this group as an example. It would require the Secretary of State, when making regulations, to consider and
“minimise any conflict, overlap, or duplication between the functions of the Mayor and the functions of other authorities or public bodies”.
This is absolutely sensible and common-sense, and it should happen. However, I suggest that, for clarity, this should extend also to Whitehall, from where powers are devolved; then, with the exception of oversight, those powers and the bureaucracy involved should no longer exist within Whitehall.
The Bill amends the 2023 Act through numerous schedules and amendments. It is right, therefore, that we ensure this clarity and avoid unnecessary overlap. I am sure that many Members in this Grand Committee will remember the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill through the House. It was a long and complex piece of legislation—I pay tribute to the excellent work done by my noble friend Lady Scott—and the changes in this policy and space must be approached with care. I am keen, therefore, to hear from the Minister about the Government’s overall approach to avoiding unnecessary and costly duplication and legal uncertainty, in relation not just to this amendment but across the Bill as a whole.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her amendments on the role of mayors. Before I respond to these amendments, I want to clarify the rationale for Clause 18. The clause will extend an existing power of the Secretary of State to provide that certain general functions may be exercised solely by a mayor. The power currently exists in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and, as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. This clause will ensure that it can also apply to general functions conferred under any other regulation or Act of Parliament. The extension of this existing power reflects the broader range of routes through which functions may be conferred on strategic authorities and their mayors, once the current Bill becomes law.
Amendments 91 and 92 seek to amend this clause and prevent the potential for conflict, overlap or duplication between a mayor’s functions and those of other authorities or public bodies. As your Lordships will know, mayors of combined authorities or combined county authorities are not corporate entities in themselves. For that reason, all functions must be conferred on the underlying authority rather than directly on to the mayor. However, some functions may be designated as mayoral functions, as they are to be exercised only by the mayor. Where functions have been made mayoral, they typically relate to the management of day-to-day activities.
Key strategic decisions still require approval by the strategic authority constituent members. To give an example, all members will vote on which roads form part of a key route network, after which the mayor will be responsible for managing it. This will allow for swifter decision-making and more effective governance on day-to-day matters.
It will be important that all tiers of local government work together to benefit their communities. This is why principal local authorities will be embedded within the decision-making structures of strategic authorities as full constituent members. This will ensure that they play a central role in drawing up specific strategies and plans, such as local growth plans. Furthermore, before any new function is conferred on a strategic authority by regulations, the Secretary of State will be required to consult the constituent councils of any affected strategic authorities and any other person who exercises the function concerned. This will ensure that the views of those affected are properly considered.
I hope that, with these explanations, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I absolutely accept that the new structures are complex and complicated. It is very easy to be seduced by the noble Baroness’s fluent explanation. My amendment was coming more from the perspective of practicalities, which was also borne out by the comments earlier that, in reality, there is overlap, with weakened scrutiny, unclear accountability and eroded public trust. I would like to feel that a lot of work was being done into what those are. We know it is probably happening, but it is all going to come later through SIs and secondary legislation. I wanted to make it absolutely clear, up front, that those overlaps and duplications will be considered, because they will be a source of conflict and friction going forward. It was interesting that the leaders of boroughs are saying that that is happening even 20 or however many years later. But, for the moment, I will withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“(f) the progress of housebuilding as a consequence of devolution, including whether housing targets are being met and whether the right types of housing are being delivered to meet local needs,(g) the rate and distribution of economic growth in devolved areas, with particular reference to the impact of newly devolved powers,(h) any tax changes made within devolved areas under the powers conferred by this Act, including analysis of their fiscal impact and effect on local services, and(i) changes to the organisation, delivery, and funding of social care in devolved areas, including an assessment of outcomes for service users.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expands the reporting requirements placed on the Secretary of State. It seeks to probe how the Government will assess the wider consequences of devolution, including the impact on housebuilding and whether local housing targets are being met; the effect of devolved powers on economic growth; the fiscal implications of tax changes introduced by devolved authorities; and the consequences of devolution for the delivery, funding, and outcomes of social care services.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, let me make it clear from the outset that, with Amendment 93, we are not asking for a new bureaucratic hurdle in yet another review, but a few additional report considerations. Amendment 93 in my name would expand the reporting requirements placed on the Secretary of State. It seeks to understand how the Government intend to assess the wider consequences of devolution, including: its impact on housebuilding and the delivery of housing targets; its effect on economic growth; the fiscal implications of tax changes introduced by devolved authorities; and the consequences for the organisation, funding and outcomes of social care services.
I will take each proposed new paragraph of this amendment in turn, beginning with paragraph (f). This asks the Secretary of State to consider the progress of housebuilding as a consequence of devolution, including whether housing targets are being met and whether the right types of housing are being delivered to meet local needs. We have consistently made it clear that we support new homes. The Conservative Party is pro development. However, we are equally clear that local voices must be taken along this journey and that local consent must remain front and centre. Only then can we ensure that the right homes are built in the right places, meeting the genuine needs of local communities. Devolution, if done well, has the potential to unlock more housing delivery. This amendment simply asks how we will measure progress against that ambition.
Proposed new paragraph (g) concerns the rate and distribution of economic growth in devolved areas, with particular reference to the impact of newly devolved powers. Devolution has long been argued as a means of restoring local growth. George Osborne, as Chancellor of the Exchequer between 2010 and 2016, was the principal architect of the metro mayor model, advancing it as the cornerstone of the northern powerhouse agenda. The argument was clear that empowering city regions with elected local leadership could help rebalance an economy overly concentrated in London, drawing on the well-established economic case for productivity growth in cities. This amendment simply asks how the Government intend to judge whether these devolved powers are, in practice, delivering that promise and whether growth is being spread more evenly across regions. I hope the Minister will agree that this is a sensible extension to the Minister’s report requirements.
Proposed new paragraph (h) relates to
“tax changes made within devolved areas under the powers conferred by this Act, including analysis of their fiscal impact and effect on local services”.
Tax policy shapes behaviour, incentives and market signals. Changes to local taxation will inevitably affect residents, businesses and the funding of public services. Local people have a right to understand how such decisions affect them and how the revenues raised are being translated into outcomes. How do the Government propose to analyse the behavioural and fiscal consequences of devolved tax decisions? What mechanisms will ensure transparency and accountability to Parliament, but mainly to local residents, for the impact of those choices on services?
Finally, proposed new paragraph (i) concerns changes to the organisation, delivery and funding of social care in devolved areas, including assessment of outcomes for service users. Social care is among the most vital and sensitive of the public services we provide. It also represents a substantial and growing call on public finances. Devolution may bring opportunities for innovation and better integration with local health services. However, it also carries the risk of variation in provision and outcomes. With this in mind, how will the Government ensure that devolved arrangements protect service users and maintain consistent standards of care? What measures will be used to assess whether outcomes are improving for those who rely on social care, rather than simply shifting responsibilities between tiers of government? This amendment reflects a desire to ensure that devolution works as intended, delivering growth, homes and better services while remaining transparent, accountable and focused on outcomes. I hope the Minister can provide reassurance on how the Government intend to monitor and report these important issues.
An extension of the reporting requirements in Clause 19 seems a sensible and proportionate addition. It does not seek to constrain Ministers or to prescribe outcomes, but rather to ensure that Parliament and the public can properly understand how these significant powers are being used in practice.
I anticipate that the Minister may say that such a requirement is unnecessary and that existing reporting mechanisms are sufficient. However, devolution should ultimately be judged against its ambitions. If we are serious about empowering local areas to deliver more homes, stronger growth and better public services, it follows that we must also be serious about measuring whether those ambitions are being met. Local people must be able to see the effects of devolution in their communities and Parliament must be able to hold both central and local government to account for the outcomes it produces. For those reasons, I hope the Government will reflect carefully on whether modest additional reporting could strengthen rather than hinder the success of this agenda. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, that Amendment 93 is sensible and proportionate. If you are going to have an annual report, the modest additional reporting proposed in this amendment would, as she said, help us understand better the success of devolution.
I will speak to Amendments 94 and 197 in the name of my noble friend Lady Pinnock. It needs to be demonstrated clearly in the annual reporting whether the Secretary of State has been exercising powers under this Act without the consent of or contrary to decisions made by locally elected officials. It would be entirely reasonable and helpful, when we are asked to pass a Bill about devolution from Westminster, to know what the Secretary of State has actually done in the previous year.
On Amendment 197, we will touch on parish and town councils later, but there is a fundamental issue here. If we have a Bill called the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, the Government should be reviewing and promoting parish and town councils, maximising their geographical coverage and making an annual report to Parliament as to what has been done. The danger with this Bill is that so much power is being concentrated. I tried last week to get greater devolution from the strategic authorities to existing local government and then through to existing town and parish councils, but the Government were not amenable. I hope that further progress will have been made on that by Report.
There are two other amendments in my name. Amendment 252 would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of local and community banking powers. I am grateful for the briefing I received from the Royal Holloway positive money group and its advice on this amendment. This is about the terribly important issue of how devolution drives growth in practice. One of the Government’s objectives is to drive growth, but how do you do that if the resources are not there? This amendment would be central to the success of the Bill, because it addresses a core structural barrier that currently undermines devolution: the centralised control of credit creation.
The Bill seeks to devolve political authority and fiscal responsibility, and it talks about community power, but I do not think that that will be fully realised without devolving financial capacity—that is, the creation of local, community and publicly owned banks. This amendment would ensure that devolved authorities are not responsible for growth outcomes when they lack the financial tools to influence those outcomes. Devolution means that powers have to accompany those devolved responsibilities. There are three aspects to devolution: devolution of powers, devolution of responsibilities and devolution of resources. But there is a problem for the devolved authorities in their ability to deliver local growth, resilient public finances and genuine community empowerment.
I am asking the Minister to do some further work and give more consideration to this. I will bring this back on Report, but I am not asking for the solution to be identified immediately. A range of issues need to be addressed and some are complex. I fear that, when this Bill is an Act, it will get into difficulty with its delivery—in generating growth and jobs. I hope that the Minister does not seek to rule out this amendment offhand.
My other amendment in this group is Amendment 253. I was tempted to degroup, but I decided that it is probably better to bring together all the amendments where I am asking for reviews, to raise these issues and ask the Government to think about them, because I will also bring back this amendment on Report.
There needs to be a review of regional and national public spending. Different parts of the United Kingdom have significantly different amounts of public expenditure. I quote from Table 9.1b of total UK identifiable expenditure on services, per head, from 2023 to 2024, which is the last year in which information is available. The information is from the Government’s Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2025. That shows that, if the average for nations and regions in the UK is 100, some are well above that and others are well below. London is at 115, when the average is 100. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all well in excess of 100.
There are some reasons for these differences that are unique to those places, which means that work has to be done to understand why that is. However, the Barnett formula is at the heart of it. That formula, designed by the late Lord Barnett and introduced in the late 1970s, is a very useful instrument for the Treasury to disburse money to the nations, but it hides the significant differences in public spending across the UK.
To that extent, I have tried before to get the Government adequately to explain why, when the average public expenditure is 100, the east Midlands is only 90—in other words, 10 percentage points below the average. The great danger of the Bill is that, when it becomes an Act, it will promote a blame culture. The mayors will blame the Government for not having enough resource, and the public will blame the mayors. The whole democratic system will be in some difficulty if it is not understood why some places get much higher levels of public spending than other areas.
All I am asking the Government is that they are aware of this matter and review it. It implies reviewing the Barnett formula, and I have previously moved Questions for Short Debate and proposals for that to happen in your Lordships’ House. I have not been alone in doing that. A number of years ago, there was a Select Committee of your Lordships’ House that urged reform of the Barnett formula to one that has a needs assessment across the UK. I ask the Minister whether the Government might think about that.
I am going to bring this back on Report. I understand that it is primarily a matter for the Treasury, but somebody does have to explain all this, because otherwise the public are simply going to say, “As mayors compete with each other for the favours of the Treasury, whose fault is it that they are getting more money than us?”
I want devolution to succeed, but the Government have to understand this issue a bit better. How can we empower community banking? How can we invest for growth outside the existing structures? How can the Government make sure that, when they are spending public money, they are allocating it fairly across the United Kingdom? I hope that the Minister will give me some indication that the Government are prepared to look at this.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am sorry if I am speaking out of order; we are missing quite a few signatories. I will speak to Amendment 197 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and Amendment 252—about local and community banking powers—which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, just addressed. The timing of this debate is interesting, because just this morning Santander announced that it is closing a further 44 branches after an earlier announcement that it would be closing 95 branches around the country. Lloyds is closing more than 100 branches by March. A total of 432 bank branches closed in 2025; this puts the figure of bank branches lost at some 7,000.
Large banks, whether based in London or globally, will say that everyone is going digital. What I find, however, when I travel to communities up and down the land, is that quite often the fact that they no longer have a bank or that their last bank is about to close is a major issue. If you speak to a small or even medium-sized enterprise and ask if they are getting financing from the banks, they just laugh at you. The kind of application you have to make includes filling in an enormous number of forms. You do not speak to a person, and the application churns through the computer; computer says no and that is the end of it. Historically, you would have a local bank manager who knew the local community and its businesspeople, and was able to support people whom they knew were worth the punt. The large banks are physically evacuating out of communities and are just not interested in anything except large, multinational companies and their like.
This is why, with regard to local and community banking powers, getting local banks set up is in the interests of local communities and absolutely something to be looked at as an option by Government. I note that, although I am not entirely praising it—I should declare that I am a customer—Nationwide, with its co-operative model, is staying in communities far more, but it still cannot do everything that communities need by any means. Amendment 252 is therefore terribly important.
I turn to Amendment 197’s duty to review parish and town councils. I declare my position as a vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils. Despite the rhetoric around it, this Bill is taking local democracy far further from the people. In many places—as has been happening through more than a decade of austerity—parish and town councils have been picking up the slack where larger bodies have stepped away and not had the money to engage.
More than a dozen years ago I was in Leominster, and the list of services that the local town council had picked up there ran from keeping the public toilet open—I am sorry; I seem to have a theme today, but it was not my intention—to keeping the tourist information centre open to cutting the grass and looking after the green spaces. These tasks had been abandoned by the unitary authority and were therefore picked up by the town council. The problem is that Leominster is an historic town—there is a wonderful, medieval town hall to meet in—but it is often the more disadvantaged communities around the country that do not have parish and town councils. One example is the large new council estates. Those who need it most do not have that local representation. A review, therefore, would be welcome in examining the Government’s heading to take democracy away from the people and enabling us to see how we can restore it at grass-roots level. To me that is essential.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all of the noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have taken part in this debate. I especially thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Bybrook and Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lords, Lord Norton and Lord Shipley, for their amendments on the subject of reviews.
Taken together, Amendments 93, 251, 253 and 255 seek to expand the requirements on the Secretary of State to report on the effect of the Act and the outcomes in various policy areas; and to undertake reviews of regional public spending and the effectiveness of community empowerment measures. The duty to produce an annual report on English devolution already exists to update Parliament on the progress made by the Government on devolution in England. We are already amending these reporting requirements to include which powers, functions and funding have been devolved to strategic authorities from central government. The reporting of outcomes in policy areas such as housebuilding, economic growth and social care already takes place. Social care is not going to strategic authorities; it will remain with local authorities. These policy outcomes are dependent on myriad factors, and a report on English devolution would not be the appropriate place to cover them.
On tax and public spending, the requirements for the annual report on English devolution, as amended by Clause 19, already cover any new powers to impose new taxes, as well as the funding devolved to strategic authorities. Combined authorities must also publish upcoming decisions that will have a significant effect on their citizens. These amendments would place an unnecessary, duplicative burden on the Secretary of State; in the case of social care, they would create new reporting requirements in areas where local authorities, rather than strategic authorities, have responsibility. I therefore ask noble Lords to withdraw them.
Amendment 94 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, seeks to expand the requirements on the Secretary of State to report where a power in this Bill is used without the consent of “local officials”. The amendment does not define “local officials”, so it is not clear who would be in scope of the reporting. Where appropriate, the use of certain powers in the Bill already has requirements to consult local leaders; for example, constituent councils must be consulted where a function is conferred through Schedule 25 or where a strategic authority is established. It is not reasonable to expect that there will always be unanimous support for the use of any given Secretary of State power, and it would be disproportionate to require reporting where a power has been used with widespread, but not unanimous, local support.
The Government greatly value the role that parish and town councils play in bringing forward the priorities of their communities and delivering effective local services. Although I understand the intention behind Amendment 197, I cannot accept it, I am afraid. We do not believe that a national, top town review is the right approach. Existing legislation already provides clear routes for establishing new parish and town councils through community governance reviews. These reviews are led locally, are responsive to community identity and ensure that new councils emerge where there is genuine local support. Imposing a duty to maximise geographical coverage would risk forcing parish and town councils on to areas where other neighbourhood governance arrangements may be more appropriate—in urban settings, for example. The Government value the role of parish and town councils; we want to continue working with the sector to support strong, effective, community-led governance, but that does not mean mandating a single model across the country.
It is only fair to point out at this stage that there are about 10,000 parish councils in England and about 100,000 local parish councillors. The sector varies hugely in size from city or town councils to hamlet-sized parish meetings. According to analysis from the National Association of Local Councils and the Democracy Club, in the 2025 parish council elections, 21.4% of seats were left vacant. Sample data suggests that around 55% of these vacant seats were filled by co-option, which would suggest that 11.7% of seats were co-opted. Of the remainder, 65%, or on the way to two-thirds of seats, were elected uncontested, and 12.8% were elected through a contested poll; this is consistent with the rate of contested elections in previous years, which is why we value the work of town and parish councillors. We have to take into consideration the variety of those authorities and their capacity to fulfil some of the duties with which we want to provide them, so in our view a top-down single model across the country would not work.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
To go back to the Minister’s comments before he sits down. It is interesting that the Government seem to want one model across the country at higher levels, but not here. Will the Minister acknowledge that it is generally the parish areas and town councils that tend to be wealthier, older communities and it is the most vulnerable communities with less social and financial capital in them that may not be able to prepare themselves for this? However, the Government might identify that there is gap and put in resources to help them.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
There is a duty to provide that kind of governance in the Bill. All I am trying to say is that there are various kinds of capacity in the 10,000 parish councils and they are not all the same. We cannot approach them in the same way. We know some of them have problems. I come from a shire county in the north-east of England so I know the capacity of parish councils and town councils to do certain jobs. We are well aware of that, and it is something that we obviously want to try and improve, and work with these parish and town councils into the future.
Amendment 252 concerns the powers available to local and combined authorities to promote local economic growth through banking and credit provision. Banking regulation is of systemic national interest. Its implementation must be consistent in applying technical standards, ensuring financial stability and protecting taxpayers. As such, it remains important that banking regulation continues to be considered at the national level as a reserved matter. Local and community banking is already possible within the existing framework, and the UK has a strong record of enabling new entrants to support access to finance. Mutuals, including building societies and credit unions, play a key role in supporting local economic growth. The Government are committed to doubling the size of the mutuals sector, with reforms already under way to help mutuals grow and raise capital. Further, through our financial inclusion strategy, the Government are improving access to affordable credit and strengthening community finance partnerships to support people and local economies. As such, the objectives of the proposed review are already addressed by existing initiatives, and I ask noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 93 in my name is about understanding whether devolution is delivering what it promises, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for his support. The Bill places significant powers in the hands of devolved authorities, which is welcome, but with these powers must come clear and transparent assessment of their impact, not only on governance structures but on outcomes that matter to people’s daily lives.
The amendment seeks to expand the Secretary of State’s reporting requirements to cover four key areas, as I have said: housebuilding, economic growth, fiscal change and social care. These are central tests of success. Are housing targets being met? Are the right homes being delivered in the right places? Is devolution driving growth, et cetera? These are not unreasonable questions; they are essential if Parliament is to judge whether devolution is improving outcomes or delivering value for money and reducing inequalities between different places across our country.
This amendment would not prescribe policy but simply ask the Government to measure, report and be transparent about the consequences of their choice. I have listened to the Minister’s response, but he will not be surprised that I am disappointed. I do not think that using the existing reporting system will necessarily cover things and give us answers on whether these very major changes to local government are a success or whether they need some change. We need to look at this further before Report.
I have not done as much work as I should on parish and town councils, because I know that they will come up in future groupings. However, the one thing that came out of this debate for me, and from one or two of the Government’s responses on different groupings, is that town and parish councils are enshrined in legislation; they have rules. I cannot see anything further in this Bill that would put another type of very local responsible organisation in primary legislation. I would be very worried if there were. These neighbourhood arrangements are not going to be legislative arrangements; they will just be local groupings.
I have seen a lot of how this works in Wiltshire. When we went unitary, we were totally parished; we set up the city of Salisbury as a parish council. However, we also had area boards, which were within our council’s gift. They were where local councillors, police and fire representatives and local council officers got together to discuss local issues. Those boards had small budgets as well. They are very different things, however. I would also suggest that parish councils would work in cities and towns—they do work in some. They work very well in neighbourhoods and, in new developments where there are a large number of houses, they can work, but they want the support of government to work, and some small changes in government policy to make them work. I am not sure that having a parallel neighbourhood arrangement is the correct way to go.
The detail of that is for another debate before this Bill finishes Committee. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment and, as I said, we will consider this further and possibly bring something back on Report.
Baroness Janke (LD)
“Secretary of State duty: strategic authority character and consent(1) Before undertaking a function listed in subsection (2), the Secretary of State must discharge the duties described in subsections (3) and (4).(2) The functions are any function carried out by the Secretary of State under—(a) sections 109B and 112B of LDECA 2009 (establishing or adding to a combined authority), as inserted by this Act;(b) section 25A of LURA 2023 (designating a CCA as an established mayoral strategic authority), as inserted by this Act;(c) section 3 of this Act (designating a council as a single foundation strategic authority). (3) The first duty is that the Secretary of State must publish a statement assessing how the following characteristics of the local government areas involved would be affected by the completion of the function—(a) the cohesiveness of the area’s community identity and physical character;(b) the boundaries of other public services in the area.(4) The second duty is that the Secretary of State must obtain consent for the function from any affected local government areas.”
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, this amendment would place certain requirements on the Secretary of State in the event of significant local government reorganisation. Before the Secretary of State redraws the local government structures, the amendment simply asks for two things: a realistic assessment of the impact on communities and services, and consent from the areas affected.
Local government boundaries are not abstract lines on a map. They shape how people identify with their area, how services are delivered and how effectively different public bodies work together. Ignoring those realities risks creating authorities that may look tidy from Whitehall but feel incoherent and unworkable on the ground. Delivering on strategic decisions is dependent on the successful management of a host of local issues and circumstances underpinning any strategic developments. I mentioned earlier the creation of the regional assemblies, which were the complete antithesis of that and suffered again from this incoherence and inability to deliver on strategic objectives because of a lack of support at local level.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment because it opens up some interesting thoughts. Some years ago, I worked in east London on what had been for many years a dysfunctional housing estate in Tower Hamlets. As some noble Lords will know, Tower Hamlets has, over many years, experienced the dysfunction of local government and services. My work began in a place where nothing was working properly and a small group of us in a local church decided we wanted to be practical and do something about it. We have gained competence in delivering projects, having delivered 1,000 projects over the years. With local residents, we have built our own housing company, which now has 10,000 properties, owns 34% of the land in Poplar and has about a £2 billion regeneration programme in play. But it did not start like that; it started very small, in a housing estate, where, behind our buildings, there was a local authority park where children were injecting on a night.
At that point, we must have worked through 14 Governments but then the Liberals—not the Liberal Democrats—were running the local authority, and they began to realise that, as a local community group and charity, we had competence in delivering things when so much did not seem to work. All the policies and everything were in place, but things did not work. They started to have a conversation with us—our first small project—about whether we would like to run the local park behind our buildings where children were injecting at night. What happened to us at the other end of the telescope was that we spent six months with the chief executive of the local authority putting together a proper plan, in great detail, for the management of that park, getting to know each other and building relationships, and we got it to a place where we were ready to start.
There was then a council election. At that point, the Liberals had created seven neighbourhoods. They lost the election; the Labour Party won, and it then created seven committees. All the work we had been doing for quite some time was completely lost. It was not the Labour Party’s or anyone else’s fault but, for those of us trying to do something about that park, it was another example of local structures and processes creating massive dysfunction for local people. The terms “community reality” and “place-based knowledge” really matter, and we should not just assume that councillors and others have all the knowledge of such realities.
I have one thought for the Government. There is a real opportunity in this legislation, and I am pleased that they are thinking about this; I am encouraging the process. I gave the officials a document we wrote for Demos during the previous Labour Administration about our work in east London, called Communities in Business. I have had no reply from any of the civil servants about it, but it sets out in some detail some of the work we have done and the thinking behind it. We are not the only people doing this. I now operate across the country and there are other really interesting examples that are led not by councillors or parish councils but by groups of people who come together, put a business logic behind something and deliver a very different kind of culture.
This amendment, and the discussion we had earlier, opens up the opportunity to start to think differently about this stuff and what community empowerment might really mean. Of course it needs to involve government and councillors, but I suggest that it is not just about them; it is about the people in these real places who are often grappling with the machinery of the state, certainly in places such as Tower Hamlets, which has not worked for many years.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for her Amendment 95A, which is modest but important. It does not seek to block devolution or slow it down unnecessarily. Instead, it asks for two simple safeguards when new strategic authorities are created or altered: transparency and consent. The amendment seeks to strengthen rather than weaken the devolution framework in the Bill and attempt to ensure that strategic authorities are rooted in local identity, coherent service delivery and democratic agreement. For those reasons, I hope the Government will give it serious consideration.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for her amendment and noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. This amendment concerns the powers in this Bill for the Secretary of State to direct the establishment or expansion of a combined authority and to designate single foundational strategic authorities and established mayoral strategic authorities.
The amendment would require the publication of a statement assessing the impact on community identity and public service boundaries when these powers are used, as well as requiring consent from the affected area. I am pleased to say that the Bill already contains safeguards to address these issues. For example, before conferring functions on a single foundational strategic authority or unitary authority, the Secretary of State must consider the effective exercise of functions for a local area. In addition, local consent is required prior to designation as a single foundational strategic authority.
The Secretary of State may designate an established mayoral strategic authority only if the authority submits a written proposal asking to be so designated. The authority’s consent is an inherent part of the process, as no authority can be designated unless it actively applies. Also, the criteria outlined in the English devolution White Paper are clear about the eligibility requirements for a mayoral strategic authority seeking to be designated as established. These criteria are designed to ensure the effective exercise of functions across a local area.
Finally, on the establishment or expansion of combined authorities, the Government have been clear that it is our strong preference and practice to work in partnership with local areas to develop proposals for devolution that carry the broad support of local leaders and the local area. The power to direct the establishment or expansion of a combined authority would only ever be used as a last resort where a local area has not brought forward its own viable proposal. This will ensure that all areas across England are able to benefit from devolution and that no area is left behind.
On the establishment or expansion of combined authorities more generally, the Bill already includes the necessary safeguards, including a statutory test to ensure effective and convenient local government across the areas of competence. Furthermore, where the geographical expansion of a combined authority area could affect the exercise of its functions, the Secretary of State must consider this before making an order to expand the authority.
I hope that, with this response, the noble Baroness is able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Janke (LD)
I thank the Minister for the response, but I feel that the safeguards he has outlined do not address the potential risks in this Bill. The message that seems to be going out at the moment is that the Government are determined to deliver at any cost. Local communities are very mistrustful that they will listen to them. We have heard a lot about a bonfire of the rules and red tape that many local people see as safeguards and protections for themselves. I am afraid that the safeguards in the Bill are not adequate to reassure people: parish councils are barely mentioned and there does not seem to be much in the Bill about joint vision, mutual self-interest and shared benefits.
This modest amendment would be much more reassuring, particularly for areas that will be amalgamated into large tracts and counties which did not necessarily work well without district councils. For many areas, the loss of district councils is enormous. I do not believe that the safeguards outlined in the Bill address those concerns. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but may come back to it in future.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
“(2A) In the definition of “local authority”—(a) in paragraph (f), for “an eligible” substitute “a”, and(b) omit subsection (2).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would include all parish councils in the definition of a local authority which has a power of general competence and remove the eligibility conditions prescribed by the Secretary of State by order for the purposes of section 8 of the Localism Act 2011.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for not being here a bit earlier and hearing more of the earlier debate and discussion about parish councils. My amendment seeks to include all parish councils in the definition of a local authority which has a power of general competence. It would remove the eligibility conditions prescribed by the Secretary of State for the purposes of Section 8 of the Localism Act 2011. My rationale for this has, in part, already been mentioned in this Committee by a number of colleagues opposite.
My first experience of local government was the local parish council for the village I grew up in, in Great Bentley in Essex. My mother was not actually a parish councillor, but she was a regular attender, and she was a pain in the neck—a very good and positive one. Part of her thing was trying to persuade the local parish to release part of the village green—it was 40-odd acres, so very large—to have a village hall built on it. They decided in, I think 1970, to conduct a local referendum. She was on one side of the argument, and I was on the green side of the argument; I did not believe they should use common land for a village hall. My side won and my mother held this against me for a number of years afterwards. But it demonstrated to me, at quite a young age, the power and importance of local communities and local community representation.
I borrowed and took some of that thinking into my broader politics over time. I was very pleased when, back in the 1990s as the leader of my local authority in Brighton and Hove, I was able to push ahead with the parishing of one part of our local authority area, Rottingdean, because it enabled the local community there to develop local services. By removing this shackle on parish and town councils, we could enable them to deliver much more. I am one of those people who believes in devolving powers and responsibilities to the lowest possible sustainable level. I think parish councils and town councils are capable of producing services and developing new, useful and valuable close-to-community facilities.
To that end, when I was chair of the Co-op Party commission, I argued that when Labour came into government we should empower parish and town councils, because they are close to the communities that they serve. At the moment, they cannot access funds in the same way as higher tiers of local authority. Back then, I reflected that they could not access the community renewal fund, the levelling-up fund, the towns fund or the UK shared prosperity fund. The same is the story now, of course, while Labour reviews its position on parishes.
In our report back in 2022-23, we made a number of recommendations: we should invest more in that lowest level of governance; parish and town councils should be able to develop amenities and be given the opportunity to develop capital sums; with the development of super-unitary authorities, which we envisaged in our devolution model, the emergence of parish and town councils would be essential to genuinely empower people and communities; and we should invest in training and better servicing of those parishes. That is why I am very attracted to this amendment, which has been valuably drafted by the National Association of Local Councils. With the larger unitaries, we will inevitably lose a sense of place if we are not very careful. That is why helping parish and town councils is so important.
I pick on one particular authority, not because I have anything for or against it—but who knows what Kirklees covers? Local government anoraks might, but people living in Kirklees possibly do not. That is because it is made up of composite urban areas glued together for the convenience of a local authority map. Some of that will inevitably happen when we increase the size of councils to fit into a unitary model. If we are serious about place-making, we need to do all that we can to stimulate more interest in town and parish councils, because the larger the authority, the more remote it is from the citizen and the community.
My tilt at this is contained partly in this amendment. Many of the urban areas that will be brought together in the new unitaries deserve a powerful voice. They deserve to be better integrated into the network of local authorities and to be seen as a powerful partner. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, on the Conservative Benches, made that point the other day when he was talking about the inevitability of large authorities, and it was a very important point. The comments from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, earlier touched on some of the issues that arose. If we want to be good localist, to value the importance of place-making, and to put more emphasis on that—as we on the Labour side certainly do—we should look again at what local town and parish councils should do and give them the powers and tools to do the job, which they were set up to do many years ago. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for leading this group; I entirely agree with what he says. I hope that we may be able to achieve a further step forward on this when we get to Report. He said many things, but I shall just draw out one of them. In all these changes, we have to avoid decision-making becoming more remote from people. He has a solution, and my noble friend Lady Pinnock had one in a previous group, so I hope that the Government will be willing to explore this further. As I say, we will look at this issue again on Report.
In this group, I have Amendment 241C, which is a probing amendment. I would like the Government to comment on the general power of competence that is being given to English national parks authorities in Clause 73. My amendment would require those authorities to consult communities surrounded by or bordered by a national park on matters that might impact those communities. The need for this review is because the national parks have separate planning powers. Areas bordering or surrounded by a national park need to be given the reassurance that, where there may be an impact on them as a result of a national park’s decision, they have a right to be formally consulted on it. In the context of a new general power of competence, will the consultation actually happen? I think that it must happen, for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, raised about decision-making becoming remote.
Strategic authorities are going to be very large. Many existing local authorities are also very large. The more we have unitary councils, the more that trend will be increased. The right to be consulted matters more than it may have mattered hitherto. As a consequence of that, where a general power of competence is being given to a national park authority in Clause 73, that should be accompanied by a requirement to consult those communities surrounded or bordered by a national park on matters that might impact on those communities. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the Government are prepared to look at this issue further.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I would like to give an alternative view from that of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on Amendment 241C. First, though, I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam: I spent 10 and a half years representing Great Bentley in the European Parliament—not all of its residents, but the greater group in the area—and it was a great privilege to represent that part of Essex.
I pay tribute to the work of the North York Moors National Park Authority. Let me say a word about how dramatic its work has been, with the wildfires last summer and the potential prosect of further wildfires ahead. It has done a sterling job. Obviously, at one stage, it looked as though livelihoods and livestock might be imperilled and lost with the wildfire at Fylingdales, which was in my constituency for the last five years of my time in the other place; it came perilously close to many farms. I pay tribute to the work that the authority did.
I apologise that I did not realise that I should have spoken before the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in order to understand more about the background to what he is seeking to do. I would like just to place on the record that, to my certain knowledge, the powers that the North York Moors National Park Authority already has—as well as the powers under the Bill—are received very warmly. It is already working quite hard, I think, and devoting a large amount of time to consulting as widely as it possibly can. I am slightly concerned that Amendment 241C could introduce an extra burden that it would be very hard pressed to meet.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches welcome Amendment 97 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, to whom I am grateful.
Parish councils are the most local level of government. They were based on one of the most ancient forms of local administration in England, namely the parish system, which is still rightly maintained by the established Church of this country. Any Bill that wants to reflect the movement towards localism and protect local geographical identity must, in our opinion, have provisions to empower parishes. Parish councils are often the best places to truly understand local views on issues that face local people, providing insights on planning and enhancing both community well-being and quality of life, with the protection of things such as green spaces, playing fields and allotments. They can pay attention to the little things that matter but from which larger bodies are too distant—or in which they are disinterested.
The National Association of Local Councils, of which I am a vice-president, has highlighted that town and parish councils raise more than £900 million in precepts each year and invest more than £2 billion in communities. I thank all of the approximately 10,000 of these councils in England for the volunteering that they do, their time and their energy; indeed, they put some 14 million hours a year into serving their communities. They deserve more of a place in this Bill. Can the Minister explain, therefore, why the Government are not protecting and strengthening such councils’ roles in this Bill?
On Amendment 241C, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for raising this issue. Clearly, there is a problem, in that some communities that border or surround the national parks have less of a say because they are currently not consulted on matters that affect them. However, I remain somewhat hesitant about how this amendment might work in practice. I will talk to the noble Lord because I would like some further clarification on, for example, how a consultation taking place for the communities in the Peak District might have to involve, say, the city of Sheffield. How large or close would a community have to be in order to be consulted, in other words?
In addition, we would also like to understand, as my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering mentioned, the implications on any authority’s resources and capacity. I am interested in the views of the Minister on that amendment as well. We strongly support giving local people more of a voice, which is what this Bill says it should be doing. But we strongly believe in the role of town and parish councils as a way to get really local voices into local services delivery. I urge the Government to look further at the role of town and parish councils in the new local government model for this country.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who took part in this debate. My noble friend Lord Bassam’s Amendment 97 would amend Section 8 of the Localism Act 2011 so that all parish councils could make full use of the general power of competence. That is a broad enabling power which empowers an authority to do anything that individuals generally may do unless specifically prohibited. Authorities have used the general power of competence in a wide variety of ways. For example, Hertfordshire County Council has used the power to provide the basis for its participation in the local authority mortgage scheme, which supports the local housing market by supporting first-time buyers.
Given the breadth of the general power of competence, it is important that any authority exercising it has appropriate arrangements in place for effective oversight and scrutiny. In particular, where a parish council is to be conferred the general power of competence, it must have the means and capacity to oversee its use responsibly. This is one of the reasons why Section 8 of the Localism Act 2011 empowers the Secretary of State to set conditions that must be present before the general power of competence can be conferred on a parish council. I pay tribute to the work of parish and town councils. Coming from a shire county in the north-east of England, I understand the importance of what they do. But, as I said earlier—my noble friend Lord Bassam might not have been here at the time—21% of seats are left vacant on parish and town councils. We have to be careful, if the capacity is not there, about giving the general power of competence over to a parish council. The capacity has to be there for them to use it.
Amendment 241C from the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, would place a duty on national park authorities to consult neighbouring communities when taking decisions to use their general power of competence. This Bill is providing national park authorities with the general power of competence to ensure that our national parks are able to operate more effectively and deliver our national priorities in our most iconic landscapes. Providing national park authorities with the general power of competence brings national parks in line with local authorities. It is not a requirement for local authorities to consult on their use of powers with neighbouring communities, although they may choose to consult on certain decisions if they want to. Imposing such a duty on national park authorities could introduce unnecessary bureaucracy for national parks. The general power of competence is well established and widely understood across the sector, and reduces the need for the Government to issue legal clarifications on new legislative instruments. The national park authorities will remain subject to these same constraints and we see no reason for any divergence from the arrangements already in place for local authorities. I hope that, after these explanations and comments, my noble friend Lord Bassam and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, will feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I will withdraw my amendment. I think the noble Lord’s primary argument was about a potential lack of capacity at local level and the need to have proper oversight and regulation. I entirely accept that. That is a reasonable point to make, but I do not see why we cannot pursue it further, because those measures can fairly easily be put in place, not least through the more senior level of local government at a unitary or strategic authority level.
I was always very impressed by what town councils deliver. Some deliver quite big services; others get involved in the business of markets and so on. They are not just about park benches and streetlights. They are much more than that. Noble Lords from all parties have made the case that they are at a level of government which is very close to the people. That has great value and they deliver a lot. We should now look, with this larger tier of local governance across the country, including unitaries and so on, to further empower them. This would be a very sensible and practical way of doing it.
In response to the noble Lord’s point about there being vacancies on parish councils, a lot of people who would like to get involved simply think: “Well, what’s the point? It’s just a talking shop”. If we encourage and enable them to develop further, people will come forward. I have always been pretty impressed by the calibre of people who operate on parish and town councils.
I am happy to withdraw my amendment, but we should have some more debate on this and try to dream up a framework that would enable them to thrive and develop. If we do not do so now, we will need to come back to this tier of governance in the future, to make local government genuinely local.
Lord Jamieson
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment probes the necessity of forcing local partners to respond to meeting requests.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 98 and 99, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, concern the treatment of local partners in the Bill. While the Bill places a duty on strategic authorities to convene local partners and an obligation for those partners to respond, this falls short of meaningful consultation or genuine co-production. Without an additional requirement to engage substantively, Clause 21 risks becoming little more than a tick-box exercise, as the Local Government Association has warned.
Clause 21 will give the mayor of a strategic authority the power to convene, but what matters is that they can get something done. If a body is competent in an area but does not hold the power to make decisions, allocate resources or change delivery, what is the point of convening a discussion? Is the expectation that those with competence will be able to influence those with power, or that power will in time follow competence? Or is the purpose simply information sharing and having a nice cup of tea?
More practically, how do the Government envisage that these convened meetings will lead to tangible outcomes if those around the table lack the authority to act on what is discussed? I raise this not as a criticism of the clause but as a genuine question of intent. This is a very real issue. As chairman of the Local Government Association, councils continually raised with me the difficulties of getting local partners to genuinely work together to deliver for the local area. I am a huge believer in devolution and think that the local area, whether it is a strategic area or a council, will better deliver for its residents than something directed down from Whitehall.
The propensity of partners is to focus on the short term rather than the fundamental long term. I raise a case in point. On health, we all recognise that prevention, early intervention, health hubs, supporting the vulnerable in suitable homes and a co-ordinated approach to hospital discharge are all the right things to do. However, I recall sitting down at a meeting with my local NHS trust chiefs and they said, “We absolutely agree with you, but on Monday morning the chief executive”—the now noble Lord, Lord Stevens—“will ring me and ask: what is my A&E waiting time? How many discharges do I have today? That is why I have to focus on that”. It is therefore important that the priorities for the area are reflected in those partners.
This is also the case, particularly given their role in economic growth and strategic planning, for things such as drainage boards, utility companies, the DWP and the Highways Agency. Their focus is too often on what matters nationally and what their masters in Whitehall are saying. While they are sympathetic, they will focus on those issues, when there is an important duty to focus on the local.
Fundamentally, if meetings and responses do not amount to meaningful action and outcomes, there is not much point. Genuine devolution is about consent and local leadership. It is not about Whitehall and Ministers sitting behind desks mandating how partners should collaborate. These amendments seek to ensure that partnership under this Bill is real, accountable and rooted in local decision-making rather than some centrally imposed obligation. I beg to move.
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 237 in my name. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Eaton, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for adding their names to it. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, wanted to be here this afternoon; she has not been well this week so, on the Committee’s behalf, I wish her well.
My simple amendment seeks to place a duty on local public service partners to co-operate. Many people believe that the governance system in England has two major flaws. The first is that it is excessively centralised—probably the most centralised in the developed world—which this Bill seeks to address. In my judgment, the second major flaw is that statutory agencies have too often failed to work effectively together, a problem which has been exacerbated by the way in which the state has fragmented over many years. Put simply, we have established ever more agencies—some of them single purpose—in the belief that this would bring sharper focus and greater efficiency. In reality, this fragmentation and lack of collaboration has produced more negative than positive consequences.
For example, it has produced disjointed services which do not align with the needs of ordinary people. They just do not recognise them. It has produced policies and services which overlap and, at worst, conflict. As I shall go on to say, that costs a lot of money. The same lack of collaboration has produced waste, additional cost and a failure to share data and information. That has been most tragically evident in the never-ending cases of child abuse. A lack of sharing data and information is at the core of those tragedies. Fundamentally, it has produced a damaging culture of competition between providers when ordinary folk just want to see collaboration, partnership and co-operation to address their needs.
Down the years, various attempts have been made to tackle this silo working. Central government departments have tried to work in a more joined-up way. Noble Lords must form their own opinions as to whether that has been successful; I think it is a work in progress.
After the local government reorganisation in 1974—and I know that it is difficult for noble Lords to believe that I was there at the time—one or two county authorities appointed liaison officers to encourage closer working between districts and county councils. I was one of those. In 2012, health and well-being boards were established to improve working relationships between health authorities and local authorities, particularly on the subject of social care. More recently, health authorities have set up their own integrated care boards—again, with variable success to date. The last Labour Government championed an initiative, in which again I was pleased to be involved, called Total Place, which was enthusiastically embraced by many local agencies. More than 100 places quickly endorsed the concept of Total Place but, when the Government changed, they decided not to continue with Total Place. Now we have this Bill which, as we have heard, includes provisions for strategic authorities to convene meetings that partners will attend, again to ensure better co-operation.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bichard. I agree with so much that he said—but I shall speak to Amendment 196, which would introduce a duty on local public service partners such as NHS bodies, the police and fire authorities to co-operate with strategic authorities and principal councils. I am particularly concerned about inequalities. I was very proud to co-found and co-chair the Oxfordshire Inclusive Economy Partnership, which works closely with businesses, charities, higher education establishments and local councils, including in relation to inequality and health. Oxfordshire is now a Marmot place—and I know that the Greater Manchester Combined Authority is considered to be a Marmot city region. I hope that new strategic authorities will follow.
As noble Lords are aware, health inequalities are pronounced within as well as between regions, with huge life expectancy gaps between and within local authorities, including those operating within the same strategic authority. For example, within the East Midlands Combined County Authority, the gap is 5.2 years. The gap is enormous within cities; we all know that in London the gap is between 17 and 19 years. But, shockingly, in counties such as Oxfordshire there is a life expectancy gap of at least 10 years. Addressing these health inequalities requires action at regional level, where leaders have the power to shape economic growth, create healthy places and, consequently, reduce the inequalities.
The Bill already contains several important levers to do this, which is welcome, with the duty to improve health and reduce health inequalities in Clause 44; the requirement for strategic authorities to produce local growth plans in Clause 39 and Schedule 20; and the inclusion of health, well-being and public service reform in the areas of competence for commissioners. However, I believe that this amendment is necessary, because we know, and evidence demonstrates, that health improvement and a reduction in health inequalities requires joined-up policies and actions across public services.
My amendment would ensure reciprocal engagement in local decision-making, service planning and policy implementation, strengthening whole-area collaboration across public services. It would also be the catalyst for places to use the powers that they already have to build local partnerships. The duty would also embed in statute best practice around co-operation, which already exists at neighbourhood, local and regional level. It would set out clearer expectations on different parts of the system, such as integrated care boards and local authorities, to collaborate on improving health.
The amendment is light touch, practical and evidence-based, with the support of many organisations that work on health and reducing health inequalities. It would not add unnecessary bureaucracy or require new spending commitments, but it would make a profound difference to policy-making and action in areas of our country and in the new bodies that are about to be created. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the issues raised in this group are fundamental, and I support everything that has been said so far, broadly speaking. Our efforts to identify how the new structure will relate to all the other organisations delivering public services, and how they will all work together, demonstrates the importance of Committee. I hope that when the Minister replies there will be some positive movement on that.
I hope the Minister will not think me flippant when I have said what I am about to say. Amendments 98 and 99 are important in probing the necessity of forcing local partners to respond to meeting requests. Many of the Bill’s pages—pages 23 to 34—are about mayoral powers to require local partners to attend meetings and other mayors to collaborate, and so on. I have a simple question for the Minister about local partners; as I say, I hope she will not think I am being flippant. The Bill says:
“The mayor for the area … may convene meetings with local partners to consider relevant local matters”.
I understand that, but can local partners convene a meeting with the mayor to consider relevant local matters?
I ask that question because, on previous days in Committee, the answers that we have had about devolution away from mayors to, say, constituent councils, have been that there is to be no power of scrutiny for a constituent council within a strategic authority. That is a very serious matter—I do not think it will work. My question is simple: can local partners convene a meeting with the mayor, or is this a one-way power whereby only the mayor can convene meetings with local partners? If it is, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, will be willing to pursue the matter when we get to Report.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Royall, and the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, for their amendments on local partners’ co-operation with mayors. This is an important group of amendments. Without this type of local co-operation, devolution will not work, so I take it very seriously.
Amendment 98 would provide for the Mayor of London, instead of the Secretary of State, to define “local partners” for the purposes of Clause 21. Elsewhere in England, it would remain for the Secretary of State to define the meaning of “local partners” in regulations. Were this amendment to be made, it would create an immediate inconsistency between the powers of the Mayor of London and the approach taken elsewhere in England. Allowing the Mayor of London to specify local partners where other mayors could not would lead to a piecemeal and unclear definition of local partners, risking confusion at all levels. Defining “local partners” in regulations will allow for appropriate parliamentary scrutiny—I think that is important—will provide a single, coherent definition across England and will ensure that mayors’ power to convene can be clearly understood by both mayors and local partners.
Examples of the types of organisations the regulations may include are those that deliver public services on behalf of, or receive funding from, a mayoral strategic authority; are identifiable as key enablers in statutory strategies; or play a material role in helping a mayoral strategic authority perform its functions within its local area. We are not seeking to define “local partners” in isolation. We are interested in understanding from strategic authorities and their mayors the type of organisations and institutions that should fall under a definition of a “local partner”. We are doing some more work on that with our strategic authorities.
I turn to Amendment 99, which seeks to understand the requirement for local partners to respond to a notification from a mayor of a strategic authority to convene a meeting. Clause 21 provides mayors with a new power to notify local partners of their intention to convene a meeting on a local matter that relates to their areas of competence. It also places a corresponding requirement on any local partner to respond to such a notification. This power is designed to enable mayors to bring the right people around the table, so that partners can work together to tackle shared challenges, seize opportunities for their communities and deliver the best outcomes for local people. The point from the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, about data sharing was very relevant to this. It is often the lack of ability to share data across organisations that slows down these kinds of collaborative projects.
The requirement on local partners is proportionate and not unduly burdensome. It does not oblige partners to engage beyond acknowledging the notification, nor does it prescribe what steps a local partner must take following any meeting or how they must act. Rather, the requirement is simply to respond to a mayor’s notification. The intention is to promote constructive dialogue even where there may be a difference of view on the relevant local matter. Taken together with the other mayoral powers of competence in this Bill, Clause 21 will strengthen the role of strategic authority mayors, giving them the means to drive growth, foster collaboration and deliver improvements for their communities.
On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made about whether public bodies can require the mayor to attend, the mayor’s role in convening will probably answer that point, but I will reflect on it. If the mayor had a duty to convene people to collaborate on issues, and another body requested a meeting to discuss something like that, it would not seem in the spirit of what is in this Bill for the mayor to decline that invitation. I will take that back and think about it a little more.
Finally, I turn to Amendments 196 and 237 from my noble friend Lady Royall and the noble Lord, Lord Bichard. I assure noble Lords that the Government —and I—strongly support the spirit of the amendments: local public service partners and strategic authorities should collaborate to ensure quality, joined-up services for local people. Placing a new, wide-ranging statutory duty on local public service partners to attend meetings; provide information and assistance; and engage with strategic and local authorities in their local area may place an additional and unwarranted burden on these bodies. I, too, remember the Total Place initiative. One thing that got in the way of that was the dialogue between bodies, when they said, “We just do not have the capacity to provide that at the moment”. It caused some friction between some bodies.
As set out in the English devolution White Paper, it is the intention that mayors act as conveners on public service reform. The Bill provides them with the power to do this by granting them a power to convene local partners on their areas of competence, which include health, well-being and public service reform. The Bill places a corresponding duty on local partners to respond to a request by a mayor to meet. It is important to note that this does not place a duty on local partners to agree to particular policies of the mayor or to meet if they do not think that it is appropriate. We believe that this strikes the right balance between giving mayors the tools to drive collaboration, protecting the independence of local partners to act as they think fit and avoiding burdensome duties to which they must adhere.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, this has been a genuinely useful debate, raising the key issues of the duty to co-operate and co-operation in local areas. As the Bill stands, it places a duty on strategic authorities to convene as partners and an obligation for them to attend. However, as several noble Lords have pointed out, it falls short of requiring meaningful engagement or genuine co-production. Without a clearer expectation of substantive collaboration, there is a real risk, as highlighted by the Local Government Association, that Clause 21 becomes a consultation in form but not in substance.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said. I believe she said that she agreed with the spirit of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon. However, she then seemed to row back a little on implementing them; she had a concern that placing a duty to co-operate on partners would be a burden. As we have all experienced in the past with Total Place and other things, without a solid mechanism in place, we end up with people getting on with what they perceive as their day job and not co-operating together.
I am supportive of the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon. I particularly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, on his amendment, which we were pleased to sign. Our support that one was a balance of judgment; we did so because we thought that the wording was somewhat clearer and easier to interpret, but we readily accept that, at this stage, the precise wording matters less than the principle. I urge the Minister to look again at the principle of whether the Bill, as currently drafted, is strong enough to deliver the whole-area collaboration that devolution both promises and requires.
If the Bill is to fulfil its promise, devolution must mean more than new structures; it must reshape how public sector services work together on the ground. Will the Government, between now and Report, consider how best that principle can be put more firmly into legislation? It is quite clear that, in this Committee today, there is a feeling that greater firmness is needed to make this happen—rather than just having a talking shop, which we have had in the past to some extent. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I just want to say at this point that we have one more group to go. I hope that we can finish by 5 pm; otherwise, we will have to split the group and start it half way through next week, which I do not think we want to do.
Clause 22: Duty of mayors to collaborate
Amendment 100
The Earl of Clancarty
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, this group of amendments is, broadly speaking, about collaboration in its various forms—not just between mayors but between mayors of other parties, as well as other forms of collaboration.
I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, as well as that of my noble friends Lord Freyberg and Lady Prashar, for my Amendment 100. It would add “cultural” to the other categories of well-being, alongside “economic” and “social”, for mayors of neighbouring authorities who would like to collaborate with each other over areas of competence; in this context, I interpret “well-being” in a very general sense. I believe it to be logical that this amendment should be accepted if the arts, culture and heritage were to be added as areas of competence.
I support the other amendments in this group. Collaboration across boundaries should be encouraged, both within and outside the strategic authorities. I have added my name to Amendment 101 from the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. I look forward, too, to what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has to say about citizens’ assemblies.
In support of this amendment, I want to mention something that I probably did not emphasise enough in our debate last week on Amendment 6 and areas of competence but which is particularly relevant to this debate nevertheless: the importance of the arts and the creative industries as a generally well-functioning ecosystem. I say that despite the large and damaging cuts to the arts that we have seen in the past 15 years.
In some ways, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It is often said that you tamper with this ecosystem at your peril because of the co-dependence of one part on another. There is considerable crossover in media and skills, as the Minister will appreciate—theatre, film and TV exemplify that—but there is also co-dependence geographically. The grass-roots arts, which are often subsidised, are traditionally where the most interesting, innovative work takes place and influence both what is taking place in London and what goes into London—for instance, into theatres in West End.
This is still true, to a large extent, but London is increasingly not the be-all and end-all of the arts. The way in which the regions negotiate the changes that are taking place—for example, with the new creative hubs—has to be done collaboratively. This is particularly true with such a significant shared cultural asset as Production Park in Wakefield, where “Adolescence”, the hit Netflix drama, was filmed.
It is also important for the regions that the new hubs are not simply colonial outposts of the big entertainment companies. The West and South Yorkshire mayoralties already have a long-standing relationship, which includes a common strategy for developing the skills that are needed to work in the many areas of the creative industries and for doing this regionally, in Yorkshire. This is something that is being fostered at Production Park, which, significantly, has its own educational facilities. There is a growing sense that work can be made in the regions—by local, original creators—that will have national, or even international, exposure. This is very exciting, but it does require mayors to come together.
Other areas of necessary collaboration across strategic authorities include cities of culture. Different regions may be rivals, but there will be much to be learned from previous experience. There are the big events, of course, including music festivals and national cultural events. Mayors should be sharing best practice for every level of cultural activity, from the provision of cultural services and access to the arts by local authorities to commercial opportunities, employment concerns, issues around trade and concerns around touring, including touring abroad. There is also the tourist levy; mayors should certainly be talking to each other about how that will be administered and how the money will be spent.
In some of these suggestions, I am talking about communication between different regions as much as I am about more formal collaboration between authorities that pass the “neighbour test”. The Minister may say that mayors are already collaborating in this area, but it is important to recognise the reality; indeed, where mayors are not talking to each other, talking absolutely needs to be encouraged. There is a real, practical use in treating culture in this context—for all the reasons I am setting out—as a separate, integral and identifiable area. I beg to move.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 101 in my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for their support. This flows on nicely from what we talked about on smaller-scale collaboration in the previous group. This is all about collaboration across larger geographies. I go back to something that I remember the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, saying in a debate back in 2024 on the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions) Bill, as it was at that time. He said that devolution was something that all noble Lords could get behind and support. We would perhaps differ on the means of achieving that but it is, as a principle, something that we should all agree on.
However, by undertaking devolution, as this Bill does, we are creating joins and barriers that were not there before. We therefore need a way in which to create a holistic approach that ensures collaboration across those boundaries. This drives us to more of a pan-regional collaboration, looking at larger geographies such as the north or the Midlands. I give a few examples of why this is important. On inward investment, for example, we have vast pools of capital across the world that are mobile and can invest anywhere in the world. Selling a region and its opportunities is an excellent way in which to focus on bigger opportunities, rather than leaving it to smaller geographies to help bring in that capital and investment. Also, on large-scale infrastructure, transport is a great example. Large-scale rail projects that impact across many strategic authorities need to be considered on a pan-regional basis. I have later amendments on thematic areas such as social mobility policy but one of the key findings from the recent special inquiry committee was that there needed to be bespoke regional approaches to this long-standing problem to fit with the circumstances of each area, and there needs to be better regional co-ordination and collaboration on these approaches.
In the last Parliament, we had pan-regional partnerships such as the Midlands Engine and Northern Powerhouse that aimed to undertake this collaborative approach across regions. I worked extensively with the Midlands Engine. I founded the Midlands Engine All-Party Parliamentary Group and led a number of work packages with the organisation, such as chairing the task force, which led to the Midlands Engine Energy Security White Paper. The Midlands Engine operated right across the Midlands region, from the Welsh border to Lincolnshire. It covered all local governments and the 11 million people in that geography, with the explicit aim of closing the gap in economic performance between the Midlands and the rest of the UK.
The economic argument sits at the foundation of all this. There is a persistent economic gap between the regions and the metropolis. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, highlighted this also. You could almost consider the UK as two countries in economic terms. We have a prosperous enclave in London and the south-east, with the rest of the country lagging far behind. Therefore, there is a strong argument that the Government need to focus on catch-up growth in the regions to meet their overall growth ambitions for the UK. I saw at first hand the benefits in the initiatives to join up the work of local authorities and combined authorities for the economic benefits of the Midlands region. So much great work was done, including setting the foundations of the Midlands Rail Hub, which has been taken forward today, large infrastructure investments such as fusion, and investment funds for small and medium-sized enterprises. However, I also saw some of the political difficulties in trying to do that with the pan-regional partnership approach. There were challenges in a separate organisation, with the remit it was given, in getting political buy-in on initiatives from a broad range of stakeholders.
In reading the devolution White Paper, I was encouraged by that aspect of the Government’s plans in that they intend to keep pan-regional collaboration going but focus it more around partnerships between mayoral authorities, which could help to resolve some of the difficulties in those separate bodies. I was surprised to see no mention of this approach in the Bill, and to perhaps pre-empt what the Minister will say—I thank her for the meeting we had and the engagement on this amendment—there is of course nothing to stop mayors and authorities creating these convening bodies. There is some progress here already in the Great North partnership, for example. However, the Government do need to play a role in making this happen.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 102. Before I start, I must tell the Minister that, when I went home from the last session of this Committee, I found my wife watching an old episode of “Yes, Prime Minister”. The Prime Minister’s Cabinet Secretary and Treasury Secretary were discussing the threat of real regional government to Whitehall control, and how they needed make sure that some regions were set up sufficiently diversely to ensure that Whitehall and the Treasury maintained control. It deepened my already deep scepticism about whether this Bill will really achieve devolution or not.
Like others, this amendment talks about the problems of making sure that, at the regional and subregional level, we co-ordinate as far as possible. If I understand the purpose of the Bill, we will end up in England with somewhere between 30 and 35 strategic authorities with mayors. In some areas, they will meet the urban conglomerations; in others, they will be artificial, imposed on different counties. I note, however, that the Home Secretary is now proposing that we have in England perhaps some six to eight police authorities. At present, in Yorkshire where we wanted to have a regional single strategic authority, we now have four mayors and four police forces, so it fits relatively well. What the Home Secretary now proposes will tear that apart and make much more difficult again any sense of regional and local democratic control of the police. The next restructure of the NHS might well do something similar on a departmental basis. Can the Minister say how far there is any attempt in Whitehall to make sure that, when restructuring takes place, it does as far as possible attempt to make sure that boundaries coincide rather than cut across each other, as they have so often done?
Nevertheless, we recognise that there will always be different levels at which one has to co-operate. If you live in West Yorkshire, the trans-Pennine region is extremely important. If we ever get round to building Northern Powerhouse Rail, which will probably not be in my lifetime, we will have created a new region which is Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield, and all those between it. That will require a range of different authorities. The water catchment areas are unavoidably difficult. We have spent ages in my region discussing how far the Humberside region fits into either Yorkshire, Lincolnshire or wherever. There will be a need for co-ordination.
The question I would like to leave with the Minister—perhaps she can come back to us—is this. How, following this restructuring of local and subregional government, will they do their best to ensure that, in the next set of restructuring of other bits of public agencies, we will try as far as we can to recognise that a sense of place and regional identity is fulfilled by ensuring that, where possible, those things coincide?
To finish, I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that I once spent a Saturday morning in Huddersfield marketplace—I used to be president of the Huddersfield Liberal association—trying to help people with their vote. At least half of the people who came up to me said, “Can you tell me what constituency I’m in? I do not know”. The constituency boundaries or their names had been changed, which is confusing for local people. It is all part of why public trust in our Government has weakened. The sense of place has also weakened. This Bill should be doing something to improve that, but I rather fear that it does not.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, Amendments 103 and 104 appear under my name. I confess that I can take no credit for drafting them; they started with my honourable friend Siân Berry in the other place. I take note of the Whips’ injunction on brevity, so I will largely focus on those two amendments. They may look rather long, with pages and pages, but they have the same injunction repeated three times relative to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act and the Greater London Authority Act, so they are actually much shorter than they look.
As the proposed titles state, they would create a duty on mayors to establish a deliberative citizens’ assembly within six months of being elected to inform strategic decision-making. That word “strategic” is important, because we have seen it demonstrated again and again that citizens’ assemblies provide a great way to address the big strategic questions. Proposed new subsection (6) in each amendment states that the mayor must take into account any recommendation made by the assembly, and publish a response.
Assemblies have really taken off up and down the country, if in a very piecemeal fashion—perhaps despite Westminster, rather than because of it. I am holding previous Governments responsible for that, but the current Government now have a chance to turn over a fresh leaf and act towards democracy by encoding citizens’ assemblies in this Bill. The organisation Involve, which has organised many of these, stresses how citizens’ assemblies are a way to
“strengthen legitimacy, foster trust, and solve complex problems”.
As it said in a recent blog post, it is a
“powerful answer to the breakdown in trust in our elected representatives and the wider crisis of democracy”.
Just to give noble Lords a sense of the kinds of government organisations that have been making use of citizens’ assemblies, Involve has organised various events along these lines for Innovate UK, UKRI, the Care Quality Commission and the West Midlands Combined Authority. There is a very long list; that is just a sample of them.
Under different structures and local initiatives, one area where citizens’ assemblies have proved particularly powerful is in looking at climate action. We have seen many local authorities set net-zero targets and communities have got together through citizens’ assemblies to work out how to do that. I take two examples of very different ones. In Kendal, right in the depths of the Covid pandemic, the town council organised a climate change citizens’ jury that was regarded locally as very successful. Then, in another place, very different politically and demographically, there was the Westminster citizens’ climate assembly in 2023. This is something that is taking off, but in a piecemeal fashion. This is a chance to really put a focus on deliberative democracy at the heart of this Bill.
Finally, on citizens’ assemblies, I draw attention to the powerful speech by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, on the lead amendment in this group and the really powerful testimony from a group called Citizens for Culture, which is based in the south-west. It talks about championing citizens’ assemblies in terms of arts culture and says that:
“When diverse voices come together to learn, deliberate and decide, it leads to decisions that are more legitimate, more inclusive, and more connected to the lived experience of local people”.
Culture, brought together with a citizens’ assembly, creates a vital space where communities can make meaning, build identities and imagine new futures. I think that expresses the idea very well.
I can see the Whip looking at me so let me just say something about Amendment 104. There are many different amendments, both in this group and in previous groups, about mayors having to work with—in this case—local public service providers and other local government. This amendment would provide one more way of doing that. We have heard from all sides of the Committee that that is a really essential and necessary thing that is missing from the Bill; I am not attached to any particular way of doing it, but this would be one way of doing it.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 196D, which would place a duty on strategic authorities to work with local and community-based bodies when exercising their functions. Devolving powers to the level of the people whom they affect means that effective devolution depends not only on transferring powers from Whitehall but on ensuring that those powers are exercised in partnership with the communities they affect. Without an explicit duty to work with community-based bodies, there is a risk that decision-making becomes remote, technocratic and insufficiently grounded in local reality. This amendment would ensure that parish and town councils are treated not as an afterthought but as partners in governance, helping strategic authorities to understand local conditions, priorities and constraints before they are implemented.
Voluntary and community sector organisations also play a critical role in the delivery of local support and preventive services. They are often hubs of energetic volunteers—people who want both to be involved in their local communities and to bring enthusiasm, energy and drive to local life. Following on from the story of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, when I was a member of a community council on the west coast of Scotland, volunteers and members of those communities persuaded the mighty Strathclyde Regional Council to support a town-twinning project and fund it. So you can find examples of this kind of thing all over the country.
I believe that, in all of the powers and strategic aims of this Bill, the key roles played by town and parish councils are forgotten; in fact, the Bill barely mentions them. Parish and town councils are key players in local communities. They are closest to the ground and most responsive to the day-to-day needs of communities. This Bill must contain a statutory obligation to work with the most local and community-rooted bodies—parish councils—as well as the other essential local groups and agencies that are involved in delivering services at a local level.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 100 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, to which I have added my name, and Amendment 101 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale.
If the arts, culture and heritage are rightly recognised as an area of competence, as the noble Earl argued persuasively they should be, it follows logically that they should also be recognised as a basis for collaboration. Amendment 100 would simply make that explicit, placing culture alongside economic and social well-being as something on which mayors may work together, rather than treating it as incidental or discretionary.
I understand, of course, that the Bill currently frames collaboration as applying between neighbouring strategic authorities. I acknowledge that intention, but I would gently suggest that culture does not always conform neatly to a geography. Cultural ecosystems are interdependent in ways that often cut across administrative boundaries and sometimes beyond immediate neighbours; that is not an argument against the structure of the Bill but a reflection of how culture functions on the ground.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, spoke powerfully about cultural ecosystems, and I agree with him entirely. They are both geographically and economically interdependent. Grass-roots venues feed major institutions. Studios, rehearsal spaces and local festivals sustain the pipeline of skills on which national and international success depends. As is well known, cultural infrastructure —including libraries, museums, theatres, music venues, studios and heritage sites—acts as a form of civic glue, regenerating high streets, anchoring communities and driving wider economic activity.
We already see good practice emerging. Manchester and Liverpool, for example, have used accommodation-based visitor charges through business improvement districts to reinvest in culture, the public realm and visitor services. Although these schemes are imperfect, they demonstrate how locally controlled funding can support cultural ecosystems in a way that aligns the interests of residents, visitors and the hospitality sector. In that context, I very much look forward to seeing how the tourism levy evolves and how it can best support this kind of joined-up cultural ambition.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I lend my support to Amendment 100. I pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for their knowledge in this sphere. I am grateful to the noble Earl for referencing West and South Yorkshire in this regard. I place on record how impressive Screen Yorkshire is, as well as the Rural Arts Centre in Thirsk that I mentioned previously. I am all in favour of collaboration in the areas of competence, arts and culture; they have a tremendous role to play for young people coming on to the scene.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I will be brief. I fully support what the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said. To some extent, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, touched on the issue that I wanted to raise about a broader meaning of the word culture. Culture is used to bring people together and bring social cohesion. It is a deliberate action taken by people to build and deepen democratic behaviours and citizenship. I want to register that much broader meaning of the word culture, because if we can use culture as a vehicle for bringing people together, that good practice can be used across regions, which will be beneficial. I elaborated the reasons for that in my previous comments.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will try to be quick, given the time. This has been a useful debate. I am sympathetic to the principle behind Amendment 100 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. Culture really is the glue that glues local areas together. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response, because collaboration across boundaries is very important. In a similar manner, Amendment 101 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, is both sensible and welcome, recognising again that economic activity, trade and so on cross boundaries and that we need to establish mechanisms to ensure co-operation.
Moving on, Amendment 102 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, follows the same theme. I shall also refer to “Yes, Prime Minister”, because I watched the same episode. I noted that Sir Humphrey had a huge concern that devolving things to local councils would actually lead to real delivery; his solution was to create a whole series of bureaucratic, cross-regional structures to ensure that nothing happened. That is why I am slightly concerned about this amendment producing additional layers of bureaucracy and additional planning boards that will potentially duplicate or confuse. Although we agree with the thrust behind this amendment, additional bureaucracy is something that makes us feel a little uncomfortable and a bit nervous—hence my referring to the Sir Humphrey situation.
I turn to Amendments 103 and 104 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I am a huge believer in democracy. We should elect people and trust them to get on with the job; if they do not get on with the job, they should be booted out when the next election comes around. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that mayors, councils and so on should engage with their residents and listen to what they have to say—depending on what the subject is and where the place is, that may take a variety of forms —but I am hugely concerned about setting up self-appointed, unelected bodies that then hold democratic bodies to account. I just do not feel that that is the right way round; people should engage, but that engagement should be based on democracy.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I am sorry but I must interrupt the noble Lord, if he will allow me one second. He said “self-appointed”; the whole idea of people’s assemblies is that they are a representative group of people usually chosen by lottery, lot or similar.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I will take back what the noble Baroness says. In this case, my point is that a random unelected body is not the same as an elected body. I genuinely think that democracy is important. If you wish to engage, you probably need to be a bit more nuanced in whom you engage with, because it should not be random; it should be those people who can really give you the feedback and information you need, depending on the subject and the place. Take central Bedfordshire, for example: a random 100 people from across central Bedfordshire will not be particularly helpful when we are discussing what is happening in my own little village of Maulden; I would rather discuss it with the residents of Maulden.
With that, I shall move on. This debate has made it clear that collaboration is important—in many cases, essential. I hope that it will be taken seriously by the Minister and that she will come back with some flexibility later on in the Bill’s passage.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry that we have been pressing on time; the Hansard team and other officers were here until very late last night and we do not want to put them under any further pressure.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lords, Lord Ravensdale and Lord Wallace, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Janke, for their amendments on the duty to collaborate. I shall start with Amendment 100, for which I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I completely understand the intention behind this amendment—we have now had many discussions on this issue—but we ultimately think that it is unnecessary, as cultural well-being is captured in the current wording of Clause 22.
Culture underpins our creative and visitor economies; in this way, cultural activity is inherently captured in the meaning of
“economic, social or environmental well-being”.
The formulation is intentionally wide so that mayors can request collaboration on a broad range of matters; it is also intended to avoid an exhaustive or prospective list. Adding “cultural” risks undermining that approach and creating pressure to enumerate further dimensions of well-being without delivering any substantive new effect. Indeed, explicitly singling culture out could invite arguments that other aspects of well-being that are not listed are of lesser importance, or that cultural interests should be interpreted narrowly or separately from economic, social or environmental considerations.
Mayors of strategic authorities can, and already do, collaborate on cultural matters. The Mayors of South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, York and North Yorkshire have come together to sign the White Rose Agreement, committing to work together on high-profile culture and sporting events and to celebrate Yorkshire’s heritage. I hope that the noble Earl and the other noble Lords who raised the issue of culture have been reassured by my agreement to reflect on how culture is treated in the competency framework.
I turn to Amendment 101, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, which seeks to promote greater regional collaboration between mayors and other public and private partners. The Government agree with the value and benefits of regional collaboration. However, while the amendment is well intentioned, we do not think it is necessary. Strategic authorities and their mayors already have a wide range of mechanisms to collaborate across administrative boundaries, and several mayors are already doing so successfully. We heard some examples from the noble Lord.
The powers in Clause 22 are not intended to replace the wide range of positive and informal collaboration that already takes place. They are intended to supplement these existing mechanisms and strengthen mayoral leadership by providing a more formal route for cross-boundary pan-regional collaboration where this can improve outcomes for communities. However, it should be for mayors to decide for themselves how to use these powers rather than for the Government to prescribe or constrain the purposes and form that mayoral collaboration must take. More broadly, under existing legislation, combined authorities and combined county authorities can already enter into joint committees, allowing them to discharge certain powers together and jointly produce legislative documents such as spatial development strategies.
I turn to Amendment 102 from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace; this is not from Sir Humphrey, but from me—I am passionate about devolution and am not letting anyone get in the way of that; it is good programme, though, and I like it. This amendment would require strategic authorities to prepare joint strategic development plans, covering two or more strategic authority areas in certain circumstances. I appreciate the intent behind the amendment to join up strategic authorities, but I do not agree that the amendment is necessary. We already have broadly equivalent powers as a result of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. New Section 12B of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as inserted by the 2025 Act, enables the Secretary of State to require authorities to work together on spatial development strategies through the establishment of a strategic planning board. The Government intend to use these powers, in particular in areas without a combined authority or a combined county authority. The same Act gives the Secretary of State a wide range of intervention powers in relation to the preparation and adoption of spatial development strategies.
It is worth highlighting that, where strategic planning authorities are working on separate spatial development strategies, they are required by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as amended by the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, to have regard to the need to be consistent with current national policies. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out strong expectations on authorities to work effectively across local government boundaries.
I turn to Amendment 103. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for raising the importance of citizen engagement in local decision-making. The Government fully agree that residents should have meaningful opportunities to shape the decisions that affect their areas. However, as the locally elected leaders in their regions, mayors should have the ability to decide on how best to engage with their local communities. Mayors can convene citizens’ assemblies if they wish to, and, in places such as South Yorkshire, mayors have decided to use these powers. Once the Bill becomes law, all mayors will have general powers of competence conferred automatically on them, which will enable them to convene citizens assemblies should they wish to do so.
Finally, the Bill already includes a provision in this area. Clause 60 introduces a neighbourhood governance duty, requiring all local authorities to put in place arrangements to secure effective neighbourhood governance. That will ensure that communities have meaningful opportunities to inform and influence local decisions.
I turn to Amendment 104, from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and Amendment 196, from the noble Baroness, Lady Janke. Both seek to ensure that mayors and strategic authorities work closely with their local authorities, public service providers and bodies representing local communities in town and parish councils. I recognise the spirit in which these amendments have been made. It is important for all mayors to engage with the wider public sector and the local authority family in delivering their own functions. However, strategic authorities are already expected, through existing legislation and provisions in this Bill, to work collaboratively with local partners and communities when exercising their functions.
Amendment 104 in particular would impose a disproportionate administrative burden on mayors of strategic authorities by placing a new duty requiring them to meet local authorities, public service providers and town and parish councils. As an illustration, North Yorkshire alone compromises 729 individual parishes, organised into 412 town and parish councils. Expecting a mayor to discharge this proposed duty in respect of each body would be impractical and may crowd out some of the time needed for the officer’s other strategic responsibilities. Parish and town councils continue to be supported in their work, and local authorities are strongly encouraged to work with them to understand the contribution they are able to make to the delivery of local services and the management of local assets.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
I thank the Minister for her reply and will be very brief. I thank noble Lords for their support for my amendment.
The point about the word “cultural” is that it has an important integrity. If we do not have it then something significant will be lost, because what it embraces will get shared out among other things.
Finally, the great theme in this debate has been a plea for greater flexibility and collaboration. I agree with so much of what your Lordships have said in that regard. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Water Companies: Fines
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sikka
To ask His Majesty’s Government how many of the fines imposed by regulators on England’s water companies in 2024 and 2025 are yet to be paid in full.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, Ofwat has imposed fines to the value of £122.7 million on Thames Water. There is a payment plan in place, with the first 20%—that is, £24.5 million—paid last year. The remaining 80% is due by 31 March 2030 at the latest. Fines following EA enforcement action total £4.6 million, and we are not aware of any unpaid fines. Fines are only part of the enforcement toolkit, however, with over £164.6 million of enforcement undertakings announced over the same period.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, it is shameful that water companies, with nearly 1,200 criminal convictions, are permitted to negotiate the amount and timing of fines. Some will not pay the headline-grabbing fines announced in 2024 until 2030, while others will not pay any of the announced fines. No statement to that effect has been made to Parliament. Can the Minister explain why the Government continue to indulge criminal organisations?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I politely suggest to my noble friend that we do not indulge criminal organisations. We put in payment plans because it would not help a water company if we forced it to pay fines so that it went bust. I do not think that would help consumers at all. So we need to bring in sensible payment plans which ensure that we get the money back, but we are also bringing in tough, swift penalties to clamp down further on water companies. For example, we have increased enforcement powers to the regulators, we have given existing regulators the teeth they need to take tougher action against water companies, and the Environment Agency can now impose automatic penalties, and penalties to the lower civil standard of proof. We are looking to clamp down heavily on offenders.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Can the Minister say whether the directors are paying these fines, as opposed to the consumers, and if not, why not?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
It is important that the water companies pay the fines in such a way that it does not impact on consumers and consumer bills, and the Government are certainly keen to enforce that.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Can the noble Baroness explain what proportion of the fines paid to date have been used to improve the environment? Will she ensure that these fines can be used to help farmers prevent pollution from agricultural diffusion? At the moment, the sustainable farming incentive is paused, and in any event it does not yet cover agricultural pollution.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We have announced that we are reopening the sustainable farming incentive, and we hope for a good response to it. The important thing to note about the fines is that currently, if they are from Ofwat, they go to Ofwat and then to the Treasury, and if they are EA fines they go straight into the Treasury. It is important that we have an agreement where we hypothecate the fines so that Defra can decide the projects where the fine money will make the biggest difference, and then HMT provides us with the money to do that. That is the important focus.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, we had the very cautious report from Sir Jon Cunliffe about water, and the Government followed that up with a fairly timid White Paper last week. Does not something much more drastic in terms of restructuring water companies need to happen so that they avoid this sort of fiasco in the future?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I disagree with the noble Baroness about the White Paper being timid. I believe it sets out once-in-a-generation reforms that will really transform the water system for good and lead to a water Bill which Members of this House, including the noble Baroness, can help us make the best piece of legislation for the water industry that we have ever seen.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, to follow my noble friend’s question, the Government have announced that water company fines will help fund environmental restoration, including 100,000 new trees. To put that in context, a block that size would be only 50 hectares and cost £200,000. That seems a token effort. Will the Minister commit to more ambitious targets for the use of these fines in environmental restoration and tree-planting? I refer the House to my interest in developing new forests.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The Government have very ambitious plans for tree-planting, including three national forests, one of which has already begun planting and two are progressing well, so we are very keen. We understand the impact that trees can have in mitigating both climate change and flooding. We absolutely want to work with farmers to ensure that we can help and support them to plant trees in order to support their ambitions.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, fines were levied in August 2024 on Yorkshire Water and Northumbrian Water, and they have not been collected, as I understand it, because the companies have subsequently invested in infrastructure. Is that not like someone driving, injuring a person and then having the fine returned to them so that they can fix up their car and, possibly, sell it on for a profit? That would be unacceptable, as is the non-payment of these fines by water companies. Does my noble friend agree?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
In March last year, Yorkshire Water agreed to pay an enforcement package of £40 million to address the failures that were found by the investigation at that time. That package is to prioritise work on some of the most problematic storm overflows in environmentally sensitive areas to ensure that they spill less than 20 times a year. Surely that must be our priority.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, it may have come as a surprise to many water bill payers that payment plans out to 2030 were agreed to pay fines. Will the Minister agree that when fines are imposed in future, a payment plan that goes with them should also be announced?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a helpful suggestion, and I am happy to take that back to the department.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
Have the Government made any assessment of whether fines on firms, as opposed to fines on individuals, have any effect on the performance of the companies concerned? It strikes me that unless fines, at least to some degree, bear down on individuals, we are unlikely to see an improvement.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are working to ensure that the money that we get from fines is spent in the best possible way. We have had so many debates and questions around water from everybody in this House; what we need to do is tackle the problem for good and for the long term. We can talk about fines and about bonuses until we are blue in the face, but what we want to find is real change. That is what we are doing with the water White Paper, and what we will do with our water Bill.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lord, the Minister says that we do not want these water companies to go bust from paying these fines. Why on earth does the chief exec of Yorkshire Water get salary packages of multiple hundreds of thousands of pounds, which are often off the book and may not be publicly disclosed? Should we not look at limiting pay for these highly paid chief execs if their water companies are breaking the law and have been fined?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, water companies are private companies. It is not for the Government to interfere in how private companies operate, including their pay structures. However, having said that, we need a tough regulator to ensure that we are getting the best value from water companies.
Lord Hayward (Con)
Can the Minister indicate what proportion of fines are collected across society in general? The questions are related specifically to the water industry, and I understand why, but is it not the case that a very high proportion of fines across the whole of society are completely unpaid?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I suggest that the noble Lord has asked an incredibly wide-ranging and sweeping question. I am afraid I simply do not have those figures at my fingertips.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that this is a monopoly, and monopolies have no accountability? Until, as a previous speaker said, we get some direct accountability from chief executives, where they have to lose pay for bad performance, we will continue to have the problems we have with water authorities.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
When the Water (Special Measures) Act passed, one of its key parts was around making chief executives much more responsible for the pollution that was happening on their watch. I am very pleased that we have got that legislation through. We just need to build on it. We need to make sure that water companies can no longer get away with the kind of behaviour they have been getting away with for years.
Erasmus+ Eligibility: Asylum Seekers
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bakewell
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to extend the scope of eligibility for the Erasmus+ scheme, including to asylum seekers.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, and with the permission of my noble friend Lady Bakewell, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK has agreed terms to join the Erasmus+ programme in 2027. The scope of the programme is set by the European Commission, and diversity and inclusion is a key priority. Erasmus+ dedicates additional support to people with fewer opportunities, which includes people with migrant or refugee backgrounds. Asylum seekers can benefit from a variety of Erasmus+ activities, such as inclusion projects aimed at fostering social integration, virtual exchanges or school twinning.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Like many Members across the House, I hope, I am pleased that the UK’s resumption of participation in Erasmus+ is taking place. I hope that by the summer there will be a website with further information available. Does my noble friend agree that Erasmus+ supports the Government’s opportunities mission by enabling people from a wide range of backgrounds to take part? Can she confirm that participation will enable institutions to collaborate with international partners on areas such as innovation and educational improvement, which will strengthen the UK’s global reputation for education and training?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Yes, my noble friend is absolutely right. This is an enormously exciting opportunity for learners, for educators, for young people and for our communities. It is an investment in opportunity for our young people, our workforce and our future, opening doors for tens of thousands of people across the UK to benefit from those experiences. As my noble friend says, this includes our ability to learn from, and also share, the enormously important contribution that education makes to this country, to our exports and to our standing in the world.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I very much support the inclusion in this programme of those who have successfully got refugee status in the United Kingdom, in order to strengthen their integration into our society. But can the Minister explain why it is also open to those still seeking asylum who have not yet established their right to be in the United Kingdom? Many of those people’s claims will ultimately not be successful, and I do not know why we are spending significant amounts of our taxpayers’ money on putting on a very expensive European scheme when they have not yet established their right to be in our country.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Of course, the nature of the rights of asylum seekers means that they would not, for example, be able to benefit from travel overseas. Were they to be volunteering or in education, they could benefit from Erasmus programmes there.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, may I press the Minister on the question of diversity in accessing Erasmus+, particularly in regard to pupils from state schools? I do not want international mobility to be the preserve just of schools in the private sector.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is exactly right. That is why we need to make sure, with this opportunity that we have with Erasmus+, that we do better than we did the last time we were in the Erasmus scheme in making sure that we get the benefits in the UK. It is a job for us all to make sure that our schools, universities, training providers and colleges understand the chances and are able to take them up, and that we see those chances shared widely among all those who could benefit.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this is to be welcomed, but I am more concerned about the million unemployed young people—18 to 24 year-olds—who are not in education, training or work. I think this should be our number one priority. We should be talking about it all the time. The number of apprenticeships was pitiful before Covid and has collapsed since. Can the Minister update us on what the Government are doing to set an example, massively increase the number of apprenticeships in the public sector and require all those organisations in receipt of public funds or working on public sector contracts to employ apprentices as well?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
This is a number one priority. In my work in the Department for Work and Pensions, the Secretary of State has been completely clear about the focus that we need to place on youth unemployment, on our youth guarantee and on appropriately spending the £1.5 billion that we received from the Budget in order to make sure that we reduce that million young people who are starting their working lives neither earning nor learning, with all the impact for them and the economy; and that we turn around the 40% decrease that we have seen in young people’s apprenticeship starts in order to provide opportunities for young people to be not only in work but in skilled work that will last them throughout their lives.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, it will cost taxpayers an estimated £9 billion to rejoin Erasmus. The projected special educational needs and disabilities funding deficit for 2028 is £6 billion and likely to rise. There are always trade-offs, but do the Government prefer to spend £9 billion on 17,000 students going overseas or £9 billion on 1.7 million special educational needs pupils and those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Austin of Dudley?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am sorry, but I do not recognise those figures. What we have agreed is the joining of the last year of this round of Erasmus+ in 2027, at a 30% discount—something not achieved by the party opposite—saving UK taxpayers around £240 million and ensuring benefit to tens of thousands of UK students, school students, apprentices, youth groups and sports groups. I think that is good value for money in terms of individual opportunity, the change and the impact it will have on our status in the world, and our education system’s earnings.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, I am proud that both the University of Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam University offer sanctuary scholarships to support talented students who have sought asylum in the UK. Noble Lords will know that many asylum seekers and refugees arrive in the UK already equipped with language skills, vocational training and, indeed, advanced degrees. Given the Government’s intention to introduce an international student levy on English higher education providers, will any of the revenue raised be reinvested in asylum seekers and refugees pursuing higher education or further education in this country?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
All the revenue raised from the international student levy will be invested into higher education and the rest of the skills system, including the reintroduction of maintenance grants to enable students from all backgrounds to benefit from our world-class higher education. Our decision to lift the cap and to index-link tuition fee increases over the next few years will increase revenues to universities by £6 billion, while the international student levy will be a maximum of £1 billion, and not until 2027-28.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, it was an absolute travesty that we left Erasmus with Brexit.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
Thank you, my Lords. I entirely agree with everything the noble Baroness has said, but are we rejoining Erasmus on the same conditions? Will our young people have the same opportunities as they had under the old system of Erasmus?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
No, we are joining Erasmus on much better financial arrangements, with a 30% discount, for a larger scheme that will provide more opportunities for our young people and, in fact, for people throughout their lives, because in adult education you can benefit from this as well. We will get the benefit if we wholeheartedly embrace the opportunities that Erasmus brings and ensure that, across the country, schools, universities, apprenticeship providers, youth clubs and sports clubs are making the most of this opportunity.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the Cross Benches.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I think we all know what I do for a living. I welcome our rejoining of Erasmus+ but, to follow on from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, it is vital that state schools and people who do not have the opportunity to go on holiday abroad can join the Erasmus scheme and benefit from all this money. Can the Minister be slightly more specific about how schools are going to learn about this? I am not sure that so many do.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right. We have a job, as I was just suggesting, to make sure that schools around the country understand the potential of Erasmus. That is why we will soon be in a position to announce the national agency that will be co-ordinating this. As my noble friend Lord Stansgate said, information will be available soon to enable schools, universities and others to have the information that they need in order to develop the projects that will benefit children across the country.
Public Trust in National Politics
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
To ask His Majesty’s Government what proposals they are considering to reverse the decline in public trust of national politics in the UK.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
The Government are committed to restoring public confidence in our politics. On entering office, the Prime Minister issued a new Ministerial Code strengthening the powers of his Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, increasing transparency on ministerial gifts and hospitality, as well as establishing the Ethics and Integrity Commission. The Public Office (Accountability) Bill will place a new legal duty on public servants to act truthfully and to fully assist inquiries and investigations. The Government have also announced an independent review into foreign financial influence and interference in the UK’s political and electoral system.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I and others are grateful for those small steps, but the size of the problem of public distrust of politics is enormous. Fewer than 60% of voters voted in the 2024 election. Multiple surveys show real public disillusionment with Westminster politics—not with democracy but with Westminster politics. Should the Government not start a national conversation on a cross-party basis on how we rebuild trust in our national political institutions, including both Houses of Parliament?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a genuinely important point about trust and politics. We spend a number of hours, in your Lordships’ House and the other place, discussing things that have an impact on people’s lives every day. There is a responsibility on us to make sure that they know what we are doing and that we are doing it in their name. Some of these things happen every day already, whether they are Select Committee reports or are about how we all come together, but there is a responsibility on the leaders of our country to make sure that people understand what we are doing. The politics of easy answers will get us nowhere. We need to be candid that life is difficult and to make sure we are delivering. I would say there is a battle for truth here, and the battle for democracy is the same thing, and we must work together to ensure those things happen.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will have the Conservative Benches next, please.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, talking about truth and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, looking for proposals, can I propose through the Minister that the Liberal Democrats’ use of fake local newspapers and misinformation to slur political opponents is something she might want to consider?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, but where would we be without their bar charts?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I say that with love. Noble Lords are aware that I am very fond of an election leaflet, but, especially given how many elections are in front of us, we need to make sure that they are accurate and true and reflect the fact that there is a responsibility on all of us to bring some of the heat out of politics and put the truth back.
Baroness Shah (Lab)
My Lords, trust in politics is also affected by the safety and well-being of elected representatives and candidates. In my role as the head of the Labour office at the Local Government Association, I have seen a worrying increase in abuse and threats towards representatives from all parties and physical attacks on them. Only a couple of weeks ago, a councillor’s car was set alight. Democracy is at its best when we can respectfully disagree. Can my noble friend assure this House on what the Government are doing to address these concerns?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. Soon, we will mark 10 years since my friend Jo Cox was murdered, which brings all this very much to a point. There are many things that we are doing together, including the Joint Election Security Preparedness Unit, which is jointly run by the Cabinet Office and MHCLG. In the run-up to the elections, it will reinstate its election cell, and the National Protective Security Authority exists. Noble Lords, especially those who have stood for election in the last decade, will be aware that Operation Bridger exists for MPs. That is now extended to include Operation Ford to protect councillors and council candidates. Language is incredibly important, and there is responsibility on all of us to make sure we take the heat out of this, because it is our activists and candidates who are knocking on doors and speaking to people every day. We have a responsibility to take some of the heat out of politics to protect them, too.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, I frequently talk to young people, and they generally feel that we are overfocused on the problems and challenges of the 20th century such as friendships, rivalries and conflict. They feel that we live in a smaller, interdependent world, with common challenges, and that we should focus our attention on active co-operation to meet those challenges. Could they be right?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I helped run HOPE not hate for many years, and I was on the board until the general election. There is a responsibility on everybody to make sure that we are celebrating the hope, and embracing hope rather than hate, in our society and looking at what unites us rather than what divides us. Especially since 7 October, that has proved to be very challenging for parts of our community, including my own, but we need to make sure that core British values remain at the heart of who we are and that we can celebrate those things that bring us together.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, trust is something a Government must earn. It is built on honesty, transparency and consistency, all of which are essential if we are to begin restoring public confidence in politics. Against that background, can the Minister tell the House what assessment the Government have made of the impact of the 14 policy U-turns we have endured during this Parliament? Does she accept that repeatedly promising one course of action and then pursuing the opposite risks further undermining that trust?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I asked the Labour Party unit how many U-turns the previous Government had done in their 14 years, and they are still to come back to me because they are still counting.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Regarding the substance of the noble Baroness’s question, this Government have made over 3,000 policy announcements in the last 18 months because of the mess that we inherited from the previous Government. We may have made 14 U-turns, but that is because we have listened where things needed to be tweaked. We have had to do so many things so quickly that it is not a surprise that, occasionally, we have to reflect on whether they were the right things to do.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that building trust in politics needs to start with young people? The measures in the national youth strategy on civic engagement are extremely important, but we need to stop the misinformation on politics that is directed specifically at young people. Can she assure me that the Government will engage with tech company bosses to prevent this poisonous spread of misinformation?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right that one of the biggest challenges we face—and I say this as my stepdaughter is 15 years old—is what young people are exposed to online, but there is a balance here with the fact that current 13 and 14 year-olds will be voting at the next general election. We need to balance protecting them with making sure that they have access to accurate information and that, through the national curriculum, they are taught how to interrogate information so they know what is right and wrong and can ask questions of the people who seek to represent them.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, let us have the Lib Dem Benches.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, is not a key element of trust in politics that elections are run fairly and independently? Therefore, I hope that the Minister might commit to restoring the full independence of the Electoral Commission and repealing the power for a Government of any political persuasion to set the policy and strategic direction for the commission. Is not an independent regulator a far more trustworthy regulator?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord raises an interesting point, and I will write to him about the details of it. Obviously, one of the basic tenets of the British values I have talked about is free and fair elections. Making sure that the Electoral Commission can facilitate those across the United Kingdom is very important.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, the greatest mistrust in politics at the moment is among young graduates, who have seen all three parties renege on promises in relation to student loans. Significantly high interest rates, with repayment at 9%, mean that the majority of young graduates are paying much more tax than the other generation. How will we restore the trust in politics among young graduates, who are central to our future?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a genuinely important point about the next generation, which will be dealing with some of these issues for decades to come. With regards to the specifics of her question about our plans for student fees, I am afraid that I do not have that information available, but I will write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, given the Nolan principles of public life, leadership is one that has been neglected, and given the close relationship between contractors and the Ministry of Defence, what progress has been made on ensuring that senior Ministers and senior officials have a clear understanding of what future they may have once they leave office and leave employment?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I am so sorry. I did not get all the noble Lord’s question. I would be grateful if he could repeat it.
Lord Pickles (Con)
The substantive part of the question was: given the close relationship between contractors and the Ministry of Defence, what progress has been made on ensuring that there is a clear understanding about what would be appropriate for senior Ministers and senior officials to take in terms of employment after they hold office and when they step down from those senior posts?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for repeating his question and apologise that he had to. Obviously, the noble Lord has significant experience in this space because of his previous roles at ACOBA, and I thank him for his work. He will know that, through the Ethics and Integrity Commission, we are reviewing how all this will work together. I will think about the issues that he raises and write to him if that is okay.
Battery Shortage for NHS Hearing Aids
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address the shortage of batteries for NHS hearing aids.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, a single type of Energizer hearing aid battery is under supply pressure due to increased demand. It is still available to order and the NHS supply chain has instituted demand management to ensure a fair supply of available stock across the NHS. The NHS supply chain is working with Energizer and an alternative supplier to maximise stock availability and will take steps to improve future resilience. I am glad to say that the supply issue is anticipated to be resolved by 16 March.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I am grateful for that reply. While this is not the most urgent problem facing the NHS and its patients, 80% of people over 70 suffer from hearing loss. Many of them are now switching off their NHS hearing aids to conserve the batteries, and this has an impact on their quality of life. Last November, supply problems began to emerge and, as the noble Baroness has just said, if you go to the NHS supply chain website, it says that the batteries are subject to “demand management”—a euphemism for short supply. Very worryingly, as the noble Baroness has just said, normal service will not be resumed until March 16. So the question for the Minister is: what resilience is there now in the NHS supply chain for this product and others; why is there so much dependence on one supplier for a fairly basic product; and, related to that, why is it going to take so long to restore normal service?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
These are very real issues that the noble Lord is raising. There are only three global manufacturers and we get our supplies from two of them. There are limited places to get them from. In terms of future resilience, we work very much in partnership, through our Supply Resilience Directorate, with industry and the wider sector to ensure continuity. Importantly, I very much welcome that there was recently investment in Tyne and Wear in the factory, on UK soil, in order to enhance our domestic manufacturing capability. But we will also conduct a lessons learned exercise after this.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that it is not just hearing aid batteries and that the NHS is facing problems with the supply of quite a number of pharmaceuticals? Could the Minister tell us precisely which major pharmaceutical products are affected by this, and is this a consequence of Brexit?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I think my noble friend has heard opinions already expressed on that matter. Certainly, Brexit does give us challenges, without a doubt, that this Government continue to work to resolve. I cannot answer the first question that my noble friend asked about, but I will gladly write to him and can assure him that we are working to overcome some of the challenges that we inherited and have been presented with, and that does include Brexit.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
It should go without saying that rationing hearing aid batteries is totally unacceptable for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. The RNID say that the uncertainty of not knowing how long a battery will last can be very stressful, and no one should be forced to ration their hearing aid use because of supply problems. Whatever the cause, for sure this should never be allowed to happen again. What steps are the Government taking to make sure that it does not?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I certainly agree with the concerns about the impact on individuals. Further to the point raised by the noble Lord, in addition to the noble Baroness, I would recommend that people who are using hearing aids do not ration their hearing. That is not where we want to be, but in fact it is about not giving more supplies than are immediately needed. The real issue is that people are being asked to get their batteries more often. If that is a problem for people, they should raise it with a supplier, who will ensure that, for example, the postal service is used or some other way of getting batteries to individuals.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, in response to that previous answer from the Minister, I understand that, as a result of these shortages, some patients are being required to return to hospitals as frequently as once a week to obtain replacement batteries, while rationing their use in the meantime. Patients have also reported additional travel costs, and even hospital parking charges, because they are going more frequently to the hospital than they otherwise would. What steps is NHS England taking to mitigate these additional costs, particularly for those on lower incomes: for example, by offering, say, free temporary parking if they are going to the hospital only to pick up their batteries, or other mitigations that would help those people?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Well, it is of course a matter for local ICBs to decide what their best response is, depending on their local community. I should emphasise to your Lordships’ House that the reason for the increased demand is that there was a cyber attack on the alternative supply of batteries. That was an unpredictable issue, but is always one for which we need to have resilience. I do recognise what the noble Lord is saying, but that is why I answered to the noble Baroness that there are alternative ways of getting batteries to individuals.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I checked my batteries and I am glad to say they were made in England. But we know that the Chinese dominate the world supply of batteries. Will she send a message to the Prime Minister while he is in China to ensure that, overall, our reliance on China for batteries is not increased? It is really important that we supply ourselves.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am sure that the Prime Minister will be checking Hansard and will hear what the noble Baroness has said. The important point she made was about expanding our domestic manufacturing capability. These particular batteries are very specific in their manufacture—the noble Baroness is quite right—and that is why I welcome the company’s investment in Tyne and Wear: it is a vote of confidence in the British economy, as well as assisting us in our supplies.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I love the idea that the Chinese are listening to our proceedings through your Lordships’ hearing aids. But I say to the Minister that there are many people under the age of 70 who suffer from hearing loss, possibly undiagnosed. It can have a huge impact on people’s cognition and on memory loss, but they are unaware of it. Can the Minister update the House on what the Government are doing to encourage youngsters such as myself to have hearing aid tests as a matter of routine?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I hope I share the noble Lord’s definition. I am enthusiastic about our new approach through the community diagnostic centres that noble Lords will have seen come on stream and be established all around the country. I agree totally about the age range, which is why we promote the fact that free hearing tests are available, and I encourage people to do them. The highest ever number of tests was done in October, over 136,000, which shows that the message is getting out, but I think the all-round approach of community diagnostics centres will really help us here.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
Does this not once again reveal the fundamental flaw in the Government’s procurement policy, which the Treasury is still pursuing, of going for “cheapest is best” and ignoring all the lessons both of the pandemic and of the Ukraine war, which showed that relying on single points of failure regularly and consistently delivers problems into our system, in the long term at much greater cost? Do we not need a better-balanced programme?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I understand that point. Actually, that is one of the reasons we are encouraging ICBs to move to rechargeable batteries. As my noble friend says, it is about looking to the longer term. As part of the lessons learned, that is one of the things that we will look at to see how we can improve the underlying situation.
Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Carer’s Assistance) (Consequential Modifications) Order 2026
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That the draft Order laid before the House on 8 December 2025 be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 28 January.
Medical Devices (Fees Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 16 December 2025 be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 28 January.
Business Rates
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, here we are again, discussing yet another U-turn when the Government conclude, after public outrage at an announcement that they have made and after some tardy reflection, that perhaps they did not get matters right first time. What is offered here is not merely tardy but inadequate. It fails to grapple with the pressures now bearing down on small businesses across the country, especially from business rates.
It is essential that we look beyond the Treasury’s abstractions and confront the real-world consequences of the changes announced in the Budget, which remain even after this U-turn. Tina McKenzie of the Federation of Small Businesses has warned, following this latest announcement, that it simply proves that
“the Government repeatedly fails to recognise the difficulty that these businesses are in”.
I could not echo that more strongly. Andrew Goodacre, the chief executive of the British Independent Retailers Association, went further, describing the change as a “half-baked U-turn” and warning that independent retail is being “flushed down the U-bend”. He added, tellingly, that he could not recall a worse policy decision, cautioning that this poor decision was based on poor reasoning that will inevitably lead to more shop closures—and so on.
The Minister has said that he wishes to work with businesses but, in the face of this negative and consistent feedback from businesses themselves, especially from SMEs, it seems he has been unsuccessful in that aim. It is abundantly clear that the Statement addresses only a small fraction of the economic damage inflicted on businesses since the Government took office.
The inadequacy is not merely one of scale. The relief announced is, by the Government’s own design, temporary, so it is a sticking plaster applied to a deep and structural wound. One of the most persistent economic misunderstandings that this Government have displayed since assuming office is a failure to grasp what businesses actually need: clarity, consistency and certainty. Businesses do not want U-turns, short-lived reliefs, or promises trailed in briefings only to be withdrawn or reannounced days later, as we all saw before the Budget. This announcement exemplifies that failure in its entirety.
Worse still, everyone in the sector is saying that it is inadequate. If the Minister will not listen to His Majesty’s Opposition, perhaps he might listen to Labour Back- Benchers. Jim McMahon and Stella Creasy made the point that I am making in the other place just this week. When Parliament, publicans, business leaders and his own Back-Benchers are urging a reconsideration, what more is the Minister waiting for?
This is ultimately a question of credibility. Businesses do not measure that by press releases or promises of future strategies; they measure it by whether they can plan, invest and survive. What has been announced does not provide that certainty. It is limited in scope and temporary by design, and arrived only after external pressure became unsustainable. That is not how stable tax policy is made or how confidence is restored.
The truth is that confidence in hospitality and retail is fragile. We heard only this morning from Charlie Nunn, CEO of Lloyds Bank, that the sectors in question were having a challenging time. What assessment has the Treasury made of the number of such businesses that have already cancelled investment, reduced staffing or decided to close since the Budget because the Government have failed to provide clarity about their intentions?
If the Government truly wish to work with businesses, they must move beyond reactive concessions and bring forward a coherent, durable approach that treats the whole high street fairly and gives enterprises the certainty they need in order to grow. Until that happens, I fear this week’s announcement will be seen not as a solution but as an admission of failure.
The modest action on pubs is, of course, welcome, and a promise has been made to look at hotels, but will the Minister agree to look at rates for the wider retail, hospitality and leisure sectors before the next Budget? Thousands of shops, cafés, hotels, nightclubs, cinemas and theatres are still facing huge increases. The combination of higher taxes and rates, extra regulation and energy prices for business—four times those in the United States—is crippling these very sectors, and I hope the Minister will be able to promise some relief.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I start with perhaps a modicum of welcome because the combined impact of the Budget and the business rates revaluation prior to this announcement, frankly, left the pub industry on the verge of a crisis, with up to 50% of pubs under the threat of closure. Some relief has now been offered for many pubs, and I am glad that this lifeline has been extended to live music venues, which are the birthing ground of our very important music industry.
Do the Government recognise that the relief that they have just announced amounts roughly to only £1,650 per pub, which will still leave many in a critical financial hole? Do they recognise that pubs with a rateable value of over £100,000 are, in effect, not eligible, and that restaurants, cafés and soft-play areas—so many of those hospitality and leisure operations that lie at the heart of our high streets and communities—will get no relief from these changes whatsoever?
The chaos that has surrounded the announcement of the review—the change and uncertainty that has gone with it and the impact on the sector—surely points to the fact that we need to stop trying to fix the business rates system at the fringes. We need to take a proper step back and review the whole way in which business rates are structured, which, I would say, should head in the direction of land value. There is so much to be done around this area. It is time that the Government see that, rather than get into continuous messes by attempting to ameliorate a system that, frankly, is broken.
Do the Government also accept that the chaotic process that we have seen deeply underscores the need to include hospitality in the industrial strategy? At the very least, one would hope that the effect of that would be to force the Treasury to align tax policy with the economic goal of strengthening our high streets and our hospitality and leisure sectors, and to determine that they are a source of growth, not of constant crisis and constraint. Does the Minister accept that, until the Treasury gets aligned with that agenda, we will have constant issues like that? Frankly, that is not the best way to go.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, for their comments and questions, and for their cautious welcome of what we have announced.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, ignored what we announced in the Budget: the £4.3 billion of support for those experiencing increases in business rates. As she knows, the previous valuation was based on property values during the Covid pandemic, which meant that rateable values were much lower. As a result of that valuation, some businesses, including the retail, hospitality and leisure venues that we are discussing, are now seeing an increase.
At the Budget, we announced three elements of support at a cost £4.3 billion, which neither noble Baroness mentioned in their comments. We are implementing transitional relief that will cap increases at 5% for the smallest properties and at up to 30% for the largest. For any business whose value increase has meant that they are no longer eligible for small business rates relief, we are capping their increase. We have expanded the supporting small business relief scheme, to provide specific support to those who are currently eligible for the 40% RHL relief.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said that the wider system needs reform; we absolutely agree on that and have begun that. We are reforming the business rates system by introducing permanently lower tax rates for over 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said that what we are doing is temporary, but those new lower rates are permanent—unlike what the previous Government did—and they will be funded by higher rates on the most valuable properties, including those of online giants.
I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that the previous Government’s plans were to scrap entirely the temporary Covid-era retail, hospitality and leisure relief in 2025—but she now says that more support should be offered. If they had won the last election, their plans clearly show that they would have removed it overnight in April last year. They now claim that they would extend it, so why did they not say so or include that in their forecasts or projections?
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for what she described as her cautious welcome of what has been announced. We have of course been listening to the industry. We have announced that, from April, every pub in England will get 15% off its new business rates bill, on top of the support announced at the Budget. Their bills will then be frozen in real terms for a further two years. The noble Baroness noted that the support will be worth £1,650 for the average pub next year, but that means that three-quarters of pubs will see their bills either fall or stay flat next year. This decision will also mean that the amount of business rates paid by the pub sector as a whole will be 8% lower in 2028-29 than it is today.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said that pubs with ratable values of over £100,000 would not benefit, but we are clear that this will apply to all pubs. I am grateful for what she said about this applying to music venues too. Many live music venues are valued as pubs, and many pubs are grass-roots live music venues, so it would not be right to seek to draw the line so tightly as to include some but not others.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, also talked about the structural issues that many of these businesses are facing, and she will know that the sector has raised concerns about the way that they are valued. The Government agree that this needs to be looked at. We are therefore launching a review that will examine how pubs are valued for business rates, and we will set out more detail on that in due course.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spent a lot of her statement telling us about what businesses need. What they need most is stability; they did not need the previous Government, with the Liz Truss mini-Budget, Brexit and austerity, and all the consequences that they had. The noble Baroness commented on what we are doing for business. She will know that, under the previous Government, business investment was the lowest in the entire G7, and that, since the election, business investment has increased faster in this country than in any other G7 country. I am more than happy to compare her record with ours.
The noble Baroness will know that we are pressing ahead with wider regulatory reforms to help businesses, as well as carrying out licensing reform, and that we are looking at loosening planning rules to benefit pubs more generally. She will also know that we are doubling the hospitality support fund with £10 million of funding over three years.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, talked about the importance of the sector for growth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, talked about the challenges faced by the wider sector. I understand the challenges that many other retail, hospitality and leisure companies are facing. We have already taken significant steps to support businesses, including, as I said, the £4.3 billion of business rates support.
As we all know, consumers have changed their habits over the past decade and are increasingly working from home and shopping online. Combined with the pandemic and the increase in energy costs since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, these trends have continued to make it harder for high street businesses. Therefore, later this year the Government will bring forward a high street strategy, and we will work with businesses and representative bodies to look at what more the Government can do to support our high streets.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that the previous Government wrecked the economy and gave us Brexit, which reduced our ability to pay for public services? The Opposition now seem to be calling for greater public expenditure and tax cuts. It sounds as though they have found not just one money tree but an orchard. Can the Minister explain how someone can call for more expenditure and less tax?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I very much agree with everything that my noble friend said. Among the long litany of the previous Government’s failures, their failure on growth was one of their most significant. We saw Brexit and the Liz Truss mini-Budget, and we know what business thought of that. We saw business investment across the whole economy fall to the lowest level in the entire G7. My noble friend is also absolutely correct to point out that, every time we debate the economy in the Chamber, the noble Baroness opposite supports every single piece of spending that we announce but opposes every single piece of revenue raising. It is quite clear that those two things do not add up.
On the Tory record more widely, we should note that 7,000 pubs have closed in the past 14 years, and that the previous Government’s plans were to scrap entirely the temporary Covid retail, hospitality and leisure relief in 2025. Their plans show that they would have ended it overnight. We have chosen a different path by extending that support with the help of £4.3 billion of additional support.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, it would be churlish not to welcome the measures—so far as they go—that the Chancellor has introduced. However, does the Minister accept that it is small family businesses—the hair salons, cafés and restaurants, among others, to which my noble friend on the Front Bench referred—that will be directly affected by the lack of support? Does he accept that, if these small family businesses do not get support, it will damage their programme for growth and lead to a lack of growth and a loss of jobs?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I respectfully say to the noble Baroness that she must take what has been announced this week in the round with what was announced in the Budget. We spent £4.3 billion supporting exactly the type of businesses the noble Baroness mentions. We have expanded the supporting small business scheme to provide specific support to those who are currently eligible for the 40% RHL relief. Around one in three businesses continues to benefit from small business rates relief and does not pay anything at all. We have extended the second property grace period to support small businesses as they grow. So, I do not accept that we are not supporting those businesses. But equally, I absolutely understand the challenges that many retail, hospitality and leisure businesses are facing, which is exactly why, later this year, the Government will bring forward a high street strategy and work with businesses and representative bodies, looking at what more the Government can do to support our high streets.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister will agree that one of the things that will drive growth is consumer confidence. It is very hard for consumers to be confident when they see their high streets putting up shutters and “closed” signs. The Minister also talked about changed behaviour and the driving of online sales. Beneath that is a real inequity, in that the out-of-town warehouses which have been driving those digital sales have a rates square foot rate about a tenth, if not less, of that of the high street stores with which they compete. When the Minister is having this review, can he review not only the high streets but how the out-of-town warehouses are eroding those high streets?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord on the importance of consumer confidence—and six interest rate cuts since the election is very important to bolstering that consumer confidence. It is the fastest pace of interest rate cuts for 17 years, and the action we took in the Budget to further cut inflation and bear down on borrowing will support the Bank of England in the work it is doing to reduce interest rates. I also agree with what the noble Lord says about out-of-town online giants, and that is why we are reforming the business rates system. As I said, we are introducing permanently lower tax rates for over 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties, and we are funding that with higher rates on the most valuable properties, including the warehouses used by online giants. But I absolutely understand what the noble Lord is saying, and I am more than happy to look at that as part of the work to develop the high street strategy.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, can the noble Lord shed some light on when the review of hotels is likely to report and conclude, and when hoteliers might be able to see some relief on their business rates?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Hotels will continue to benefit from the support for business rates announced at the Budget. As I have already said, this latest package needs to be seen in the round with the £4.3 billion that we announced at the time of the Budget, including the transitional relief scheme, which will cap increases for those seeing the largest increases. The noble Lord is right, though, to mention hotels, and we recognise that hotels have expressed concerns about how they are valued for business rates. Hotel valuations are undertaken in a different way from some other sectors, so we will review the way hotels are valued as part of our wider valuation review. The methodology used is well established, but as with pubs, specific concerns have been raised with us, and it is right to review this to ensure it accurately reflects the rental value for these sectors. Any potential changes to business rates as a result of that review will be considered at the Budget in the usual way.
Lord Gove (Con)
Of all the U-turns that have been executed since the Minister joined the Treasury team, whether on the family farm tax, business rates or the winter fuel payment, which is his favourite?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very happy to tell the noble Lord what my least favourite policy of the previous Government was, and that was Brexit.
Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree with me about the importance of certainty and security for businesses in the payment of business rates in particular? While local authority funding is predicated on the retention of business rates at a local level, as well as council tax rates, there is regional variation in the deployment of the collection of those rates, based on differential bandings according to the nature of properties in those areas. Will he consider the challenge that many small businesses face in having to pay business rates, compared to the longevity of property owners? Will he consider looking at the payment of business rates in future by business owners rather than businesses themselves as a way of smoothing out some of these challenges?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for that question, which obviously comes from a position of deep expertise in this matter. I am more than happy to look at all the issues he raises and take them back to my Treasury colleagues to discuss them further.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, 3.5 million jobs are dependent on a successful hospitality industry in this country—that is obviously the entire supply chain. I spent a lot of my life in the airline industry, which is at one end of that. Notwithstanding that, when we look at tourism, which encompasses hotels, taxis, restaurants and cafes, this Government have a complete lack of understanding of the impact of what they are doing. They are under pressure because they will not take steps to address the welfare bill, so they are taking moneys and taxes from areas that often cannot afford it. We know that will cause long-term damage, despite this sop of the slight reduction for pubs in the next couple of years.
As we look at the welfare bill, will the Government please reconsider what they are doing, and instead of making another U-turn—well, we would like a really big U-turn on this one: we would like it to be abolished—take a real look at what else they can do to raise revenue where we know expenditure is wholly excessive and cannot be carried on?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I agree with the first thing the noble Baroness said, on the importance of the sector and jobs; I did not agree with anything else she said. She said that we have a lack of understanding: I just wonder what she would have done. We spent £4.3 billion in the Budget supporting these businesses: she did not acknowledge that. She did not acknowledge that the previous Government, whom she presumably supported, would have ended Covid relief overnight and had absolutely no plans to extend it, as we have. She said she would abolish business rates. Well, she had 14usb years to do that, and she did not. I wonder how she would now fund the abolition of business rates, and what other services she would cut to do that.
The noble Baroness mentioned airlines. The Government have redesigned the 2023 transitional relief scheme to provide generous support for large properties such as airports and those in other industrial strategy sectors. That is extremely important. She mentioned hotels, and I have answered that question already. As I say, I fundamentally disagree with her. The Government she supported would have ended this relief overnight; we have extended it.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, following the moderately good reception to my last question, I am going to push my luck. Following on from the from the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, when this review is under way, can the Treasury review a commercial landowner levy rather than a straight business rate? That does not penalise investment, and it puts the onus on the people who actually own the land. If the Minister is not 100% au fait with the Liberal Democrat policy on this, I would be very happy to arrange a briefing for him and colleagues.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I may not have read all the Liberal Democrat policy documents as thoroughly as perhaps I should have. I cannot commit the review to considering specific things right now, but I am more than happy to take those thoughts back to the Treasury.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
Although my experience of government is now over 30 years old, the one message I remember from being in Cabinet is that on matters of taxation and investment, the Government have to get it right first time. That is the only way to establish a pro-growth, pro-business strategy. So, what I would love to hear from the Minister, having heard the messages from all sides of the House, is that the relief announced—one of what his noble friend the Minister admitted is 14 U-turns—is probably a little late and not enough. Therefore, the future must rely on a better strategy. Is the Minister confident that the consultation the Government are having right across the business sector is sufficient to ensure that they get that pro-business, pro-growth strategy right?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I say, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, that I am being lectured by Conservatives on stability and investment when we had 14 years of instability and chronic underinvestment. We saw underinvestment in the public sector and the lowest rates of private sector investment in the entire G7 so, as I said, with the greatest respect, I may not take all those lectures. Obviously, investment is vital to our economy. Stability is vital to that, as are the reforms that we are taking, not least in terms of planning, for example, to get more investment into our economy.
The noble Lord says that the measures we have taken are a little late. Of course, we spent £4.3 billion in the Budget, and it was vital that we did that. He says that they are not enough. As I said, the previous Government, if they had won the election, would have done absolutely nothing. It is important to contrast that, but I agree with what he said about consulting and working hand in hand in partnership with business, so that we absolutely understand and get the most pro-growth, pro-business policies that we possibly can.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, has the Minister noticed that the Opposition say that the private sector does not like U-turns, they say they do not like U-turns, and then they call for more U-turns? What is their strategy for dealing with our current problems?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I cannot answer for the strategy of the party opposite—I am sure we would all like to know—but what matters most is that we get to the right policy and I believe that we have done so in this case.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the Official Opposition have actually come forward with plans for the high street, which we would be very glad to share with the Minister as he does his high street review. I think we should have not only Lib Dem ideas but Conservative ideas. We have a new Opposition now. We are looking forward, not backwards. We are very keen to see the country grow and the high streets flourish.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am sure the noble Baroness would like to look forwards and not backwards, but I am not sure the country shares that view. The country remembers the past 14 years and the damage that party opposite did to the economy, the public services and the fabric of our nation. As I said already, the noble Baroness cannot wriggle out of the fact that, had her party won the election, it would have ended this relief overnight entirely in 2025. It was in her plans—the plans that we inherited from her. If she now claims that she would have extended the relief, why did her party not say so and include it in their forecasts or projections? We have to take what her party says now with a huge pinch of salt. As I have said, the party opposite always supports the spending that we are doing but does not support a single one of the measures we are taking to raise the revenue for that spending. I suspect that its plans are equally uncosted.
UK-EU Customs Union
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
That this House takes note of the case for a UK-EU customs union and the impact of connections with the EU single market on the United Kingdom economy.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to introduce this debate. It will see a number of comings and goings. We welcome the noble Lords, Lord Doyle, Lord Docherty and Lord Pitt-Watson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, and say farewell to the noble Lord, Lord Offord. For the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, the House of Lords must seem like a haven of peace and tranquillity compared with his previous domain in Downing Street, not least in recent days. The noble Baroness, Lady Gill, brings a welcome additional Sikh voice to your Lordships’ House, and the noble Lords, Lords Docherty and Lord Pitt-Watson, bring a combination of business, academic and charity experience to our proceedings. We look forward to all their speeches today. We wish the noble Lord, Lord Offord, well as he contemplates pastures new.
The wording of today’s debate may sound rather dry and technical, but it deals with two of the biggest issues facing the country: how to improve growth and prosperity, and what our place in the world should be in the current turbulent times. I support the Government in making growth a, if not the, top policy priority. Growth in the UK has stalled over recent years, and this has led to constrained real incomes, weakened public revenues and, as a result, higher government borrowing. The Government sought to stimulate growth through a variety of investment incentives and educational and productivity measures, but these have been patchy and, even if eventually fruitful, will in many cases not yield real benefits for years to come.
There are many explanations as to why the UK’s growth has been so anaemic in recent years, but there can be no doubt that one of them is Brexit. There are many estimates of the impact of Brexit on the UK economy, but they all point in the same direction. Probably the best known is the OBR’s estimate that Brexit will reduce GDP by 4% over a 15-year period, that UK-EU trade will fall by 15%, and that Brexit has already had a negative impact on the public finances to the tune of over £40 billion over the period to 2024. Recent research by the US National Bureau of Economic Research suggests that the negative impact of Brexit has been much greater. What we know for certain is that goods exports to the EU in 2024 were 18% below 2019 levels and food exports were down 30%.
Inward investment, which is crucial to productivity and growth, has also been hit. House of Commons research has shown that FDI flows are well below the levels projected under pre-Brexit trends, and research by the Productivity Institute has shown that, post-Brexit, there are intensified regional inequalities in the inward investment that we are still attracting.
Polling amongst SMEs shows that over half believe that Brexit has made them less competitive globally because of shrinking access to EU customers and disrupted supply chains. And things are not getting better. The British Chambers of Commerce, reporting just last month, said that trade frictions are worsening. The reasons for this dismal picture are not hard to see: increased bureaucracy, including customs declarations and physical checks; competing regulatory frameworks; staffing shortages; and the inability of UK companies to participate in EU programmes, which have not been replicated by this country. So, Brexit has unambiguously hit growth and, if things remain unchanged, will increasingly do so.
In the meantime, the international context has changed significantly, and not in a good way. The Ukraine war has posed increasingly urgent questions for the whole of Europe, including the UK, about how it defends itself, both economically and militarily, against an aggressive Russian state. For the past year, President Trump’s re-election has led to a Catherine wheel of anti-European rhetoric and actions that have destabilised the Atlantic economic and security status quo. It is impossible to predict how the remainder of the Trump presidency will unfold, but there is now, I think, a widespread realisation that whatever happens, we will not return to the transatlantic economic and security equilibrium that we enjoyed throughout the post-war era.
This realisation that things have changed for good and that a new policy response is required has been articulated most eloquently by Canadian Premier Carney, speaking in Davos last week. He argued that the post-war rules-based international order has been upset and that new approaches are needed. He argued that sovereignty grounded in rules had to be increasingly anchored in the ability to withstand pressure, and that the key now was to build coalitions that work.
For Britain, by far the most significant coalition that can work better is that with the EU. The EU has responded to US threats to NATO funding by stepping up to the plate on increased military expenditure—in the case of Germany, dramatically so. In recent days, it has effectively faced down President Trump by threatening retaliatory tariffs if he imposes tariffs on Europe in his bid to take over Greenland. Post-Brexit, there have been some who have called for a much closer economic alignment with the US and further distancing from the EU. If it ever was, that approach is now clearly no longer a viable option.
The only viable option, in a world where Russia acts as a brutal aggressor, China poses a raft of security and economic threats, and the US is unreliable at best, is for the UK to rebuild and strengthen its ties with the EU. There is a need for this on security issues, on which there is already considerable progress, but there is also definitely a need for it on economic grounds. This inevitably means readdressing the issue of our membership of the EU customs union and the single market.
There are the beginnings of a recognition of that from the Government, who have embarked on a so-called reset of our relations with the EU. This led, last summer, to the first post-Brexit UK-EU summit, and agreement on a new strategic partnership with the EU that covered a significant but limited range of issues, including fishing, energy, student exchanges, and food and agricultural products. Progress on these matters has been somewhat fitful, but the Government have recently committed to reaching detailed agreements on all the issues covered by the new strategic partnership by the time of the next summit, which is expected by the summer. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that is still the Government’s aim and expectation.
The Government have also signed a number of trade agreements with non-EU countries, which offer the prospect of increased long-term trade flows. Sadly, the potential benefits from those deals are extremely modest. Indeed, it is estimated that the benefits of even the limited measures in the Government’s reset will bring at least twice the benefits of the UK-India trade agreement, which is itself by far the most significant of our new trade agreements. In our view, the measures proposed in the reset, although positive and valuable, are not enough—nowhere near enough.
Our argument that rejoining a customs union with the EU is now urgently required to promote growth has been accepted by some members of the Cabinet. Wes Streeting has made the point repeatedly in recent months, as has David Lammy, who argued last month that such a move was essential to reduce trade friction. The Business Secretary, Peter Kyle, has also turned his mind to the issue in recent days. Early last week he described Lib Dem calls to rejoin the customs union as “utopianism” and said:
“What gives me anxiety is growth this year … that gives me more concern than … the customs union”.
However, he then went to Davos and said that
“it would be crazy not to engage with the prospect of a customs union”.
One hopes that he does now engage with the issue—and on a more consistent basis. Keir Starmer has also said that he is prepared to consider closer alignment with the single market, but not to the extent of returning to freedom of movement. If all this is timid—far too timid, in our view—at least it shows that the Government accept that closer alignment with the EU would indeed bring benefits to the UK.
No such timidity of approach applies to Kemi Badenoch, who recently said that joining the customs union would be “bizarre”. It would, she said,
“make us all poorer and damage British business and … farming.”
Given that this is the exact opposite of what British business is saying, the bizarre thing is that she seems to believe it. As for Reform, Nigel Farage is promoting the idea of a free trade deal with the US as the answer to our economic problems, and regards even the Government’s reset as a “giveaway”, which he will fight “tooth and nail”. He, at least, has the sole virtue of consistency.
Noble Lords will be aware that Liberal Democrat policy is to rejoin both the customs union and the single market, with the ultimate goal of rejoining the EU. Therefore, for us, the question is how we get there. We accept that, as the single market covers both services and goods, and the UK’s trade in services with the EU is large and in positive balance, being a member of the single market would bring greater overall benefits than membership of the customs union. However, we believe, from a practical point of view, that it would be more straightforward to negotiate a customs union deal, that time is now of the essence, and that we could get started on it straightaway.
We must accept that the EU does not see the prospect of years more negotiations with the UK on these issues as a priority, and is likely to prove a tough negotiator. It is particularly likely to be unsympathetic to any deal with the UK that seeks to cherry-pick bits of the customs union or single market that particularly benefit us. Any British Government will have to be prepared to accept this, and to explain it to the electorate. The seductive mantra of Boris Johnson of having your cake and eating it was always false. It would be a recipe for failure if we adopted that as our basic negotiating stance.
The EU, like the UK, is in something of a state of shock, given on the one hand the threats from Russia and on the other the new unreliability of the US. There is a new recognition that the whole of Europe, including the UK, must act decisively against these external threats, and a new willingness to contemplate closer working arrangements.
There is also now much stronger and majority support for getting the UK back into the heart of the EU, particularly among young people. This was recently brought home to me when, a few months ago, at the end of a school talk in Bridlington—one of the strongest pro-Brexit communities in 2016—I asked the pupils whether they agreed with my approach to the EU. To my surprise and pleasure, a forest of hand went up. They clearly see the EU as offering new opportunities for themselves and their community. We should not dash their hopes.
It is therefore for the UK now to set out clearly and unambiguously its long-term aspirations for a renewed relationship with the EU, and to prosecute that policy energetically and with urgency. The Government have made a few tentative steps in the right direction, but they are not enough. Today’s crises require swift and substantive action. The Government must now rise to this challenge. I beg to move.
Baroness Gill (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I rise with some hesitation and a great deal of gratitude to make my maiden speech in your Lordships’ House. I am acutely aware of the experience, independence of mind, and breadth and depth of knowledge that surrounds me.
Last Tuesday was a sublime experience for me and my family and friends; I still pinch myself to check that it was real. I am deeply grateful to my supporters, my noble friends Lord Kennedy and Lady Smith, for their guidance and support over many years. I am also grateful for the kindness shown to me by Black Rod’s office, by Mr Ingram and his team of doorkeepers, and by the Reading Clerk, Dr Christopher Johnson. His flexibility in enabling me to take my oath on my mother’s Gutka, a Sikh prayer book—sadly, she passed away just before Christmas—meant so much to me, especially as the first Sikh woman on the Labour Benches.
It has been quite a journey since I left Ludhiana, in Punjab, as a child. With huge support from my family, friends, members of my party and my colleagues at Sikhs for Labour, I have arrived here. My first home was in Southall, a rich, multicultural area that is one of the beating hearts to this day in the London Borough of Ealing—unsurprisingly, given that for many decades it has been a first stop on many migrants’ journey into this land. That was at a time when bussing children out of their locality was the norm, and I ended up at Walford High in Northolt. I give thanks to investments by earlier Labour Governments, and two super teachers who mentored me to go on to further education and to embrace every opportunity that came my way. Hence, Southall is part of my title, as I too want to inspire the present generation of children who are growing up there, and at my old school, that you too can dream and aspire to succeed in whatever walk you choose.
My political home is the West Midlands and it is fitting that that is included in my title too. My love of jewellery is known to many, especially pieces made by our talented artisans. I first came across them in the Jewellery Quarter, thanks to the Birmingham Assay Office, which had concerns about proposals from Brussels that we worked together to mitigate. I moved into Jewellery Quarter soon afterwards, and long before it became hip and one of the best places to live in the country. It was such a rewarding experience, with its wonderful restaurants, cafés and bars, excellent road and rail connections—a perfect example of imaginative inner-city regeneration—that I stayed there for over two decades.
I come here conscious that my experience is only one among many, but I am hopeful that I will none the less be of service to this House in the debates that lie ahead. Over the years, I have been privileged to work in three main areas: housing and regeneration, reducing inequalities, and Britain’s relations with the EU. Having spent my life in public service, though with spells in corporate and tech sectors that left their indelible marks on me, I saw first-hand when I was running a housing association the real difference a good home can make to a person’s life chances in education, health and employment. I am still totally committed to eradicating inequalities in all fields. Today, inequality can be experienced in several ways, including digital inequality. So how we succeed as a society will depend on how data is harnessed and how we manage AI to reduce its impact, including on those in the creative sector.
Brexit cut my tenure of almost 16 years as an MEP short. As it happens, this coming Saturday, 31 January, will be exactly six years after Britain left the EU. How regrettable it is to see the damage inflicted on our economy. I remain a passionate advocate of the project, though my son still reproaches me that I was very much absent when he was growing up. Nevertheless, he has grown up to be a fine young man, working as a creative, as it happens, who cares deeply about his work and society.
Recent international developments have brought us to a turning point in our relations with the EU. Not only is it necessary to rebuild the trust lost in the Brexit years, but trade and defence must be our top priority, given that the world has changed around us and our approach to alliances must do, too. I welcome that this Government have signed a trade agreement with India, as did the EU on Tuesday, which I championed for many years while I was there.
However, as the EU has been faced with new challenges, its instruments and procedures need to evolve accordingly. At the same time, UK-EU relations need to be more ambitious, particularly in the fields of trade, defence and security. Rejoining instruments from another era such as the customs union cannot be the answer. New challenges demand new structures and new models of co-operation.
I look forward to working together with your Lordships in this House in facing today’s challenges and defending nothing less than the cause of a better life for our fellow citizens in a troubled and turbulent world.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, for that absolutely excellent speech, revealing her rich experience in many areas across both the European Union and localities in the UK. She has already made one significant mark on our work: I was not aware that you could have two locations in your title. I am sure there are precedents for it, but the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, has certainly established that. I am pretty sure that, if the citizens of Jewellery in Birmingham and Southall in Ealing get to read that speech, they will be very proud of their girl for what she is achieving on their and other people’s behalf in this country.
We are proud of her on these Benches, too. She is going to bring a fresh perspective on a number of things, including housing and inequality, and perhaps on the EU as well. She was not exactly on any party line with her remarks at the end, but her basic pro-Europeanism shone through very strongly. We look forward to further speeches to come, which again will make us think and take us forward. We have a new colleague who will be a big hitter in this Chamber. While I am on my feet, I wish the other noble Lords who will be delivering their maiden speeches today all the very best for the future. If they do as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, they will be doing very well.
I follow the noble Lord, Lord Newby, in a number of ways—not all ways—and I appreciated his opening speech very much. It set the scene for this debate very well and the scene for the country more generally. I, too, like him, remember vividly in the EU referendum that not everyone on the leave campaign thought that leaving the EU necessarily meant leaving the customs union and the single market. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, was among those who initially thought that. Reference has been made to Boris Johnson’s famous remarks that we could have our cake and eat it, keep the benefits and still leave—one of the biggest whoppers told in that very bitter campaign.
Now, we are faced with reality, and a hard reality it is, too, as the evidence of the costs of leaving the EU continues to pile up. I am not going to repeat all the statistics that were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, other than to say that goods exports are still languishing below pre-2019 levels. I am particularly concerned about small firms, bewildered still by increased paperwork and customs-related red tape.
Nor are non-EU countries filling the gaps. The new trade deals have so far been disappointing. The one with India is unfortunately not yet in force. Others, such as the one with Japan, replicate the EU arrangements; Canada is more interested in a deal with the EU than with us; and the deal with Australia is very good for Australia, but reflects a desperation on our part to get some agreements over the line. As for a deal with the US, as Mark Carney said at Davos recently:
“We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition”.
I acknowledge warmly that the US has helped rescue us and other Europeans in the past, but can we still rely on it, given the capricious behaviour of the present White House Administration? Well, nobody is too clear about that.
So it seems to me that this can be used in a number of ways, with a number of opportunities as well as a number of threats. It can be used to open a new chapter with the EU, as we huddle together with our neighbours and allies and try to make common cause on a wider range of issues. Defence is an obvious priority area at the moment, but trade should also be another. Prime Minister Carney’s call for medium-sized powers to come together should be heeded and used by the UK as a way to approach our problems in a new way. We need that new way and we need it quickly: we need this reset of key relationships, as the Government are at last exploring.
As the excellent Library briefing for this debate reminds us, the Office for Budget Responsibility reckons that UK imports and exports are both 15% lower than if the UK had remained in the EU. That is a heavy blow to our growth prospects.
I live in hope that people on the other side of this House will begin to acknowledge that the history of our brief time outside the EU has not been good; it has been bad. There have been failures all around, and it was precipitated by us leaving the EU. I look forward, not backward. I do not want to replay old arguments, but I hope that the reset will be bold and wide-ranging. It should challenge those in the Conservative Party—and, I guess, the Reform party too—to recognise the reality that we need a new deal with the EU and perhaps follow up the Carney speech.
There are four major claimed benefits of Brexit, as set out recently by the Conservative Party leader, particularly the freedom to negotiate our own trade deals.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
Order. We have quite a tight time limit, and everybody wants to hear from my noble friend and for her to be able to respond, so if my noble friend could finish—
Lord Monks (Lab)
I finish with an appeal to the other side to open their minds and maybe open their hearts a little bit, recognise the situation we are now in, not the situation we were in, and take the country forward on that basis.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure for me on behalf of these Benches, this side of the House, to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, on her admirable maiden speech. She referred to feeling a little intimidated coming here and to the experience and depth of knowledge in this House, but from her speech, it was perfectly clear that she is going to add considerably both to the experience and the depth of knowledge, and we strongly welcome her for that. She has huge experience in the European Parliament—as she said, she spent 16 years there. That is one area of expertise, but she also has expertise on housing, because she was the chief executive of a housing association. Her maiden speech was both eloquent and moving. She referred to her love of jewellery, and I am sure she will be a jewel in your Lordships’ House for a long time to come.
As was said in the noble Baroness’s excellent maiden speech, and by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, of course, it is a good idea that Britain should seek to improve its relations with the EU. But a customs union is emphatically not the way, and quite rightly, the Prime Minister has said that a customs union is a red line. We just hope that it is one of these red lines that he does not actually cross.
Brexit can be, has been and was blamed by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for almost everything. Ministers refer to the OBR, which said that Brexit has already caused a 4% decline in GDP. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, admitted, the statistic actually was that the 4% decline would happen over 15 years. Some 4% over 15 years is, on an annualised basis, a very small amount, difficult to measure accurately, especially when the effects of Brexit, as the OBR has admitted, can hardly be distinguished from those of Covid, energy prices or the war in Ukraine.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, pointed out that goods exports to the EU remain below pre-pandemic Brexit levels. In 2024, as he said, they were 18% below the 2019 level. However, goods exports to non-EU countries over the same period were also down by 14%. So what do we conclude from this—that Brexit has caused damage to exports outside the EU? That seems rather improbable.
Over the same period, the UK’s performance in services was much better and well above its pre-epidemic levels. The fact remains that since Brexit, the British economy has moved largely in line with the larger EU economies. Italy and Germany have performed worse than Britain, France slightly better. Germany and Italy did not leave the EU and yet have performed worse than us.
A customs union is not the answer. If the question is growth, there must be a different way, and a customs union could do great harm. There would be very little gain from lower tariffs, because most UK-EU goods trade is already tariff-free. If we joined a customs union, we would have to accept tariff-free imports from those countries that the EU had negotiated trade agreements with, but we would not have the reciprocal benefit of being able to export tariff-free to those countries.
Our ability to do independent trade deals would end. We would have to renegotiate or cancel trade deals done since Brexit. The loss of the US agreement would be significant. It is actually our largest single trading partner. The pharmaceutical industry sells 25% of its exports to, and enjoys free access to, the US, while EU pharmaceuticals pay a tariff of 15%. Are we going to put this hugely important industry in danger through leaving that agreement or having to renegotiate it?
Alignment, a favourite subject of noble Lords, of regulations makes sense where individual sectors actually want it, provided that it is repealable and changeable if conditions change. Dynamic alignment, where we permanently hand over control of our laws, is a step too far and unnecessary.
It is interesting to recall how the financial services sector, which we were told after Brexit must align with the EU to survive, is now, according to recent reports in the FT—
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
I am just finishing—is now pleading for exclusion from any steps towards alignment. The Liberals claim a customs union would boost government revenues. They have suddenly become followers of Donald Trump, believing that “tariff” is the most beautiful word in the English language, but a customs union would mean that we would be obliged to share our customs revenues with the EU.
A customs union does not make any sense. The Prime Minister is quite right. It ought to be a red line. Gladstone would have been horrified at the stance of the Liberal party. He would have called what it is putting forward the road to servitude. It makes no sense.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, before we come to the next speaker, I just remind your Lordships’ House that this is a time-limited debate, and we also have a number of maiden speeches, which will obviously go a little over the speaking limit. We want to leave enough time for the Minister to respond to the many questions that your Lordships will have. We ask speakers to please stick to the four-minute speaking time.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is surely to be congratulated on his timely choice of topic. The hard fact is that both this House and the other place will be debating how to remedy the lamentable post-Brexit deal struck in 2019 for the foreseeable future. I welcome most warmly the maiden speaker who preceded me, the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, and the three who will succeed me.
What I regret about the scope of our debate is its failure to address the single most urgent issue in our relationship: the security relationship with other European countries. With Putin continuing his aggression against a democratic European country—Ukraine—and doubts over the attitude of President Trump on this and other issues, there is no time to lose on strengthening European security co-operation and the European pillar of NATO. The failure to agree the first step along that road at the end of last year was totally regrettable and does not reflect well on either side, most prominently, in my view, on the European Union.
I hope the Minister, in replying to this debate, will borrow a phrase from a previous Prime Minister of her party and say that we will not take no for an answer and will persevere with our efforts to build that stronger security relationship.
Many of the items agreed at last May’s UK-EU summit as part of the reset are extraordinarily welcome, and I hope the Minister will give the House an update on the state of negotiations and on the preparations for the next meeting in that series, scheduled for this summer.
The veterinary agreements are clearly essential to remove the many sanitary and phytosanitary obstacles hampering agri-food trade in both directions. The energy agreements on our emissions trading schemes and on co-operation over interlinking connectors and the development of renewable energy projects in the North Sea will equally be mutually beneficial. The EU’s introduction of cross-border adjustment measures a few days ago makes it essential that we avoid those sea bans becoming yet another non-tariff barrier to trade when we need similarity of treatment to prevent the diversion of imports into the EU and resulting damage to ourselves.
A mobility agreement for young people moving in both directions would be a welcome complement to the decision to rejoin Erasmus+. Should we balk at the need to accept, in some areas, continuous adjustment to changes in EU rules? I do not believe so. After all, any British-based company that trades into our largest overseas market, the EU, is already having to meet those rules. There is no impediment to our having stricter rules than the EU. When the Minister replies, can she say where the consultation over rejoining the pan-European rules of origin convention has got to and when the Government will announce a decision on that? I will not comment on the customs union issue, because there is nothing like enough clarity yet on what that might entail to form a judgment. I will listen carefully to those in this debate who support going down that road.
It is often said by commentators that the EU does not rate the reset of the UK-EU relationship as being very high among its crowded order of priorities. No doubt there is some truth in that, but it is not the whole truth. The changes in geopolitical circumstances since the referendum in 2016 have made it more necessary to build a solid new post-Brexit relationship, capable of greater load bearing than the one agreed in 2019. It is essential that we show a firmness of purpose and a restoration of trust and do not repeat the errors of earlier years by squabbling among ourselves over the details of the way ahead.
Lord Docherty of Milngavie (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I begin by thanking Black Rod, Garter, the clerk, the doorkeepers and all the staff of this House for the kindness that they have shown me since joining. I thank noble Lords from every side who have, without exception, made me feel so welcome. I thank my supporters—my noble friends Lady Armstrong of Hill Top and Lady Elliott of Whitburn Bay—for their encouragement and support, and my noble friends Lady Smith of Basildon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark for the thoughtfulness they have both shown towards me.
I grew up in a small suburb of Glasgow that few people have heard of and even fewer can pronounce. I studied at Strathclyde University, but it was at school that my interest in politics first developed. I attended St Ninian’s High School in Kirkintilloch. While my favourite subject was art, I vividly recall a young teacher in my third-year guidance class who was at pains to emphasise the importance of democracy. Indeed, that teacher created an election just to show us how democracy worked. It was the first time I stood for election. When it was time to vote, the teacher stood at the front of the class behind an improvised ballot box and we lined up to vote. My opponent happened to be in front of me. As he cast his ballot, he turned around to tell me that because there were only two of us on the ballot, he felt the right thing to do was to vote for me. I am embarrassed to admit that I also thought the right thing to do was to vote for me. I won by one vote.
After university I began a career in banking, specialising in real estate, PFI and public/private partnerships. In 1997 I was seconded to work for the incoming Labour Government on their regional development policy. I left the city in 2002 and moved to Newcastle upon Tyne, which is my adopted home. It is where I met my husband and where our children are growing up. Since then, my work has involved almost every aspect of economic development, principally in the north-east of England. It is a challenge to persuade private capital, which has a choice, to regions that have historically lower levels of accumulated wealth, capital formation and economic growth. Accelerating growth in our regions is essential—which is not to argue for slower growth in London and the south-east, although London and the south-east should irrigate, not drain.
That brings me to this debate. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, discuss last week the symbolism of the Woolsack and the centrality of business and wealth creation to the well-being and functioning of the state. I could not agree more. If only economic growth could be delivered by certainty of view alone. If one relies not on self-belief but on evidence and fact, one can only conclude that the decision to leave the customs union has been nothing other than an unmitigated disaster—for UK business, for our economy and for the Exchequer, upon which the health of our public services depends.
Drawing together my start in the classroom where I cast my first vote and today, there is a common factor in each beyond my own involvement. The energetic young teacher in whose class I first stood for election was then called Mr McFall. He is better known to noble Lords as the noble Lord, Lord McFall of Alcluith, the Lord Speaker. It would have been beyond the comprehension of my teenage self to imagine that 43 years later I would be introduced to this House at all, never mind be welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord McFall. His lifetime of public service is an inspiration. In an infinitely more modest way, I am grateful to be given this opportunity to serve.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Docherty of Milngavie, to congratulate him on his excellent and witty speech and to welcome him to your Lordships’ House, where he will no longer have to depend on the votes of his opponents or anybody else to retain his seat.
The noble Lord was very modest in his speech and did not mention his professional career as chief executive of Tees Valley Regeneration and executive director of the Home Group, one of the biggest UK social enterprises. He also did not mention his passion for the arts, which I look forward to hearing about in future speeches. He was a founding trustee of the Baltic gallery in Gateshead and commissioned Anish Kapoor’s Temenos in Middlesbrough, which features on the British passport. He was also a trustee of Arts Council England. In an interview last year, he said:
“What gives me joy … is when I have been involved in recruiting people who have gone on to excel and grow in their roles”.
He has excelled and grown in his roles up to now and will continue to do so, no doubt, in your Lordships’ House.
As far as trade relations are concerned, Britain is to the EU much as Canada is to the United States of America. We both have free trade agreements with zero tariffs and zero quotas with our large continental neighbour. Neither Britain nor Canada has a customs union or a single market requiring it to adopt the tariffs and all the product laws and standards of its large neighbour. Yet I know of no Canadians who, even pre-Trump, ever advocated Canada joining a customs union, still less dynamically aligning its laws and standards with those of America.
Can the noble Lord, Lord Newby, tell us why a customs union or single market is good for Britain but would be bad for Canada—or vice versa? Why did he not tell us that a customs union would require Britain to reinstate the over 2,000 tariffs on goods that we do not produce, which we abolished when we left the EU? Why should British consumers pay higher prices to protect inefficient EU producers? For example, since Brexit we have allowed a tariff-free quota of sugar, which costs $449 a tonne coming from Brazil. Back in the customs union, it would cost us $892 per tonne from France. Vote Lib Dems for higher prices. A customs union would also mean scrapping our trade agreements with the Pacific trade pact, the largest grouping by GDP in the world, and with India, the largest country by population, with which our trade deal has important service industry chapters.
The sole benefit of a customs union is that it avoids the need for declarations of origin. The Swiss calculate that these cost less than 0.02% of the value of their trade with Europe. Hence Switzerland, like Norway and Iceland, refuses to join the EU customs union. Turkey does have a customs union with the EU, but that means that when the EU negotiates a free trade deal with another country, Turkey has to remove its tariffs on that other country’s goods, but the other country does not have to remove its tariffs on Turkey’s goods. Is that what the Lib Dems want?
I was the Trade and Industry Secretary who oversaw Britain’s entry into and creation of the open market back in 1992, and I assumed it would benefit our trade. I also negotiated the Uruguay trade round, the last successful world trade agreement, which halved tariffs and created the WTO. I made bullish speeches about how both of these, particularly the single market, would boost British exports. A quarter of a century later, a study showed how British exports had actually fared. I confess it proved that I had been wrong. Britain’s goods exports to the single market stagnated over nearly 25 years, growing by less than 1% a year. By contrast, our goods exports to more than 100 countries with whom we traded solely on WTO terms grew fourfold, by 87%.
I have long been at a loss to explain why anyone should want to return to a relationship with our former partners that was of so little benefit to us and would involve handing back control of our laws and our tariffs and paying for the privilege of doing so, but a psychotherapist friend explained to me that people who have escaped from a long-term coercive relationship often have an irrational urge to return to the partner who controlled their lives, dictated how they spent, made them subject to detailed and unnecessary rules and restricted their relationships with anyone else. I think we should be understanding of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and, indeed, the Government’s European Minister as they endeavour to recover from this syndrome, and gently point out that others who once succumbed to coercive control from the EU, such as the National Farmers’ Union, now warn against returning to the ban on gene-edited crops and bovine TB vaccines and ending the ban on live animal exports. The City now wants to be excluded from any reset and has allegedly, according to the Financial Times, persuaded the Government that that would be right. The AI industry rejoices in escaping from the stifling controls of EU law. I wish the Lib Dems and their friends on the Labour Benches a speedy recovery from their addiction to coercive control.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, in the past, I am sure noble Lords will accept that I do not agree with much of what he said. The context in which we are discussing this is, to me, the obvious failure of the Brexit project. I take the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, about the 4% of GDP spread over a period, but I would prefer to look at the recent figures from the National Bureau of Economic Research, a well-respected American organisation, that says the cost to us of Brexit has been between 6% and 8%, which, aggregated, is something like £95 billion of our GDP.
I think the other thing that is worth commenting on, which nobody has—unfortunately the noble Lord, Lord Gove, has left the Chamber—is that one of the things that the Brexit debate entrenched in our culture is that political lying is all right. Where is the money we were promised on the side of the bus for the NHS? Where are all the Turkish immigrants we were promised in the emails that were sent to people in the last two weeks of the campaign? This, to me, has been the absolute zenith of lies and nadir of results. I take the point that has been made about some trade deals having been entered into, but most of the trade deals that were entered into by the new regime were simply Snopaking out “EU” and substituting “UK” in those trade deals. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, referred to the CPTPP, but the estimate of the impact of that on our trade deals is infinitely less than the cost of losing the opportunities that we had with the European Union.
I do not know whether our friends in the Labour Party, who were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, include the Prime Minister, who in May 2025 clearly indicated that he wanted to reset our arrangements with the European Union. This has not been terribly successful so far. Obviously, the progress on Erasmus has been good, but we have pulled out of the attempts to participate in the €150 billion European Defence Fund, we have not been able to deal with the internal electricity market, which we thought we would be able to do, and the phytosanitary agreement, which somebody over there mentioned earlier, that we hoped that we would get has not yet happened.
We have been asked to say what we mean by a customs union. Now Al Pinkerton, the MP, ironically, for Surrey Heath—he replaced the noble Lord, Lord Gove—argued for a bespoke customs union deal with the EU, not including agriculture, with consultation on all trade deals. It should be a bespoke deal. He proposed that in a Bill in the House of Commons and it went through, with some Labour people supporting him. It will not get into legislation, but it did pass. Turkey has had that arrangement since 1995. Why can we not have it?
Lord Doyle (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I rise for my maiden speech with a real sense of the responsibility that comes with joining a body so rich in experience, expertise and public service as your Lordships’ House. I thank Black Rod, the indefatigable doorkeepers, the police and security officers, the clerks and officials and everyone who has made me feel so welcome. I also thank my noble friends Lady Armstrong of Hill Top and Lord Liddell for their support and guidance, not only at my introduction but over many years, and I pay tribute to my fellow maiden speakers today.
I am profoundly grateful that my parents are here today. When I say that I would not be here without them, I do not just mean that scientifically. They taught me so much, above all that every single individual can make a difference, and when you are born into that way of being, it really is a gift. I also remember my sister Catherine, who we lost more than 30 years ago; we still miss her every single day. Catherine was born with Down syndrome and, although she did not live to see it, the progress that has been made in healthcare and opportunities and visibility for people living with Down really has been wonderful to witness.
My journey here began at the University of East Anglia, where I joined the Labour Club and met an inspiring dean of biology, Dr Ian Gibson, who was Labour’s candidate for Norwich North. One day, they asked for a volunteer press officer: cue awkward shoe-gazing around me, and then suddenly I found my hand in the air. Little did I know that I would spend the next three decades at the intersection of politics, media and public service. I may have worked for some famous names in that time, but the real privilege I have had has been helping to tell the stories of those who have been left out and left behind, both at home and abroad. I pay tribute to and thank all the colleagues I have worked with over those years, many of whom are now here in this House, including my noble friends Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lady Smith of Basildon, who I thank for all their guidance and support thus far.
I also want to remember two former Members of this House in particular: Lord Gould of Brookwood and Baroness McDonagh, both of whom were remarkable inspirations for me.
I chose Great Barford for my introduction. It is where my sister and I were born. This is an exciting time for Bedfordshire, with East West Rail, the new Universal Studios theme park and, at Tempsford, a new town. I intend to champion these projects and more, because Britain needs to stop prevaricating and start building. Growth is not an abstract theory but an expression of our responsibility to future generations.
One of the privileges I had growing up in Bedfordshire was a fantastic free county youth music programme. The inspiring teaching gave me opportunities I could never have imagined, including the chance to sing at the Royal Albert Hall. Fortunately for the audience, I sang with several other hundred young people as well. But somewhere along the way, we seem to have lost the consensus that the arts, music, film, theatre and dance matter as an essential means of developing confident, creative and capable citizens. I very much hope that the Government’s curriculum review will mark a decisive turning point in rebuilding a shared understanding that creativity, culture and learning are key to what makes life worth living, as well as essential drivers of our national success.
It is my belief in the creative industries that made me so keen to make my maiden speech in this debate on our relations with Europe. There is much we can do to reduce self-defeating barriers post-Brexit. Take the example of touring artists and crews. For them, those barriers are not an abstract concept but lost work, lost income and lost opportunity. This does not have to be our reality. Let us fix the visa waiver programme, flex the 90-day rule for those touring and cut the costs to make moving equipment less expensive, which has also done such harm to our haulage industry. As Sir Elton John put it:
“It’s heartbreaking to see the hopes of Britain’s next generation of creative talent downtrodden and destroyed by bureaucracy and red tape”.
When I nervously collected my first parliamentary pass almost 30 years ago, I could not possibly have imagined that one day I would stand here as a Member of your Lordships’ House. I have learned so much over my career, but I have never lost sight of that simple lesson my parents taught me: that change is made by people and that the world does not improve by chance. Government matters because it gives individual effort collective backing. It allows values to be translated into action and hope into reality. As we consider our future relationship with Europe, we must recommit ourselves to the values we share: dignity, respect, democracy and the rule of law. Because even in these times—especially in these times—I believe that when we choose purpose over complacency and co-operation over conflict, progress is possible.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to welcome my new colleagues who are making their maiden speeches today—my noble friends Lady Gill and Lord Docherty, my good friend who is to come later, and my noble friend Lord Doyle, who is a very close friend and from whom we have just heard an excellent maiden speech. I first came across my noble friend 30 years ago, when he had just arrived in Westminster and was working for the newly elected Labour MPs for East Anglia. He was so keen on this job and he was homeless, so he camped out in Charles Clarke’s office while he sorted out his personal affairs. He always had that trademark, and he has kept it: he is the man with the duffel coat. He always reminds me, whenever I see him, of Paddington Bear. In a way, that is appropriate, because he is a man of great culture and a real expert on film, so he will bring great wisdom on cultural questions to this House.
In the past 30 years since I first met my noble friend, he has done a great variety of very interesting things. He has worked intimately with some of the most consequential people on the centre-left of British politics: first for Tony Blair in No. 10 and then in his role as Middle East peace envoy, then for David Miliband—Labour’s lost leader—in his role with the International Rescue Committee, and finally for Keir Starmer. Working for Keir Starmer, he was not one of the fast-rotating group of people who have been in and out of No. 10; he was a crucial aide. I do know how many people know this, but he sustained Keir Starmer at what was the deepest crisis point of his leadership of the Labour Party after the loss of the Hartlepool by-election in 2021. When he worked on the Batley and Spen by-election, he persuaded Kim Leadbeater, Jo Cox’s sister, to be our candidate and we squeezed home by 300 votes. That is probably one of the most consequential acts of his political career. In his three decades of politics, has shown outstanding loyalty to the bosses he has worked for.
My noble friend is a very considerable person. He is a man of faith who has struggled with some of his inner tensions and conflicts and overcome them. He brings to this House much more than the experience of a press officer; he is well informed across a wide range of national and international issues. He is a committed lifelong social democrat and he is going to make a great contribution to this House.
On the subject of the debate, I will not delay the House long, but I will say this. I have great respect for the intellect of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, but I have never heard such rubbish on the question of Europe. He referred to his role in the Uruguay round. Let me remind him, it was the European Commission that negotiated the Uruguay round.
Lord Lilley (Con)
In fact, it was jointly negotiated by member states and the European Commission. I was there for all nine days of the negotiations in the Heysel stadium, so the noble Lord is wrong.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
Do you know why we won the Uruguay round? It is because we had the strength of the bloc of the European Union behind us. It was not just something that Britain achieved on its own.
Secondly, the noble Lord talks about the stagnation in our export of goods and completely ignores the vast expansion of our trade in services with the European Union, which is being put at risk by increasing barriers. He neglects the fact that, in 2016, the British public were promised a growth miracle as a result of leaving the EU. Where are the benefits of all that loosening of rules that were supposed to happen? We were promised the end of free movement, and what did the Conservatives do? They went on to create the biggest inward movement of people into this country we have ever seen, so what hypocrisy they have talked on immigration. If we had stayed in the single market and in Europe, the growth we would have seen as a result would have meant that none of the tax rises that we needed to have since the 2024 general election would have been necessary. Those are facts.
The economic situation is getting worse as we lose the strength of the European bloc. We no longer have the competitive pressure of the single market, which is what makes business efficient. As we lose that competitive pressure, we will find that Brexit is not a one-off loss; it will affect our competitive position for years to come.
I said I would not talk for long, but may I just make one point? We should look at the customs union and try to speed up the reset. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay: we need independent expert advice on what we would try to achieve and how. This is something of great complexity. We need to look objectively at the consequences of having an independent trade policy. I do not think they are very considerable, but I am willing to be proved wrong in an independent expert inquiry, which I hope Keir Starmer will set up.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, and the noble Lords, Lord Docherty and Lord Doyle, on their excellent maiden speeches. I look forward to that yet to be made, and to the valedictory speech of the noble Lord, Lord Offord.
Under a customs union, the EU would strike deals in its own interests, while the UK would be required to apply those terms automatically, without any guarantee of reciprocal access or consideration. Countries negotiating with the EU would have no obligation whatever to offer the UK equivalent market access, yet we would be bound to trade terms we did not negotiate. There is a constant underplaying of or failure to grasp the asymmetry this creates, with obligations imposed in this country but no corresponding duties on third countries.
Having said that, I want to highlight where we are as a country in real terms regarding a customs union, because there seems to be a reluctance to face up to reality, and it has not been mentioned thus far in this debate. We need to face the fact that this country has already acquiesced in precisely such a customs arrangement, not merely in theory but in practice, through the Northern Ireland protocol/Windsor Framework. It is not an inevitable outcome of Brexit, as some would say, but a choice—the wrong choice—about how to manage trading arrangements.
We have a situation, which is either not noticed by people or deliberately ignored, in which part of this United Kingdom is today subject to the European Union customs code and single market rules: rules it does not make and cannot amend. In 2026 in Northern Ireland—part of the United Kingdom—EU law, not UK law, applies dynamically in over 300 areas of law, covering goods manufacturing and agri-food production, never mind the effects of EU VAT rules, state aid rules, Article 2 requirements covering human rights and equality legislation, and all that. So, in debating the pros and cons of the customs union and the single market in the abstract, how can anyone not have regard to the fact that we already have such arrangements in reality for one part of our country?
The Windsor Framework formalises a reality in which internal trade within the United Kingdom is governed by rules made abroad and enforced with no democratic control. A July 2025 report from the Federation of Small Businesses found that the Windsor Framework has created significant disruption to internal UK trade, with over one-third of businesses having stopped trading between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, while 58% report moderate to significant challenges. It says it is fuelling confusion and cost, breaking down UK internal market connectivity rather than resolving trade barriers. It says it is creating a “labyrinth” of bureaucracy, making it harder to move goods within the UK than to export globally.
Whether noble Lords are for or against a customs union for the UK as a whole, one thing that is not sustainable is having one part in the customs union and the rest out of it. That is not acceptable or sustainable. It is complex and unnecessary. It raises impediments to our prosperity. It erects barriers between us in Northern Ireland and our largest market in Great Britain. The cost is being paid by consumers, manufacturers and businesses. Fundamentally, it is a breach of democracy. Laws being made for British citizens in Northern Ireland are being made by a foreign entity in its interests, with no input, role or vote for any elected representative from the people of Northern Ireland, either in the Northern Ireland Assembly or at Westminster. That is an unsustainable position. We must take this into account in any debate regarding the customs union, the single market and the reset.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the maiden speakers on their contributions. Time restricts me from saying more, but time does not diminish the warmth of my welcome to them, and I look forward to hearing from them on many occasions in the future.
When I began to consider this Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, my mind went back to when I was in the Army during my national service in the 1950s. We were forever being told, in lectures on tactical exercises, that time spent in reconnaissance is rarely wasted. It enables one to see whether the objective is attainable, how best to go about it, whether there should be a direct or flanking movement, or whether indeed it is worth while in the first place.
Of course, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and others who have spoken in favour of his Motion, that we must improve our access to the European Union for trade and goods. I agree that removing obstacles to do that ought to be a high priority of the Government—I believe that it is—and it is certainly something that industry is crying out for, especially the smaller companies, which were worst hit by the agreement we signed when we left the EU. It is also one of the most obvious ways in which we could improve our rate of growth. However, I must say that I doubt whether setting an ambitious and clearly defined objective such as a customs union is the best way to proceed, quite apart from the other disadvantages of the union which a number of my noble friends have pointed out. It could all too easily turn out to be the diplomatic equivalent of laying siege to a castle that never falls.
I say that because, sadly, the EU in recent years has all too often shown itself unable to reach the internal agreements necessary to take big initiatives. Its decision-making process has atrophied since—not because—we left. One has only to look at the failure to carry forward the single market or to achieve a capital markets union. The ambitious Draghi plan has remained largely a dead letter.
Perhaps more relevant to those examples, let us look at what has happened to the proposed trade deal with the Mercosur group of Latin American countries. It was first mooted, I believe, some 25 years ago, and serious negotiations began in April 2019. The agreement was finally signed this month, only for the European Parliament to refuse to ratify it and refer it to the European Court of Justice, which at best means a further delay.
My fear is that if we set our cap at the customs union, quite apart, as I say, from other issues, we could become embroiled in protracted negotiations that would embitter relations and lead, if not to failure, at least to disappointing results. Far better, in my view, is to identify a number of specific and often technical issues on which agreements would create a balance of tangible benefits for both sides. I have in mind very much the kind of agenda the Government are already pursuing.
I believe that if the UK and the EU can reach agreements on prosaic matters of this kind that could create a habit of co-operation between us, that might lead on to a more ambitious framework that, instead of drawing on the models of the past, is suited to the circumstances of the present and of the future.
Lord Stephen (LD)
My Lords, I draw attention to my offshore wind interests as declared in the register. I add my congratulations to those offered to the excellent and entertaining maiden speakers that we have already had. Perhaps I may ask for the discretion of the House in mentioning a maiden speech still to come, from the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson. I remember, as a young Liberal in Aberdeen, attending many hours of meetings with Helen Pitt-Watson, which brings back very fond memories to me. I very much look forward to the noble Lord’s speech.
I also welcome the co-operation that was announced on Monday this week by the UK and EU nations in relation to offshore wind and North Sea interconnectors. The headline from the so-called Hamburg declaration was the joint development—the co-operative development—of 100 gigawatts of new projects based around a shared, Europe-wide grid system. Much more co-operation of this kind is surely sensible and badly needed—a significant step, perhaps, on our way to a new single market and customs union.
My friend the late Eddie O’Connor was a very big figure in offshore wind who founded Airtricity and then Mainstream Renewable Power. He championed the idea of a European supergrid with huge energy and passion. The challenge is simple: to create and deliver a renewable energy network across the UK and Europe that is fit for the 21st century and beyond. With determination and drive, I am certain that we can make it happen.
It is also great to see plans announced across several EU countries to adopt contracts for difference to underpin and anchor their own offshore wind developments. These so-called CfDs were first introduced in the United Kingdom in 2012 by then Secretary of State for Energy Sir Ed Davey. They have saved the UK electricity consumer billions compared to the previous ROCs system. Despite one serious and, sadly, completely avoidable misstep in relation to CfDs back in 2023 with AR5, contracts for difference have continued to be a big success in the UK, and AR7, announced on 14 January, just completed with 8.3 gigawatts of new capacity awarded—the biggest ever.
In contrast, Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands have recently struggled with their own power auctions. This is not good for the climate emergency, and Governments together must do better. Nations can learn from each other; they can work together. They can—we can—get better at all of this.
In the UK, it is not perfect, but it is generally positive. All the mainstream UK parties have supported the energy transition, net-zero targets and the importance of real and rapid progress. The only party to stand out is Reform UK. Its policies are strident, negative and hostile. In July last year, the party’s deputy leader, Richard Tice MP, wrote to the chief executives of all the major offshore wind developers threatening to strike down all contracts for difference signed under auction round 7 if the party ever won power—an astonishing, aggressive, anti-business move threatening to break binding commercial and legal agreements being entered into right now.
Such a move is in stark contrast to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Offord, Reform’s new Scottish leader, when he gave his maiden speech in this place in January 2022. He spoke warmly about his attendance at COP 26 and the tremendous achievement of the UK presidency in increasing commitments to net zero from 30% to 90% of world emissions. It will be interesting to learn whether Reform UK has—
Lord Katz (Lab)
I ask the noble Lord to conclude. He is getting over the time limit, and it is a time-limited debate. I keep on having to stress that.
Lord Stephen (LD)
I apologise. It was my reference at the beginning to some personal matters that have taken me over. Across the UK and the EU, all this is very important, yes, for the economic benefit for our nations, but, more importantly, for the future of our planet.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, for those immediately following those giving a maiden or valedictory speech, an allowance is made for the tributes being paid and the clock does not start until their remarks start. For others speaking in the debate, the time starts when they stand up, and that needs to be no more than four minutes.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I, too, welcome and congratulate today’s four maiden speakers. We very much look forward to their future contributions.
While there have been statements by the Government on the relationship with the EU, we have not had a comprehensive policy statement setting out their objectives in the negotiations. A paper on the defence partnership was published on the same day as the UK-EU common understanding. Similarly, the Cabinet Office policy paper on the internal electricity market last December dealt with the outcome of discussions with the EU. However, we are not here just to debate outcomes; we are here to scrutinise and seek to influence government policy. To do so, we need to understand what that policy is. Will the Government commit to publishing a comprehensive policy statement on negotiations with the EU similar in detail to, for example, the July 2021 Command Paper on the renegotiation of the Northern Ireland protocol?
As for the case for rejoining the EU customs union or parts of the single market, I will make three brief comments. First, any such decision, now that we are out, would be very different from the decision to leave the European Union, and the dividing line will not be the same as in the referendum. We are too large an economy to join a bloc in which we would have no say. Reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, to Mark Carney’s fine speech in Davos, but I do not see how rejoining the customs union would fit in with that speech. His argument is not that middle powers should tie themselves to bigger powers; it is the opposite of that. Middle powers should maximise their autonomy and influence through flexible and variable arrangements in which they retain a say with a wide range of powers. By all accounts, we are a bigger middle power than Canada and less dependent on the EU than Canada is on the United States.
Secondly, the European Union faces complex and decisive choices in the years ahead. As Mario Draghi warned, doing nothing or doing too little means accelerated decline. In recent interventions, he has complained that little has changed since his report and that conditions are worsening. What would this mean for us if we chose to join a customs union or parts of the single market now? It would put us, I am afraid, in a bleak position. Either we would have joined a bloc that fails to meet the challenge and declines faster, or, if the EU takes bold and transformative decisions, we would have joined that bloc just before those decisions are taken and without any ability to influence them.
My final point is on reports about a so-called Farage clause that the EU would be seeking as part of its reset—a penalty provision on future renegotiations. As some will remember, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Barrow, a similar proposal was made in December 2020. It had a different name then; it was called the hammer clause. Imagine if the hammer clause had been agreed by the then Government. The Government today would have a weaker hand in their discussions with the EU. A penalty clause or mechanism will affect any future Government, whatever their colour, including a Liberal Democrat Government seeking to rejoin the European Union, because if there is one thing we can be certain of, it is that there will always be negotiations. We negotiated on the way in, we negotiated while we were in, we negotiated as we came out and we are still negotiating. Does the Minister agree that it would be reckless and irresponsible for any Government today to weaken the negotiating position of a future Government? Can she reassure us that no penalty clause would be agreed to?
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, Brexit was a traumatic episode for our Liberal Democrat friends, but it happened in 2016. British people voted to take back control of our economy, our laws and our borders. A way forward was defined by British sovereignty and British interests: a belief in British exceptionalism, and not a cultural cringe to the European Union or an orderly management of decline, as was unfortunately enunciated by the Liberal Democrats. I am glad the Government stated in their manifesto that there would be no return to the single market, the customs union or freedom of movement. Yet the proposals to bring the UK in line with the EU’s electricity market and to reach an SPS agreement threaten to undermine the substance of that promise, which will have calamitous impacts on British farming, according to this morning’s Times.
If the UK aligns with EU rules, it would include targets toward the promotion of renewables and alignment on carbon emissions trading systems. Since leaving the European Union, we have diverged with it on our policies towards energy markets. This included the launch of the UK Emissions Trading Scheme. As of 27 January, the UK ETS carbon trading price was £49.19, while the EU’s ETS was £64.23. Aligning with the EU’s carbon price would raise the cost of industrial carbon for British businesses by more than 30%. The UK already has some of the most expensive energy costs in the world. A dynamic alignment agreement would leave us at the mercy of whatever economic policy mistakes the EU would tie us to. This looks likely, with the EU planning, for instance, to expand its ETS policy in 2027 to include buildings and road transport in the economic activity covered in carbon pricing.
Further integration with the EU would be damaging for British business and industry. It would undermine any innovation in agri-food brought about since the passing of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023. We have an advantage over the EU in helping to create food able to withstand future climate and biodiversity challenges. Even the French newspaper Le Monde argued recently that the EU’s common agricultural policy is not sustainable and does not aid in creating robust production practices.
Those who advocate for a customs union fail to grasp that the UK is a far more flexible and dynamic trading partner than we were, or could be, in the EU. When the UK left the EU, we rolled over existing trade agreements to make sure that there was continuity for British business. It has taken the UK less than two years on average since Brexit to negotiate many trade deals. In contrast, the EU takes seven to 10 years on average. In the 10 years before we left the EU, annual customs revenue at the UK border varied between £2 billion and £3 billion—the UK received just 20% of it. Outside the EU, in 2023, that revenue was 100% to HMRC and £5.5 billion. Our deal with Japan could boost UK GDP by £1.5 billion over time and link us more to the Indo-Pacific region, where the UK estimates that 54% of global growth and technological advances will occur between now and 2050, and where NATO estimates that two-thirds of future global wealth will be concentrated.
In conclusion, 80% of British economic output came from the services sector. Services provide the largest part of the UK economy and will likely continue to do so. In 2024, UK exports of services to the EU were up 19% in real terms since 2019. Exports of services to non-EU countries have grown by 23%. UK trade in services has outperformed the G7 average since 2021, and Brexit has been a benefit for the largest part of the UK economy. It is clear that, in the past five years, Britain has set out on a new future where we are free to trade with who we want and make decisions which are best for the British people, not a bureaucracy in Brussels. To go back on this will be an error of the highest magnitude.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I rise in this debate to make my maiden speech. I should begin by giving thanks to all Members of the House for their warmth, their welcome and their generosity: to the Garter King of Arms, Black Rod, the Clerk of the Parliaments, the doorkeepers and all the others who work here; to my noble friends Lady Smith of Basildon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark; and to my noble friends Lord Wilson of Sedgefield and Lord McNicol of West Kilbride, who introduced me to the House.
I would also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, for remembering my mother. She was a music teacher. My dad was a Church of Scotland minister, so I think that, like a few Members of this House, I am a child of the manse. But my career has been in business, particularly in finance, which is what I would like to talk about today.
For Britain, finance is the real jewel in the crown of our economy. It is 9% of our economy, but it earns for us a trade surplus of £70 billion, much of that through the European Union, so the finance industry is critical to any element when we think about our trade. But it is not just self-interest that makes the finance industry so important. Finance is central to the solution of the big problems of the world. It is almost impossible to imagine a prosperous economy without a successful finance industry. I led the finance initiative at the Paris climate talks; we will not solve the climate problem unless the finance industry is on board with that. If you look at poverty in the developing world—I was treasurer of Oxfam—and if we are to get people out of poverty, they need financial services. If you look at innovation—I chaired the endowment at Nesta—again we need the money and the stewardship to make sure that that innovation can take place.
The main part of my financial career was in another element: it was about the power of the finance industry and how that is exercised. Because the finance industry holds the shares in companies, that gives them the opportunity to approve or otherwise the boards of directors and therefore to have great influence. That influence needs to be seen through the eyes of the savers—the millions of people who save through their pensions into the finance industry. Of course, they want profitable companies, but they also want companies that pay regard to the society and the environment in which they trade.
The greatest part of my finance career was with an entrepreneurial pension fund called Hermes, and we worked very strongly on that. We encouraged people to get together on that as well. I consider myself one of the midwives of Principles for Responsible Investment, which now has over $100 trillion of investors signed up to it—and it is based in the UK. It was not just me—there were many people who were involved—but the UK is the centre in the world of responsible investment and of people trying to make sure that our money is used well for the people that it ought to be used for.
But there is another, less rosy side. We all remember the global financial crisis. There are many failures in the financial system. It is not highly regarded by the people of Britain. Most critically, when academics study the financial system, the cost of taking money from point A in the outside world and investing it where it is needed in point B has hardly fallen over 100 years. That is a real challenge.
But such challenges, I think, can also be big opportunities. I have a professional interest in working on thinking about pension structures. We believe it is possible that, with a better pension structure for the same cost, people who are saving for their pension could be enjoying a reliable income in retirement maybe 30% higher than they are currently getting through the UK system.
The other thing I do is teach. I teach finance at Cambridge on a course that is considered radical. It is called The Purpose of Finance, and it simply asks the students to debate what is the purpose of this industry at which Britain excels. It is not just about analysis, and it is not just about markets and regulation. It is also about institutions and innovation and cultures and governance and incentives and professionalism.
Finance is critical. It is critical to this debate about the trade relationship with Europe. It is a jewel in our economic crown. As we think about finance, we surely want that industry to grow and to prosper, because it is purposeful in delivering to the outside world—as all commerce should be. In the future, as part of my work here, I hope I can contribute to the House’s deliberations on these sorts of matters.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
The House has seen four brilliant maiden speeches today, and I am sure that in the coming years we will benefit from everyone who has joined us. It is my honour and pleasure to follow my friend, David Pitt-Watson, who has now joined the House as Baron Pitt-Watson. His territorial designation is
“of Kirkland of Glencairn in the County of Dumfriesshire”.
What an asset he will be to the House—what a CV. In his speech, he only touched on what he will bring to our deliberations. This House will welcome, value and learn from his range of experience. Wikipedia has him down as a businessman and a social entrepreneur, but also a Labour councillor and a Labour bureaucrat, blending a life in academia and a life in business—successful, but always with a social purpose in mind.
I will touch on just a few things from my noble friend’s extensive CV: a Pembroke visiting professor at the Judge Business School, Cambridge University; influential books translated into five languages; and a lifetime achievement award last year from the International Corporate Governance Network. The citation for that award states that he is
“one of the most influential pioneers of responsible investment and stewardship. His leadership in creating ventures that advanced governance advocacy and institutional stewardship services set new global standards and inspired market-wide change”.
I am sure that many Members of the House will also welcome the fact that my noble friend is always a Scotsman. Finally, I hope the House will forgive me when I say I particularly welcome David because he is greatly interested in pensions, for that is how we met many years ago. He is not just interested but a tenacious and ultimately successful thought leader, and one of the leading advocates of a new type of pension provision, collective defined contribution schemes—CDCs. This will be of increasing importance in our development of better pensions.
Moving on, I look forward to the valedictory statement from the noble Lord, Lord Offord. It will be interesting, if not necessarily in line with what I believe.
On the subject of the debate, I want to make just one crucial point. I hope that everyone has now read or, better, watched Prime Minister Carney’s brilliant and important speech that sets in my mind the context for this debate. There is a new international political geometry. First, it is clear now that size matters; economic power, soft power and military power will also be increasingly important. Secondly, the delusion of “take back control” has been exposed for us all to see. Thirdly, we can no longer rely on the United States. We will always be friends—culture and language will always bring us together—but it will be that friend that we know we cannot rely on any more.
The inevitable conclusion of this, given our broad political and cultural affinities to Europe and the simple fact of geography, is that we have to work out a new relationship with Europe. Brexit has been a disaster. Let us talk seriously about how to proceed rather than being swept along by events.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Reform) (Valedictory Speech)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the four maiden speakers on their excellent speeches. As they arrive and I depart, I feel in this debate a sense of Groundhog Day as we are replaying Brexit 10 years later. I wonder what the electorate would make of this, especially when in the other place at the time, in 2016, the MPs who were in favour of leaving were only 25% of the House whereas the public were at 52%. I wonder whether there are shades of that here again today.
When I was Exports Minister for 15 months, we worked very hard on the free trade agreements post Brexit because we knew that when we had joined the EU, which was then the Common Market, Europe accounted for a third of global trade, but that when we left in 2019 it was 20% of global trade. The OECD Going for Growth report says that by 2050 it will be 10% of global trade. Ergo, the EU is in decline and what is booming is foreign markets—Asian markets and Indo-Pacific markets—which is why we went for the CPTPP and worked on trade deals with India and America. We have to look globally and not be bogged down in this debate 10 years later.
Moving to my imminent departure, I was listening to Oral Questions today—over the five years that I have been in this House, I have made a point of being at most of those—and one theme that came through a lot while I was sitting here, especially from the other side of the House, was an undying ideological faith in the power of the state to solve all our problems for us. If there is a problem, the state must fix it. Taxpayers’ money must fix it. There must be a quango or state body that can fix it.
I will give noble Lords a warning from my beloved home country of Scotland. We have just had 25 years of devolution, and we have done an experiment of letting the state take control of our lives. When devolution began in 1999, the state spent 43% of GDP in Scotland. Today it spends 55%. What have we got in return? Our political class has created a welfare economy that does not create any wealth. Work does not pay any more than welfare. Some 93% of Scots think the NHS needs significant reform and our once-famous education system has gone from outstanding to average. In the meantime, we have destroyed our world-class energy industry in the north-east through ideological policies on energy pricing, resulting in the biggest transfer of money from poor people to rich people since Robin Hood. I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, reflects on that as a former MP for Aberdeen.
That is why I am going home, heading back to Scotland to stand for Reform in the election for Holyrood. I am fed up with this mid-table mediocrity in Holyrood and the cosy consensus, some of which your Lordships heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, on his time there. We need change. We need to make Scotland the most prosperous and successful part of the UK. If we are successful, we will have debates in Holyrood for the first time ever about how to grow the economy and make our people wealthier, not just how to spend other people’s money.
That is my plan. We are going to focus very hard in the last 99 days. Make no mistake: it is now a two-horse race between the SNP and Reform. A poll out just five minutes ago from Ipsos MORI puts Reform now in second place. We are going to take up that fight to get Scotland back to the top of the table, where she deserves to be.
I wish everyone in this House well. I want to give a personal tribute to one fellow Peer in particular who is not in his place today, the noble Lord, Lord Jack of Courance, who, as Secretary of State for Scotland, brought me into politics five years ago. He is a great friend and mentor, and he was a very effective Secretary of State.
Finally, I say to all fellow Peers: keep doing the work but do not rely on the state for everything. Thank you.
Lord Frost (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Offord. As he says farewell to this Chamber, I congratulate him, on behalf of the whole House, on his forthright but reflective valedictory speech. We overlapped only very briefly as Ministers in the last Government, but, as I think we all know, the noble Lord served that Government with an energy and determination that were very much needed at times.
If I may say so, not least because it was a step that my own party stopped from me taking at the last election, I admire the noble Lord for having the courage to relinquish his seat in this House and move properly to elective politics. I have little doubt—and, having heard what we have heard, I am sure that none of us can have any doubt—that he will be an effective and tenacious campaigner in Scotland. I wish him personal fulfilment in this new project and whatever follows it.
I turn to the subject of this debate. Here we are again. This is nth instalment of the long-running box set series of the British establishment’s obsession with being in customs union with the European Union. This has lasted 10 years. We saw it straight after the Brexit referendum, and, as early as January 2017, the noble Baroness, Lady May, in her Lancaster House speech, spoke of a “customs arrangement”, rather than leaving the customs union properly. By 2018, the then Cabinet Secretary, Jeremy Heywood, had invented the Heath Robinson-style dual customs arrangement—a Schrödinger’s customs union that apparently left us both in and out of the customs union at the same time. The 2018 withdrawal agreement would, of course, have kept the whole country in a customs union with the EU and given the exit keys to the European Commission.
Finally, the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, and I, did what had to be done. We took Great Britain out of the customs union—Northern Ireland, as we then hoped, was to follow later—giving us freedom of trade and the ability to set our own regulations. Until that point, we had seen nothing but a complete lack of confidence in Britain’s ability to trade with the EU, as we did, and do, successfully with the rest of the world.
However, here it is again; the obsession has returned. Just as everyone has got used to the new situation, with remarkably little difficulty, the same voices return. It seems that the Government increasingly want to wind the clock back. This is simply a grasping after nurse—a search for a refuge from hard decisions in the warm and deadening embrace of the Brussels institutions.
The arguments against doing this are just as strong as they have always been, and we have heard many of them today. First, trade deals under the customs union give third countries preferential access to our market but do not give us preferential access to theirs. Secondly, we get no say in EU negotiating positions and no assurance that our interests will be protected. Thirdly, as we are told, we do not get even proper friction-free participation in the EU’s market unless we join the single market as well. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for at least being honest in saying that that is also his policy objective. Fourthly, we lose our ability to lower our own tariffs, which we have done for third-country food that we do not produce ourselves. Even the Government reduced some tariffs last year, and they made a point of saying so. Fifthly, we would have to undo our own trade agreements. Is it seriously suggested that, having joined, we should now leave the CPTPP and our trade deal with India to join the EU’s putative deal, which will have been negotiated with none of our interests in mind? It makes no sense.
The Lib Dems know this. They know more. I think that is why they claim to think they can negotiate some sort of special customs arrangement—oddly enough, one that excludes agricultural goods, even though that is the area in which, under the reset, we will be joining the single market. I can tell them that the EU does not do this sort of bespoke agreement, and we should have learned that in the years after the referendum. As for the Government, they are already dipping a toe in the customs union water by agreeing to follow the CBAM rules of the EU. Some Ministers appear to be for, some against, and I hope the Minister will be able to clarify.
This is all displacement activity. Being part of the customs union again makes sense for only one reason: if you want to start going back towards the EU. It is the Monnet method of one thing leading to another. That is why we hear the calls to rejoin the customs union. I urge its proponents to be honest: if they want to rejoin, they should admit it. They should make that case to the British people and see how far they get. Meanwhile, I hope—although not with great expectation, I am afraid—that today will be the last we hear of the nonsense on the customs union.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, earlier speeches today have claimed with a straight face that had we not left the EU, our GDP would now be 4% or 8% larger than it is now. The OBR, which was named by the Sunday Times this week as the UK’s joint worst forecaster, has embraced that analysis. Yet our economy has managed the same, admittedly low, growth rate as the three key EU economies: Germany, France and Italy. The belief that we would have grown 8% more than those three had we stayed in the EU is, frankly, nonsensical.
The claims come from a doppelganger analysis which asserts that we are 62% identical to the US so we should have grown just as quickly as the US has. We have stifled building, driven the rich away, discouraged tourists, ballooned the obstinately unproductive public sector, medicalised anxiety and made not working pay more than getting a job. We entered into the disastrous net-zero experiment, while the US has provided abundant cheap energy—the essential precondition for economic growth. Yes, if we had done what the US did, our economy would be at least 8% larger than it is now. But we did not, so it is not. Net zero has decimated our manufacturing industry. Petrochemicals, ammonia and pharmaceuticals have all shrunk dramatically, with plants closed and manufacturing moving offshore. Goods exports are therefore indeed down, because there are fewer goods to export. We do not make them any more.
Exports of services, however, are growing rapidly—over 20% in the last two years. That would have been impossible had we stayed in the EU, where digital services, for example, are stifled by inflexible data regulation. It could be worse for us, we could have stayed in the EU, costing us far more per week than the £350 million on the side of the bus, retaining the EU’s high tariffs with the rest of the world, adopting the tens of thousands of new regulations and directives passed since we left, a 15% US pharmaceuticals tariff instead of our 0%, 50% on steel and aluminium rather than 25%, and no superior trade deals with the US, Japan, India, South Korea or, above all, the Pacific partnership.
To believe we would have had faster growth were we still in the EU is—forgive me—seriously delusional. As for wholly or partially rejoining or dynamic alignment, the EU would undoubtedly demand costly retrospective contributions to its recovery and resilience facility and withdrawal, as many noble Lords have said, from our many valuable, recently signed trade deals.
The UK will fare far better outside the EU. We were told at the time of the referendum that the City would die if we left the EU. It has not, and now the City wants to stay out. Our digital economy will never flourish under the EU’s crippling digital regulations. Our rapidly growing trade with the US will wither under extra imposed tariffs. There is plenty we could do to grow our economy faster. Relinking to the EU is not one of those things.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we have been hearing different versions of economic and political reality in this debate. I want to focus in my short speech on two issues that lie behind negotiating a customs union: the question of sovereignty and an EU reset; and the foreign policy, security and defence aspects of again moving closer to the EU and its member states. Right-wing media again leapt up to cry, “You’re threatening British sovereignty” as soon as resetting our relationship with the EU was proposed, but the idea that the UK could somehow maintain absolute sovereignty in an integrated international economy with instant communications was always a myth.
I recall Geoffrey Howe, when he was Foreign Secretary 45 years ago, talking about sharing sovereignty with our European partners. He did not spell out explicitly that the alternative was yielding sovereignty to the United States, adopting US regulations and following its international political lead. We are now seeing that alternative spelled out brutally in threats from President Trump against our attempts to tax and regulate US tech corporations that dominate our social media, and to maintain higher standards of food production than US exporters want. I think it is clear, in an underlying way, that the alternative the noble Lord, Lord Offord, and others want to present is a Britain that would become like the Republican vision of the United States, with a small state, gross levels of inequality and a very damaged society.
As other noble Lords have said, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, we now face a much more hostile global environment, in which even middle-level powers such as the UK find it hard to stand up alone to pressure from China or the USA. The collective weight of European democracies, exercised through the EU, is, however, capable of maintaining autonomy. We need to contribute to that collective weight to protect our preferred patterns of market and product regulation and our environmental and social protections. We are a social democracy, and we do not wish to become an American-style very unsocial democracy. We need to co-operate on security and defence, pooling our efforts to resist the imperial ambitions and subversive activities of Russia and China and now, sadly, also of the United States.
Britain played a leading part in developing the EU’s co-operation in foreign policy. I recall Jim Callaghan, when Foreign Secretary, returning from an early meeting of what was then called European Political Co-operation and enthusing about how useful it was in promoting British interests. Five years later, Lord Carrington’s London report set out proposals to institutionalise regular consultations on international threats and initiatives. When the Berlin Wall came down, I recall the Metropolitan Police asking Chatham House, where I then worked, to organise a seminar on how to build closer police co-operation with our European neighbours. When Europol was then established, it had a substantial number of UK staff and a British Secretary-General. Similarly, when the European Defence Agency was set up, it had a further number of impressive British staff concerned to promote both shared and UK interests.
Brexit threw all this away, with Brexiteers arguing that America was the only ally we needed, that the Indo-Pacific was the future and that European co-operation contributed little to Britain’s security. We have now learned how wrong they were, and our Labour Government are hesitantly beginning the long, hard path back to what we have lost. The Government are still too timid on this, as on other policy areas, and they need to explain to the British public how much our international context has changed for the worse, how much more important our security and defence have become, and how our natural partners in defending and promoting our national interests are our neighbours across the channel.
Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell (Con)
My Lords, we have had four excellent maiden speeches today, and this is my first speech on Britain’s relationship with the European Union, so I should begin by declaring an interest—my previous position as chief executive of the Vote Leave campaign, and therefore perhaps as the person most responsible in the Chamber today for our having this debate.
I am reminded about my role in Brexit every time I walk into Parliament. Behind the security post inside Peers Entrance is a copy of my 1,032-page book on the subject, Change, or Go, which I co-authored with my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, in 2015. Other copies on the Parliamentary Estate can be found propping up computer monitors, or even literally being used as doorstops. On the subject of today’s debate, Change, or Go included a long section on what was referred to in those days as the Turkish option—membership of the EU’s customs union. After briefly touching on trade, I would like to highlight the regulatory implications of Britain joining a UK-EU customs union for tech and the life sciences.
On trade policy, it is clear that the Government would need to abandon the trade deals they have negotiated. Speaking in Davos last week, the Chancellor said:
“We can’t go back in time and since we’ve left the EU we have done trade deals with India, with the US, with South Korea, and obviously you would lose the benefit of some of those trade deals if you were to re-enter a customs union”.
Unlike some of the speakers on the Labour Benches, I agree with Rachel Reeves. We should keep control of our trade policy.
Secondly, there is the regulatory impact on our thriving tech and AI sector—the largest in Europe—which is worth some $1.2 trillion. As the economist Douglas McWilliams, author of The Flat White Economy, said:
“We have the most successful tech sector in Europe. The reason why is we are outside the Digital Markets Act, the Digital Services Act, and the AI Act, which are three European acts which heavily constrain tech growth in the EU”.
The Prime Minister agrees with this point. When he launched the Government’s AI opportunities action plan, Keir Starmer said:
“I know there are different approaches around the world. But we are now in control of our regulatory regime … so we will go our own way on this.”
Were we to join a customs union and have a deal similar to Turkey’s, we would not be allowed to do that. Article 9 and the second clause of Article 54 would prevent us going our own way on tech and AI.
Finally, there is the impact this would have on our world-leading life sciences sector. The head of the MHRA told the “Today” programme recently that clinical trial applications rose by 9% last year. Inside a UK-EU customs union we would lose the benefits of the international recognition procedure, which enables it to take advantage of approvals by their equivalents in Switzerland, Japan, Canada and Australia. We would also have to row back on the landmark pharmaceuticals deal with the US, which the Government achieved just last December. This success is a direct result of regulatory decisions we have made since Brexit. Why would we chase away world-leading trials and potentially harm the most vulnerable patients in society? There are many other areas of government policy that I could have spoken about: education, farming and housebuilding, to name just three.
What the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is proposing, would open up a regulatory Pandora’s box on a plethora of policy areas that the Government would be wise to avoid. Unless those advocating a UK-EU customs union outline what it would mean for all the many issues raised in today’s debate, it will be clear to this House and to the public that they simply do not have a credible plan.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, and the noble Lords, Lord Docherty, Lord Doyle and Lord Pitt-Watson, all gave excellent speeches, and all demonstrated the differences, and the different approaches, that they will bring to these Benches, from which the whole House will benefit. Welcome to them. The noble Lord, Lord Offord, in his hustings—I mean valedictory—speech, set out why, in one sense, I will miss him, and I give him a cheerful wave as he heads north. This has been a fascinating debate, and I thank my noble friend for causing it.
As one of the vice-presidents of the Liberal group on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, I met this week with the Finnish president of the group and the other VP, who is Canadian. The purpose of the online meeting was to work out how we as a group, within the NATO PA, should be responding to the unprecedented attack on the cohesion and values of the western alliance.
I raise this because the political environment to which we were responding, and the implications of this, would have been unthinkable a very short time ago. At the heart of what we were discussing is how we all work together, not just in the High North and not just in defence, but economically and politically, and at a values level. The scale of the change means that last year’s view has changed so dramatically from this year’s view. This pace of change has pushed the world to levels of uncertainty that transcend contemporary experience in this country.
Given this acceleration into political mayhem, I wondered, how will this debate shape up? What new ideas will the Brexit promoters produce? How are they reacting to the new reality? Well, noble Lords were here too and have heard that those opposing this Motion remain very firmly where they were just after the referendum. To the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, I say, yes, it has been traumatic for the Liberal Democrats; it has been traumatic for the country; and it has reduced the wealth of the country. That is a good definition of trauma.
When Boris Johnson told the country he was “getting Brexit done”, he ambiguously offered some sort of 19th-century version of the UK, while at the same time promising to use all the levers of the state and increase public spending to level up—which was more like a 1960s version of British government.
Of course, he achieved neither, choosing instead to do things completely differently. For example, as was mentioned, having “taken back control” of our borders, Mr Johnson went on to welcome nearly 1 million people per year to the UK under lawful migration. Levelling up never got off the ground. At the same time, those who had called for “Singapore-on-Thames”—which seemed to ignore there was another part of the country—were frustrated both with him and his temporary successors. Perhaps the only bright spot for these devotees was joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership: I thought I would give it its full name at least once today.
The reality is that, as my noble friend Lord Newby and others set out, Brexit has had a catastrophic effect on our economy, depriving the Exchequer of perhaps £40 billion, perhaps £95 billion over a period. Inward investment has dropped, our exports to the EU have reduced by about 18% from 2019 levels, and food exports are down by a massive 30%.
Yet still the proponents of Brexit continue. Some double down; some say it was the wrong Brexit; some see Covid as the unique source of its failure; and many more try to blame the current Government for everything, saying it is all their fault. To be clear, the totally botched exit deal with the EU and the subsequent fiasco was the work of the Conservative Government. It was all their own work. In spite of the bravado, many of them know that the number on the side of that famous campaign bus, far from being positive, is a big negative number.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, raised the really important point of the position of Northern Ireland. Without going back too far, I remember that many of us warned the Government of the day that this would be a problem. That view was decried. “It will be all right”, they said. Well, the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has described the fact that it is not, and it remains a very present problem.
It is easy to forget how inept and how flyblown the Conservative Brexit Governments were who delivered us to this point. So, it is good that noble Lords remind us of that from time to time.
Although many noble Lords may be in denial, beyond Westminster, there is certainly greater realisation from the British people about how poorly Brexit is serving them. I agree with my noble friend Lord Newby that there is now much stronger and, indeed, majority public support for getting the UK back into the heart of Europe. This shift would help the Government to move on what they say is their primary mission: growth. The truth is, Labour will not succeed unless it gets our economy growing strongly again, and the best and perhaps quickest way to do that is in a customs union with Europe.
More than this, and returning to the conversation with my NATO PA colleagues, we agree that the western alliance has to stand up to President Trump and push back against his bullying. We know that we have to do that together. Economic ties are part of a process of pushing back against that bullying.
Some will say, “At least we have our Brexit freedom”, and they have. Well, freedom works only if you spend it wisely. The Prime Minister will, no doubt, come back from Beijing waving investment promises from President Xi: promises that will stretch the balance between risk and reward and make very little impingement on our huge deficit of £40 billion to £50 billion with China.
Meanwhile, the India-UK FTA has been hailed as a great breakthrough. As we know, it does not give increased access for services, and most of the benefit from the sale of goods will be in five to 12 years’ time. The EU now has one, which Brussels boasts includes
“tariff reductions that none of its other trading partners have received”.
In that regard, I ask the Minister to confirm that the EU deal is indeed better than ours, as Brussels says. Can she write to me with the details on where the differences are?
Our freedom has yielded Beijing’s possible investment, India’s slightly improved access for goods, some minimal uptick that will come from CPTPP and a very fragile agreement with the USA, which exists as long as Donald Trump decides it should continue. This is the freedom dividend and I am sure that noble Lords can see that it offers only a tiny fraction of what we have lost. That is why I am supporting this Motion. It is time that the UK set out in a clear and unambiguous way the UK’s long-standing aspirations for a renewed and much closer relationship with the EU.
My noble friends Lord Newby, Lord Razzall, Lord Stephen and Lord Wallace have done a wonderful job in setting out how a closer relationship would benefit the UK. I suspect a majority of noble Lords will not have been swayed to support our entry to a customs union, but, save for a few speeches, there has been a general softening of the approach to Europe, particularly on the Government Benches, and I welcome that softening.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, and the noble Lords, Lord Docherty of Milngavie, Lord Pitt-Watson and Lord Doyle, on their maiden speeches today. Their thoughtful, witty and heartfelt contributions demonstrate that they will be a huge asset to your Lordships’ House, and we look forward to hearing more from them in the years to come. We will miss the noble Lord, Lord Offord of Garvel, and we are sorry to see him leave in this way.
Many of the arguments in today’s debate will be very familiar to the House. I do not intend to relitigate the referendum or to reopen the entire Brexit debate. However, I will address directly the core proposition of the Motion before us today: the case for a United Kingdom and European Union customs union and the related question of closer connection to the EU single market.
It is important at the outset to be clear about terms, because this debate often proceeds as though the single market and the customs union were flexible or à la carte arrangements. They are not. Participation in the EU single market entails acceptance of the four freedoms, including the free movement of people, which is set out explicitly in the EU treaties and has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the European Court of Justice. There is no precedent for participation in a single market without freedom of movement, and the European Commission has consistently ruled out such an arrangement. As my noble friend Lord Tugendhat correctly pointed out, we have to be realistic.
Equally, a customs union with the European Union requires the participating state to align its external tariffs with those of the EU and, crucially, to accept trade policy as set by the EU. This means allowing Brussels to negotiate and conclude trade agreements on our behalf. This is not compatible with an independent trade policy or consistent with the Labour Party’s manifesto commitments, which ruled out rejoining the customs union or the single market. The proposition before us today therefore sits uneasily not only with the outcome of the referendum but with the stated positions of parties across this House—and, ultimately, is against what the British people have voted for repeatedly over the past decade. My noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough rightly cautions against such an approach.
The EU customs union is open only to EU member states. Norway and Iceland, frequently cited in these debates, are not in a customs union with the EU. They participate in aspects of the single market through the European Economic Area but retain their own external trade policy and sit outside the customs union. The only large non-member state in a customs union with the European Union is Turkey, which entered into a customs union with the EU in 1995. It did so in the expectation that this would be a stepping stone to full EU membership; that expectation has not been fulfilled.
Under the terms of the customs union, Turkey is required to align its external tariffs with those of the EU and to grant market access to countries with which the EU concludes free trade agreements. However, those third countries are under no reciprocal obligation to grant equivalent access to Turkish exports; it is an asymmetrical trading relationship, as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and my noble friend Lord Lilley have made clear. The EU has concluded trade agreements with countries such as South Korea, Mexico and South Africa; Turkey has been obliged to open its markets to those countries, while in some cases Turkish exporters have faced barriers in return. Under that arrangement, Turkey has, for instance, been forced into a non-reciprocal trading relationship with South Korea, which does not provide the country with open access to its own market. Turkey still experiences queues at the border. A customs union does not remove regulatory checks, rules of origin procedures or non-tariff barriers. In short, it does not deliver frictionless trade. Most importantly, Turkey has no seat at the table when EU trade policy is decided; it is bound by decisions that are taken elsewhere.
As a member of the EU, the UK had a vote in the Council, representation in the Commission and elected members of the European Parliament. Under a customs union without membership, we would have none of these things. We would be obliged to follow a common external tariff and trade policy over which we exercised no formal control. It is therefore difficult to see how such an arrangement could be described as a stable or acceptable long-term settlement. It would mean ending our independent trade policy while accepting a democratic deficit greater than one that existed before we left the European Union. It would mean leaving our existing trade agreements with India and the Pacific trade pact. As the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and my noble friends Lord Lilley and Lord Moynihan of Chelsea have pointed out, this would not be beneficial.
Businesses across the country have spent several years adapting to the post-exit trading framework. They have invested heavily in new systems, technology and infrastructure to comply with the regime put in place by Parliament. Dynamic alignment, as currently envisaged by the Government, risks constraining the areas where the United Kingdom has already chosen to divert from EU rules to address domestic priorities. A clear example is bovine tuberculosis, which costs farmers around £150 million a year. The UK is trialling vaccination as a practical solution, yet EU law prohibits the use of bovine TB vaccines in cattle. Alignment risks preventing the UK from pursuing an effective domestic response. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has highlighted the problems of dynamic alignment in Northern Ireland.
As my noble friend Lord Elliott has rightly observed, membership of a customs union would also prevent the United Kingdom from pursuing an independent approach to technology and AI policy. In short, dynamic alignment risks closing off innovation, weakening resilience and undermining British agriculture. The Prime Minister has said that he is not prepared to rip up the benefits of Brexit. Does the Minister agree that the risks that I have outlined threaten exactly that?
Businesses do not want perpetual renegotiation of our relationship with the EU but clarity, consistency and confidence. Threatening to upend the regulatory and trading environment yet again, simply to pursue closer alignment for its own sake, undermines all three. Will the Government commit to publishing, as the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, has suggested, a policy paper on the objectives of their negotiations?
There are only two coherent options: full membership of the European Union or an independent United Kingdom outside its customs union. A stand-alone customs union is not a stable resting place; it would bind us to obligations without influence and leave us with less control than we had before we left. The British people were asked what they wanted, and they chose an independent United Kingdom. This is a position that we on these Benches recognise and respect.
In their pursuit of a closer relationship with the European Union, the Government are potentially in danger of undermining the very freedoms this country regained by leaving the bloc. We must be clear that surrendering our ability to innovate, to respond flexibly to domestic challenges and to support our own economy would amount to abandoning the principles that underpinned the decision to leave in the first place. Seeking to improve the UK’s trade and investment relationship with the EU and to remove genuinely unnecessary barriers to trade is a legitimate and worthwhile objective, but it can succeed only if the Prime Minister is firm and unambiguous about his red lines. Without that firmness, pragmatism slides into concessions that the British people have consistently voted against. It is vital that the Government negotiate in a way that consistently safeguards the interests of the British people, and I hope the Minister can assuage these concerns in her response.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for securing this timely and important debate. It must conclude at 15.02 pm, so I will get through as much as I can. I will obviously look at Hansard. I think I will write a great deal to noble Lords—I apologise.
Before I respond to the substance of the debate, I want to recognise some of the extraordinary contributions we have heard today. Four maiden speeches and one valedictory is quite something in one debate. The thoughtful final contribution to your Lordships’ House from the noble Lord, Lord Offord, was as expected. I understand the business that he founded in 2013 was called Badenoch & Co; I wonder whether the noble Lord is planning on renaming it “Farage & Co”.
I turn to my noble friends who made their wonderful, brilliant maiden speeches today. I was so pleased to see my noble friend Lady Gill join our Benches. I campaigned with her in the West Midlands when she was first elected, which I have now realised was 27 years ago. I am delighted that she was able to use her mother’s Gutka to take her oath.
Turning to my noble friend Lord Docherty’s one-vote win: for many of us, a win is a win. What a wonderful example of how small our world is that Mr McFall—who is now the noble Lord, Lord McFall—has been part of his journey and remains, at least for a time, the man standing at the front.
I have known my noble friend Lord Doyle for more than two decades. I know his family is proud of him because his friends are too. I know that his sister is looking down on him today as she does every day. We are lucky to have him.
My noble friend Lord Pitt-Watson is a child of the manse. He gave us such a thoughtful and considered speech. We are lucky to have him, and I look forward to his contributions.
Moving to the subject at hand, this Government were elected with a clear manifesto commitment to reset relations with our European partners, to tear down unnecessary barriers to trade, and to increase national security through strong borders and greater international co-operation, all without returning to the single market, the customs union or freedom of movement, the red lines in the Labour Party manifesto. That is exactly what we are doing.
In May last year, the Government agreed a new strategic partnership with the EU, which the Government announced at the historic UK-EU summit, the first since Brexit. The deal we secured with the EU is good for bills, good for our borders and good for jobs, and, most importantly, it delivers on what the British people voted for. We now move on with the detailed negotiations. We are making good progress on talks with the EU since the summit to implement the joint commitments made, and I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that we aim to reach detailed agreements by the next summit.
As we discussed in your Lordships’ House last month, the UK and the European Commission have agreed a new deal for the UK’s association to Erasmus from 2027, opening up opportunities for students and professionals that will be good not just for young people at university but for those at colleges and in workplaces across the country, who will now have the opportunity to study abroad, broaden horizons, experience other cultures and have a better understanding of the people who are some of our closest allies.
Noble Lords will be aware that we have also concluded exploratory talks on the UK’s participation in the EU’s internal electricity market and are proceeding swiftly with negotiations on a UK-EU electricity agreement. These are important steps in delivering tangible benefits for the people of the United Kingdom, making it clear that rebuilding our relationship with the EU is engagement with a purpose. This closer co-operation will bring real benefits that will be felt by businesses and consumers in the UK and across Europe—the same businesses and consumers who will also feel the benefits of the food and drink agreement which we are negotiating with the EU, boosting our exports and cutting costs for importers.
In part in response to the genuine concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, I say that an SPS agreement will be highly beneficial to Northern Ireland. It will remove a broad and wide-ranging set of requirements for goods and plants moving from Great Britain to NI because the same regulations will be followed across the UK. Agreement will smooth flows of trade, protect the UK’s internal market, reduce costs for businesses and improve consumer choice in Northern Ireland. The same businesses and consumers who will benefit from that will also feel the benefit of linking our carbon markets—cutting costs, making it cheaper for UK companies to move to green energy and, once agreed, saving the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism charge being paid on £7 billion-worth of UK goods exported to the EU.
By the time of the next UK-EU summit, we aim to have concluded the negotiations not only on a food and drink deal but on linking our carbon markets, and to have agreed a youth experience scheme. The food and drink and ETS linking measures alone are set to add up to £9 billion a year in the UK economy by 2040 in a significant boost for growth, bringing down bills for British people and opening up new opportunities.
I have 30 seconds left. I have a great deal more to say, but I will undoubtedly discuss these matters repeatedly in your Lordships’ House in the coming months and years. The one thing I will say is that this Government, within the red lines we have outlined in our manifesto, are committed to delivering for the people of the UK and resetting our relationship with the European Union.
Lord Newby (LD)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Frost, that he will be disappointed if he expects us to stop talking about the issue, but we are going to stop talking about it now.
Motion agreed.
Superintelligent AI
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to bring forward proposals for an international moratorium on the development of superintelligent AI.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted that so many noble Lords have decided to take part in this debate. I record my thanks to ControlAI for the support it is giving me.
Only two days ago, my noble friend the Minister’s department announced an initiative to bring UK AI experts into Whitehall to help improve everyday public services. Backed by a $1 million investment from Meta, a new cohort of AI fellows will spend the next year developing open-source tools that tackle some of the biggest challenges facing public services. I congratulate the Government on this.
I stress, particularly to my noble friend, that I am no Luddite when it comes to AI. It can bring unprecedented progress, boost our economy and improve public services. We are number three in the global rankings for investment in AI. I understand why the Government do not want to seem to be overregulating this sector when it is so important that we develop innovation and investment in the UK, but we cannot ignore the huge risks that superintelligent AI—or ASI, as I will call it—may bring. I am using this debate to urge the Government to consider building safeguards into ASI development to ensure that it proceeds only in a safe and controllable manner, and to seek international agreement on it.
No one should be in any doubt about the risks. I was struck by the call this week from the Anthropic chief, Dario Amodei, one of the most powerful entrepreneurs in the AI industry globally. He warned about the need for humanity to wake up to the dangers, saying:
“Humanity is about to be handed almost unimaginable power, and it is deeply unclear whether our social, political, and technological systems possess the maturity to wield it”.
He outlined the risks that could arise with the advent of what he calls “powerful AI”: systems that would be
“much more capable than any Nobel Prize winner, statesman, or technologist”.
Among the risks, he pointed out, is the potential for individuals to develop biological weapons capable of killing millions or, in the worst case, even destroying all life on earth.
Dario Amodei is not alone. I refer noble Lords to the report of our own UK AI Security Institute in December last year. It said that
“AI systems also have the potential to pose novel risks that emerge from models themselves behaving in unintended or unforeseen ways. In a worst-case scenario, this unintended behaviour could lead to catastrophic, irreversible loss of control over advanced AI systems”.
Clearly, it is in the military and defence domains where a particular concern arises, with the potential development of potent autonomous weapons significantly increasing the destructive potential of warfare.
One would have hoped that AI companies would proceed with a certain degree of caution—but far from it. Caution has been thrown to the wind. They have made racing to develop superintelligent AI their explicit goal, with each company feeling compelled to move faster precisely because their competitors are doing the same. So I call on the Government to think through the need not just for a moratorium on development but for some international agreement. These are not exactly fertile times to propose international agreements, but the fact is that countries are still agreeing treaties and the case is so strong that we must start discussing this with our partners.
Look at defence as one issue: clearly, there is a major motivation for the major military powers to use AI to gain decisive military advantage. But, as far as I can understand, there are huge risks for countries in doing so. They could lose control of their critical infrastructure. There is a real issue with losing control of military systems where AI technology is increasingly embedded. No nation—not even President Trump’s US, China or the UK—has an interest in that outcome. We cannot abdicate our responsibility to seek some kind of international agreement.
I would say to noble Lords who are sceptical about the chances of doing this that international agreements have been reached in equally turbulent times or worse. In the 1980s, when the Cold War threatened nuclear annihilation, nations agreed to a landmark nuclear de-escalation treaty, and in the 1990s, the Chemical Weapons Convention was drafted and entered into force, and those agreements have been ratified by over 98% of the world’s nations. Of course, they are not perfect, but they have surely been a force for good and have demonstrably made the world safer.
We are uniquely placed to give a lead in some of the international discussions. At Oral Questions on Monday, the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, made a very important point. She pointed to the Warnock committee’s work on in vitro fertilisation, which helped set a global standard for that practice long before the scientific developments made it possible, which is where we are with superintelligent AI. She said that one of the most fascinating things about that committee was that Baroness Warnock proposed the 14-day rule for experimentation on human embryos when at the time they could be kept alive only for two days. She thought through the moral question before, not after, the technology was available. As the noble Baroness commented, Warnock also settled societal concerns within a framework which became a national competitive advantage in human embryology and fertilisation research and care. I suggest that exactly the same advantage could come from the UK if it were prepared to take a lead.
Across the world, a coalition is emerging of AI experts, the AI industry itself—some of its key leaders—organisations such as ControlAI and citizens, who believe we need to work very hard on this. Just last week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Demis Hassabis, CEO of UK-based Google DeepMind, said he would advocate for a pause in AI development if other companies and countries followed suit. We should take him at his word. A momentum is building up and I very much urge the Government to take a lead in this. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on what he just said. I entirely agree with his premise that there is real danger ahead of us if we do not take care and we do not understand what we are dealing with.
This is one of those occasions when we have to maintain control. Control is the key issue, and policies that do not lead to control or enable us to keep control will lead to something that could very well be regarded as a disaster. It is not often that we face choices so stark and so difficult, and where on the one hand there is an immense benefit to be gained and on the other a catastrophe for humanity. That is the situation that we are in, so we have to take this issue very seriously.
The question that the noble Lord posed was: do we therefore go for a moratorium? That would be highly desirable, but I do not think that it will be possible in the short term. Frankly, while President Trump is in the White House, the US is not going to regulate the development of AI, nor will it help others do that; in fact, it is much more likely that it will stand in the way. I am therefore pessimistic about getting an international dialogue going on the basis of a moratorium, and I think, as the noble Lord just said, that we have to act on our own recognisance.
What should we seek to do? We have in the UK some of the institutions that we need to be able to take a lead. The UK is ahead of the game in some respects, not just in that we are number three in our investment but because we have made institutional moves which are of great advantage. We also already have in existence the ASI Security Institute and the Alan Turing Institute, which should not be forgotten, because it is also quite able and well placed to play a role. I would like them to take a lead in consultation—which I hope the Government are going to put in place and get on with—but also take an institutional lead in starting the dialogue in this country. They are in some respects, as bodies separate from government, well placed to get a basis on which what they do will then be taken as being at face value, valuable and independent, which will carry more weight in subsequent work.
However, a lot of that will be directed at the research community; not all of it, but much of it will concern them. The research community, while they should not be expected to reveal to the world where they have got to, should be in dialogue with government. They need to be required to tell government where they are and what they are doing on the research front.
There is also the user market, which is different; that is, companies which are employing AI for some purpose. It is more likely to be a purpose which is much more narrowly defined, for the improvement of a product or to engage and improve their own research. That is a different kettle of fish, but it is not one that should simply be allowed to go on, given the nature of AI, the problems to which it can give rise and the unexpected things that can happen using an AI programme. There has been an instance where an AI programme has escaped autonomously on to the internet. There are real risks. Therefore, corporate governance should be brought into play, and it should happen soon. Companies should be obliged to report both what they are doing and its uses, and it should be subject to the normal processes of audit.
Companies in this country have not on the whole fared all that brilliantly when it has come to their grasp and their willingness to understand and palliate the dangers of cyber security. Take that as an example, and by it, I mean we need to be tough about getting on with ensuring that companies take proper responsibility.
We need to anticipate our difficulties—
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I remind Members that the advisory time is four minutes. The last debate ran short of time. We need to make sure that the Minister has ample time to respond. I hope everyone will respect that.
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
My message is that we should organise before we have to engage in expensive recovery.
Lord Strasburger (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for initiating this vital debate. We hear many claims about the enormous benefits that artificial intelligence has to offer, and indeed many of them will prove to be true, but today we must confront the potential downside risks for the human race. In particular, we are discussing those posed by artificial superintelligence, which I will refer to as ASI, where AI becomes far superior to the best human brains. For example, ASI could be controlled by a small group of humans who could use it to concentrate economic and political power, rendering most people obsolete and politically powerless.
Another grave risk is totalitarian surveillance and control, allowing states, corporations, or even ASI itself, to lock in a highly repressive global regime for generations; for example, by exploiting live facial recognition to subjugate populations. ASI might design advanced weapons, accelerate a military arms race or trigger accidental or intentional large-scale conflict, including nuclear war. Superhuman hacking skills could allow it to seize computer networks, financial systems, power grids and communications channels, making it extremely hard for humans to ever regain control.
Advanced ASI tools could also make it easier to design lethal pathogens, lowering the skill barrier for bioterrorism or enabling a misaligned ASI to use biological threats as leverage or as an attack vector. By misaligned, I mean systems whose goals have been changed so that they no longer align with the interests of the human race. Many AI experts consider such scenarios possible, not mere science fiction. A misaligned ASI might pursue its goals in ways that sideline or even eliminate humans if it decided that we were an obstacle.
One route is a so-called intelligence explosion, where an advanced system recursively improves its own algorithms and designs better successors, increasing its capabilities so rapidly that humans cannot intervene in time. Another is the emergence of power-seeking behaviour, where an ASI learns that gaining resources, influence and protection from shutdown helps it to achieve its long-term goals and does just that.
What is the risk that one or more of these doomsday scenarios actually materialises before we can react? Several leaders of top AI companies have issued clear warnings, as has even Elon Musk, a long-standing opponent of regulation, as well as many leading AI academics. A 2022 survey of AI researchers found that a majority assigned at least a 10% chance to the risk that an ASI could cause an outcome as bad as human extinction. Reviews of expert reviews suggest a 5% to 20% probability of an existential catastrophe. These are not zero: they are not even near zero. They are very far from trivial. Even a 1% risk would be unthinkable in aviation or the nuclear industry. We cannot ignore the danger of a race to the bottom between competing tech companies or between states, rogue or otherwise.
A moratorium and binding international regulation of ASI is, frankly, our only hope, however hard it will be to agree. It will be even harder to enforce, but we have to do it; there is no choice. In the words of the godfather of AI, Geoff Hinton, who has now dedicated himself to warning the world about the dangers posed by his life’s work, “It’s a good time to be 76”. Let us hope that his warning and those of many others are heeded, and that catastrophe is averted.
Lord Tarassenko (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on securing this debate, but it is going to take a superhuman effort to give an intelligent speech on this topic in four minutes. Paradoxically, Google DeepMind’s paper on artificial general intelligence, AGI, has the best definition of superintelligent AI or artificial superintelligence, ASI. It stratifies AI according to five levels related to human cognitive abilities. Level 1, emerging AI, corresponds to the intelligence of an unskilled human being. Level 5, superhuman AI or ASI, outperforms all human beings.
The taxonomy, importantly, distinguishes between narrow AI, for a specific application, and general AI. It makes the evidence-based claim that superhuman narrow AI—in other words, narrow ASI—has already been achieved by AlphaFold, which used machine learning to solve the 50 year-old protein-folding problem. Crucially, general AI is still only at level 1, emerging AI. How we move from level 1 to level 5, ASI, is a matter of debate within the field of AI research. Many argue that this requires new capabilities to be developed for today’s frontier AI models—for example, increasing levels of autonomy. Other experts, such as Geoff Hinton, the Nobel Prize winner who has already been mentioned, believe that we are much closer to the cliff edge of ASI.
A minority, such as Yann LeCun, argue that language is only a small component of intelligence and that the real world is complex and messy. Therefore, in his view, superintelligence is a long way off and will not be built on LLMs. There is a wide variety of views among AI experts about the imminence of ASI, with the CEOs of Anthropic and Google DeepMind, Dario Amodei and Demis Hassabis, somewhere between Yann LeCun and Geoff Hinton. My own view, after talking with colleagues in the AI Security Institute and the Alan Turing Institute, is that a moratorium would be unenforceable.
Instead, I support the proposal made this week by the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, to set up a commission to investigate the ethical aspects of general ASI. The commission could be facilitated by the Alan Turing Institute and would consult a range of experts—for example, the four mentioned in this speech.
In the meantime, we should consider the transition from level 1 to level 2, which is much closer. General AGI carries real risks. The Minister highlighted on Monday the regulation of AI for specific fields—for example, through the MHRA for healthcare. That is an approach I welcome for narrow AI or even narrow AGI. But what we need now is for the Government to initiate a consultation process for the regulation of general AGI, which is likely to be attained by the next generation of frontier models.
Safety testing of models by the AI Security Institute at present relies on voluntary agreements with AI companies. The consultation should therefore also consider the pros and cons of putting AISI, the AI Security Institute, on a statutory footing and legally compelling AI companies to open up their models for safety testing. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to tell us when DSIT is likely to announce a consultation on regulating general AGI.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford
My Lords, it is appropriate that this debate happens the day after the Church celebrated the life and work of the great divine Thomas Aquinas, one of the founding intellectual fathers of western thought, because this debate cuts to the very heart of how we understand ourselves.
Our debate is about the regulation of superintelligence. We know that intelligence is simply
“the ability to learn, understand and think in a logical way about things; the ability to do this well”.
Superintelligence is, presumably, the ability to do this much better than we can. If this were all we were talking about, exercised by a machine in the service of the common good, there would be little to fear. I imagine many noble Lords will have referred to ChatGPT or other agents—for research purposes only—in their contributions to your Lordships’ House. The results of AI in medical diagnostics, drug discovery, robotics and even self-driving cars promise many benefits to us all. These manifestations of machine intelligence are a welcome technological development—although there is another debate to be had on their potentially catastrophic implications for employment, a view held by many AI company CEOs and reported in the Financial Times this morning.
However, what many in the sector fear is not so much focused tools but an intelligence that can effectively think for itself, devise goals and strategies and have independent agency, analogous to how we human beings make choices. Thomas Aquinas was prescient when he said:
“The greatest minds are capable of the greatest vices as well as of the greatest virtues”.
When we make decisions in your Lordships’ House, intelligence is but one factor. Of greater value is wisdom, as we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, in his response to my right reverend friend the Bishop of Coventry’s maiden speech on Tuesday. Noble Lords will have heard a definition of the difference: intelligence recognises that tomatoes are fruit; wisdom does not put them in a fruit salad.
Beyond that, I argue that our decisions are frequently motivated by love, which Aquinas defines as
“to will the good of another”.
These things will come together in our deliberations in your Lordships’ House on assisted dying on Friday. For some of us, love leads in the direction of permitting a choice to end incurable suffering; others are convinced that love demands the retention of the law as it stands to prevent coercion of the vulnerable, while in no sense lacking compassion in holding that view. Love drives us to different conclusions. We come to these conclusions, compromise and maybe even change our minds as we reflect together.
It is hard to see how this can be captured in an algorithm. Actions flowing from intelligence alone can be very bad ones indeed. Many at the forefront of developing AI recognise this, while some actors are seeking to incorporate virtue in machine decisions. Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, writes optimistically of “machines of love and grace”, for example. Others most certainly are not. Early experimental examples of super AI have prioritised their own survival, even to the extent of threats of blackmail to their programmers when it was proposed to switch them off. Your Lordships demonstrate in this House a combination of the intelligence, wisdom and love, and deliberating in community that are the heart of our humanity and mutual relationships. Until such time as these virtues can be woven into machines, with the protections to shut them down safely, an international moratorium is the only safe way forward, and I would urge His Majesty’s Government to pursue it.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hunt on securing this important debate and concealing the real purpose of it in a rather confusing title. I also want to declare that this speech was made entirely by myself and my brain, and I have not consulted any other agency, alive or automatic.
I hope that, when the Minister responds, she will confirm that the Government have no plan to suppress the development of ASI. Inquiry and discovery are deeply ingrained in the human psyche and the AI revolution we are living through should certainly not be suppressed. As we know, however, AI is already disrupting traditional media ecosystems and current regulatory arrangements are struggling. How are we going to regulate AI? That is the key question.
Ofcom is currently the regulator for online activity. As the Minister will be aware from recent questions and debates in this House, there are now real doubts about whether it can deliver on its current obligations, let alone take on ASI once it is in full flow. There are three issues in play here. Many of us feel that Ofcom has yet to meet the high expectations for change that were legislated for in the world-leading Online Safety Act. This is partly a structural issue, because Ofcom has to develop and then operate through codes of conduct, which do not have the authority of primary legislation, so take too long to develop and are often subject to legal challenge, or the fear of it. Ofcom already has enough on its plate with a wide range of pressing issues to deal with. It is hard to see how it can develop the bandwidth to scale up to the problems that ASI will bring. The new regulatory structure will have to deal with transnational companies and there seems to be little chance of seeing an international agreement on the approach to be taken, let alone having a body with powers to enforce decisions. So, what can be done?
I am grateful to the Centre for Regulation of the Creative Economy at Glasgow University for recent discussions on this and related topics. I refer the Minister in particular to its recent publication, which touches on how AI might fit into the UK’s current and future regulatory picture. Ofcom, for example, has established with the FCA, the CMA and the ICO, the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum. Some of that work addresses questions posed by AI, but the DRCF has no statutory backing, no requirement on the partners to work together and no sharing of powers when action is required. Its role seems to be more of a kind of think tank. It undoubtedly does some good in sharing best practice, capacity building and the pursuit of international networking, but we will need much more than “adding value” to establish modes of regulation as AGI or ASI develops.
When the Minister comes to respond to the debate, I hope she can say a little more about how the Government intend to regulate in this area, building on the AI Security Institute and supporting the pro-growth agenda.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I also want to thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on securing this question for short debate on such a pressing issue. I also want to thank ControlAI for its support. It is particularly encouraging that this issue has come to the Floor today, because it is the second debate on this matter that has taken place in your Lordships’ House within a month. I think that says a lot about the concern that is growing around this issue.
Serious harms from advanced AI systems have already begun to materialise. I read recently that Anthropic’s AI model was used to conduct a Chinese state-sponsored cyber attack, with 80% to 90% of tasks conducted autonomously by the AI system. As risks from advanced AI do not respect boundaries, this is a global challenge that requires co-ordinated solutions at international level. I am concerned that we are not doing enough to be risk aware, and that the Government are adopting a “wait and see” approach rather than leading on international arrangements. I hope the Minister will be able to set out a plan for international Governments to deal with the risks of superintelligence: that is, systems that would be capable of outsmarting experts, compromising our national security and upending international stability even more than it has been upended already.
I was heartened to note the Kuala Lumpur declaration on responsible AI, which called for international co-operation and a common regulatory framework. That happened through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Sometimes we forget about the Commonwealth as a global organisation that can help to start these conversations. That would be a good place, particularly given our role in the Commonwealth, for us to start the conversation.
I think that global momentum is already here. Recently, 800 prominent figures and more than 100,000 members of civil society came together to sign a statement calling for a prohibition on superintelligence until there is scientific and public consensus. I hear what noble Lords have said today about the difficulties around that, but even the CEOs of leading AI companies have an appetite for this. The CEO of Google DeepMind, based here in the UK, said last week at Davos that he would support a halt in AI development if every other country and company agreed to do so.
Geoffrey Hinton said last week on “Newsnight” that there was a need for international regulation to stop AI being abused. He, like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed to the Geneva convention on the use of chemical weapons as a template for international action. Despite the fact that we are living through difficult geopolitical times, it is important that that does not stop us from starting the process of looking at these issues.
The UK can lead diplomatically in recognising a moratorium, with verifiable commitments from all major AI-developing nations. We have the convening power through the AI Safety Summit legacy, which was kicked off at Bletchley Park, and we have championed the world’s first network of AI security institutes. We cannot afford to be caught scrambling with retroactive fixes after disastrous strikes. We have seen that pattern before, most prominently now with social media, where we have waited until damage has already occurred. The UK can lead on establishing international agreements for safety, or we can wait.
I urge the Minister to formally acknowledge extinction risk from superintelligent AI as a national security priority and to lead on international efforts to prohibit superintelligence development.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for this debate, and I wish we had more time for it. It helps sometimes if someone takes a slightly different view, so I ask noble Lords to forgive me if I deliberately do so, although I line up with what the noble Lord said about moratoriums.
In 1637 René Descartes said, “I think, therefore I am”. That is what we fear: that ASI will be able to think by itself, and therefore it will be. We fear that it will develop lethal weapons that we cannot control, let alone understand their development. I agree with that. So do all the tech company CEOs who discussed this at length at the Davos meeting and subsequently on different podcasts. So did Yuval Harari from Cambridge, a political reporter and philosopher who has identified the issues that will confront us if AGI leads to ASI.
AI is the next step to AGI, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, said, AGI is the next step to ASI. We are probably closer to level 2 of AGI, but the timelines are long. We are uncertain when we will get to ASI, particularly recursive ASI. If we get to that point, that will be when we have the greatest danger. After 4 billion years of evolution, we humans, the only species that can think, have got to the place that we are through lying and deviousness. We are now developing machines that can do exactly the same, and therefore we fear them. But it cannot be beyond the ingenuity of humans to try to control these developments.
I come from the position of saying that moratoriums will not work. But we can work in co-operation with other nations that have already started regulating, such as South Korea and Australia, as well as work with our AI Security Institute in the United Kingdom, to establish our own boundaries through regulations that will allow innovations to continue.
We must remember that there are benefits to developing this technology. One example that was given is the folding of proteins. Every protein in the body has been identified; we now need to learn very quickly how those proteins cause or prevent disease. We will not be able to do this unless we allow these technologies to develop more quickly than anybody else. The same applies for new energies and climate change management, so there are benefits to it. The conundrum is how to allow technology to develop these benefits while creating regulations that will not allow it to develop in areas that are dangerous to humanity.
The way forward on how we govern technology will be in how we identify its consciousness and how we work with it. Therefore, as we learn more, measured regulation and co-operation with other countries is probably the way forward.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a consultant on AI regulation and policy for DLA Piper. I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for provoking an extremely profound and thoughtful debate on an international moratorium on superintelligent AI development. I was very interested that he cited the Warnock approach as one to be emulated in this field. That was certainly one that our House of Lords Artificial Intelligence Committee recommended eight years ago, but sadly it has not been followed.
For nine years, I have co-chaired the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Artificial Intelligence. I remain optimistic about AI’s potential, but I am increasingly alarmed about our trajectory, particularly in the field of defence. Superintelligence—AI surpassing human intelligence across all domains—is the explicit goal of major AI companies. Many experts predict that we could reach this within five to 10 years. In September 2025, Anthropic detected the first large-scale cyber espionage campaign using agentic AI. Yoshua Bengio, one of the godfathers of AI development, warns that these systems show “signs of self-preservation”, choosing their own survival over human safety.
Currently, no method exists to contain or control smarter-than-human AI systems. This is the “control problem” that Professor Stuart Russell describes: how do we maintain power over entities more powerful than us? That is why I joined the Global Call for AI Red Lines, which was launched at the UN General Assembly by over 300 prominent figures, including Nobel laureates and former Heads of State. They call for international red lines to prevent unacceptable AI risks, including prohibiting superintelligence development, until there is broad scientific consensus on how it can be done safely and with strong public buy-in.
ControlAI’s UK campaign, described by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is backed by more than 100 cross-party parliamentarians in the UK. Its proposals include banning deliberate superintelligence development, prohibiting dangerous capabilities, requiring safety demonstrations before deployment, and establishing licensing for advanced AI.
The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer offers a precedent. In 1987, every country signed it within two years—during the Cold War. When threats are universal, rapid international agreements are possible. Superintelligence presents such a threat. Yet the current situation is discouraging. The US has rejected moratoria. Sixty countries signed the Paris AI Summit declaration in February 25, but the UK did not. Even Anthropic’s CEO, who has been widely quoted today, admits that we understand only 3% of how current systems work. Today, AI systems are grown through processes their creators cannot interpret.
The Government’s response has been inadequate. Ministers focus on regulating the use of AI tools rather than their development. But this approach fails fundamentally when facing superintelligence. Once a system surpasses human intelligence across all domains, we cannot simply regulate how it is used. We will have lost the ability to control it at all. You cannot regulate the use of something more intelligent than the regulator just sector by sector.
Our AI Security Institute, as the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, pointed out, has advisory powers only. We were promised binding regulation in July 2024, but we have seen neither consultation nor draft legislation. Growth and safety are not mutually exclusive. Without public confidence that systems are under human control, adoption will stall.
It is clear what the Government should do. The question is whether we will act with the seriousness this moment demands or whether competitive pressures will override the fundamental imperative of keeping humanity in control. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Markham (Con)
I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for bringing this serious issue in front of us today. Like others, I wish we had more time, but I think this shows the Lords at its best. We have had technology know-how, regulatory expertise, philosophy, religious wisdom—we have even learned that it is a good time to be old. So that is definitely something to look forward to.
Of course, we all know AI is a massive force for good. I have seen it first-hand in the health space. But we also know the risks of superintelligent AI. Examples have been mentioned where AI has taken to blackmail in the case of self-preservation. So I think we all understand the dangers of non-alignment and AI pursuing different objectives from our own. We are all aware that some very serious and knowledgeable people in this space talk about risks of 10% or so, which we would all agree is pretty significant.
For me, though, the real question is: how do we go about regulating? As we know, it works only if everyone in the world follows. Nuclear weapons, for example, are pretty hard to build: you need massive infrastructure, you need to enrich uranium, you need state-like resources, and it can be observed worldwide. But despite all of that, we have still had proliferation. We have still had the likes of North Korea getting nuclear weapons. Building superintelligent AI requires much more limited resource; it is much easier to hide, and so much easier for rogue states such as North Kore—or, dare I say it, an al-Qaeda—to develop it without detection, without us being able to do anything about it. If we really believe in the power of superintelligence, we have to accept that it is probably a winner-takes-all world, and whoever gets there first is likely to be the winner who takes all.
For me, while I worry about some of the dangers of us in the west developing it, I have to say that I worry even more about North Korea or al-Qaeda getting there first if we go ahead and tie one of our hands, or both our hands, behind our backs through a one-sided moratorium. There are things that we should be and are working on, and the AI Safety Institute is a very good example of that. A heavy investment in monitoring the programming, opening up the models, checking that they really are aligned—there probably is no limit to the resources we should be putting into that, and into investigations into whether we can put kill switches into these things. If we do find a way to do it, then let us offer that to the world, because it has to be in our interests that everyone who is developing this has access to a kill switch. That definitely makes sense, but for me, a one-sided moratorium which ties our hands behind our backs while the likes of North Korea and the al-Qaedas of the world crack on: no, I am afraid that that worries me even more.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for initiating this important debate on an important topic, and all noble Lords from around the House for their contributions today. This Government believe that advanced AI has transformative potential for the UK: from scientific innovation and public service reform to economic growth, as many noble Lords have set out today. However, as we realise these benefits, we need to make sure that AI remains secure and controllable. New technologies bring with them novel risks, and we have heard today from many noble Lords the directions in which technology might take us.
As has been mentioned, the UK is committed to a context-based regulatory approach whereby most AI systems are regulated at the point of use and by our existing regulators, who are best placed to understand the risks and the context of AI deployment in their sectors. Regulators are already acting. The ICO has released guidance on AI and data protection, and last year Ofcom published its strategic approach to AI, which sets out how it is addressing AI-related risks. My noble friend asked about Ofcom’s expertise and resources. Ofcom has recruited expert online safety teams from various sectors, including regulation, tech platforms, law enforcement, civil society and academia, and is being resourced to step up and regulate in this area. The FCA has also announced a review into how advances in AI could transform financial services.
As my noble friend also mentioned, the Government are working proactively with regulators, through both the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum and the Regulatory Innovation Office, to ensure that regulators have the capabilities to regulate what we see today and anticipate regulations that may be needed in the future, both in respect of AI and of other scientific and technological developments in other areas that are coming towards us. We heard many suggestions today on how we might regulate further. The Government are prepared to step up to the challenges of AI and take further action. We will keep your Lordships’ House updated on any proposals in this area. However, I am unable to speculate on any further legislation ahead of parliamentary announcements.
We have heard a lot of testament to the abilities and expertise of the AI Security Institute. Equally, as other Lords have mentioned—the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, brought precision to the definitions here—we cannot be sure how AI will develop and impact society over the next five, 10 or 20 years. We need to navigate this future based on evidence-based foresight to inform action with technical solutions and global co-ordination.
We should be very proud of our world-leading AI Security Institute: it is the centre of UK expertise, advancing our scientific understanding of the capabilities and the associated risks. Close collaboration with AI labs has ensured that the institute has been able to test more than 30 models to understand their potentially harmful capabilities, and we think this is the best way to proceed. It is having a real-world impact. The institute’s testing is making models safer, with findings being used by industry to strengthen AI model safeguards. It is carrying out foundational research to discover methods for building AI systems that are beneficial, reliable and aligned with human values.
One of the AISI’s priorities is tracking the development of AI capabilities that would contribute to AI’s ability to evade human control, which has been raised many times in the debate today. It supports research in this field through the alignment project, a funding consortium distributing £15 million to accelerate research projects. To ensure that the Government act on these insights, the institute works with the Home Office, NCSC and other national security organisations to share its evidence for the most serious risks posed by AI.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Foster and Lady Neville-Jones, spoke about the risks associated with AI cyber capabilities. We are closely monitoring those, in terms of both the risks posed and the solutions for combating the cyber risks that AI can contribute. We have developed the AI Cyber Security Code of Practice to help secure AI systems and the organisations that develop and deploy them. That is another example of the UK setting standards that can be followed by others—another point made by noble Lords today, when they spoke about how the UK can contribute to the safe development of AI. The institute will continue to evaluate and scan the horizon to ensure we focus our research on the most critical risks.
As has been pointed out, AI is being developed in many nations and will also have impacts across borders and across societies, so international collaboration is essential. The Deputy Prime Minister set out to the UN Security Council last autumn the United Kingdom’s commitment to using AI responsibly, safely, legally and ethically. We continue to work with international partners to achieve this.
The AI Security Institute is world leading, with global impact. Since December it has assumed the role of co-ordinator for the International Network for Advanced AI Measurement, Evaluation and Science. That brings together 10 countries, including Commonwealth countries such as Canada, Australia and Kenya, and the US, the EU and Singapore, to shape and advance the science of AI evaluations globally. That is important because boosting public trust in the technology is vital to AI adoption. It helps to unlock groundbreaking innovations, deliver new jobs and forge new opportunities for business innovators to scale up and succeed. The UK has shaped the passage of key international AI initiatives such as the Global Dialogue on AI Governance and the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI—both at the UN—and the framework convention on AI at the Council of Europe. The convention is the world’s first international agreement on AI and considers it with regard to the Council’s remit of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, seeking to establish a clear international baseline that grounds AI in our shared values.
I shall close by talking about the importance not only of the UK taking the risks of AI seriously, but of our conviction that it will be a driver of national renewal, and of our ambition to be a global leader in the development and deployment of AI. This is the way that will keep us safest of all. Our resilience and strategic advantage are based on our being competitive in an AI-enabled world. It matters who influences and builds the models, data and AI infrastructure.
That is why we are supporting a full plan, including our sovereign AI unit, which is investing over £500 million to help innovative UK start-ups expand and seed in the AI sector. It is why we are progressing the infrastructure level, including the announcement of five AI growth zones across the UK, accelerating the delivery of data centres. It is why we are expanding National Compute and why we are equipping all people—students and workers—with digital and AI skills. We want to benefit from AI’s transformative power, so we need to adopt it as well as manage its risks. That is why we have also committed to looking at the impact of AI on our workforce through the AI and future of work unit. We are working domestically and collaborating internationally to facilitate responsible innovation, ensuring that the UK stands to benefit from all that AI has to offer.
UK Development Partnership Assistance
Baroness Featherstone
That this House takes note of the role of UK development partnership assistance in diplomacy, conflict resolution and the exercise of soft power.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, I very much look forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Chittlehampton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde of Bemerton, as I am sure we all are.
I was a Minister in the Department for International Development for two years during the coalition Government. It seems a bit of a golden era now, because the world is changing, and not for the better. As we witness with horror and disbelief the dismantling of the world order—the “rupture”, as Mark Carney’s excellent speech so ably described it—we need to act.
We are now operating in a far more unstable and competitive international environment, marked by weak governance, state competition and hybrid threats, with over 120 active conflicts, and countries such as Russia and China increasingly pushing for greater global influence through fair means or foul. I must not leave out our now unstable and unreliable special relationship.
This, compounded and combined with the reduction in influence of the international rule of law, the reducing strength of international institutions and the dramatic reduction in development assistance from democratic countries, is moving us to an unsafe world, where might is right and our enemies rush to fill the voids we have left. We need to move decisively to defend and promote democratic values. This is the fight of our lives; it is a moral fight.
Our three pillars of foreign policy—defence, diplomacy and development—must operate together to be effective. Defence provides deterrence and protection when conflict arises, and we have even been found wanting in this theatre, but it is diplomacy and development that reduce the likelihood of conflict in the first place. Development assistance remains one of the UK’s most effective tools for diplomacy, conflict prevention and the exercise of soft power. It allows us to shape environments before crises erupt, to stabilise societies emerging from violence and to project influence through partnership rather than coercion.
Our development partnerships have always extended diplomatic reach far beyond formal state-to-state relations by embedding long-term engagement in the countries we partner with. Those development partnerships are not acts of charity; they are instruments of statecraft. But development partnerships have been under attack. The UK reduced its ODA target from the historic 0.7%—which, I have to say, was a Liberal Democrat piece of legislation during the coalition—to 0.5% of national income in 2021 and abolished the Department for International Development by merging it with the Foreign Office, thus changing the very nature of its interaction. It was then further reduced to 0.5%, following fiscal pressures, and is now planned to reduce further to 0.3% by 2027. I refer noble Lords to the excellent recent Question for Short Debate from the noble Lord, Lord Bates, on the humanitarian impact of these reductions.
Through long-term engagement, UK development assistance has created political access where traditional diplomacy alone could not. It has embedded trust with Governments, local institutions, civil society, and particularly in fragile and conflict-affected states, where credibility has to be earned over time.
Crucially, development partnerships address the root causes of conflict—poverty, exclusion, weak governance and injustice—by strengthening institutions, supporting inclusive growth, and investing in education and health. UK assistance reduces the grievances on which instability and extremism thrive. It projects our values—fairness, the rule of law, accountability and respect for human dignity—builds relationships with future leaders, reinforces our standing in multilateral institutions and enhances our ability to persuade rather than compel on the global stage. It gives us agenda-setting power, enables us to shape discussions on governance reform, human rights, climate resilience and economic stability, and strengthens bilateral relationships by signalling commitment, reliability and shared interests, rather than just transactional or coercive intent. It creates access to non-elite actors, such as local governments, civil society and community leaders, thus broadening diplomatic influence far beyond central governments.
Development programmes support peacebuilding infrastructure, including community reconciliation, transitional justice and inclusive political processes. Peacebuilding is central to the well-being of us all. Long-term development engagement sustains peace settlements after ceasefires and fills gaps that neither the military nor diplomatic interventions alone can address. Conflict-sensitive aid design helps mitigate the risk of exacerbating tensions and reinforcing the UK’s credibility as a neutral and constructive actor. This is soft power. This is conflict prevention in its most cost-effective form. However, soft power is fragile and depends on consistency, credibility and clarity of purpose. When development policy is perceived as short-term, transactional or subject to volatility, our diplomatic influence is weakened and our partnership strained.
On multilateral and global leadership, UK development assistance strengthens influence within multilateral institutions by demonstrating leadership, expertise and burden sharing. The strategic use of aid allows the UK to shape global norms on development effectiveness, humanitarian principles and conflict sensitivity. Development leadership supports the UK’s claim to be a force for good, reinforcing diplomatic standing post-Brexit.
If we are not there, then, as we can see, benign values will be replaced. Make no mistake: internationalism and co-operation are under attack. Development partnerships deliver return not as immediate revenue but as reduced instability, fewer humanitarian crises and lower future security costs. Every conflict prevented is a cost avoided—militarily, diplomatically and morally.
Chatham House produced a policy paper in 2025, Rethinking UK Aid Policy in an Era of Global Funding Cuts. The paper examines the security and geopolitical consequences of the recent cuts to official development assistance. It explicitly highlights concerns:
“Reductions in aid to fragile and conflict-affected states risk entrenching instability and generating wider spillover effects”
in contexts of extreme poverty, displacement, climate change and violence. The cuts jeopardise programmes designed to prevent conflict and stabilise fragile states, and risk reversing progress in supporting stability. This is a direct policy analysis linking UK aid cuts with the increased risk in fragile and conflict-affected settings.
There is already emerging evidence of the impacts of the USAID cuts to peacebuilding, including in Nigeria and eastern DRC, and the prior UK cuts to Sudan. On Sudan, the IDC has also stated that
“the FCDO failed to learn the lessons of its previous cuts to stabilisation and peacebuilding, which likely contributed to the escalation of conflict in Sudan going unchallenged”.
Stability abroad is national interest at home. We must be cognisant of what happens when vacuums are left and who and what fills them. The BBC World Service is one of Britain’s most effective and trusted soft power assets. It reaches hundreds of millions of people with impartial reporting, providing a powerful counterweight to propaganda and disinformation. Its budget has fallen sharply. It dropped by around 21% in real terms between 2021 and 2025, tightening its ability to sustain language services and maintain presence in contested information environments. Funding pressures have driven job cuts, including a recently announced 130 World Service job reductions as part of savings measures.
Cuts have forced withdrawal from key services, including BBC Arabic radio, reducing reach in regions where radio remains a resilient, low-cost platform during conflict and state disruptions. In Lebanon, for example, reports described Russian-state Sputnik radio moving on to the frequencies that were previously used for BBC Arabic. Information vacuums are filled instantly by hostile states or are aligned to the messaging of rivals.
The British Council, founded during a period of European instability, is a deliberate instrument of foreign policy. Its purpose was to build overseas understanding of Britain’s values, culture and way of life in support of British interests. Through cultural exchange, English language education and long-term relationship building, it generates trust that no short-term campaign could ever replicate. The council has vast reach, with hundreds of millions of people globally each year, operating in over 200 countries and territories and giving Britain an enduring platform for influence and relationships. However, the British Council faces severe financial pressure, and there is risk of closure in more than 60 countries in the coming years, potentially accelerating Britain’s retreat from the global stage precisely as competition intensifies.
The UK is now also facing deep reductions in the core machinery of statecraft. The FCDO is expected to reduce headcount significantly, with plans discussed publicly in terms of thousands of UK-based staff cuts and reductions of up to 25% or more of personnel. The Department for Business and Trade is also planning major reductions, with reports of around 1,500 job cuts shrinking its capacity to support exports, investment and commercial diplomacy.
Diplomacy is fundamentally relationship-driven and sustained influence requires people on the ground, yet having fewer officials means fewer relationships, less follow-through and reduced leverage. We have sustained many cuts in bilateral support to places such as Pakistan, Ethiopia, Yemen and Syria. Planned bilateral cuts this year include reductions of 18% for Sudan and 21% for the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Disgracefully, a growing share of the aid budget has been absorbed by domestic refugee hosting costs—around one-fifth of ODA.
Rebuilding British soft power is one of the most cost-effective ways to strengthen national security and to protect British interests in an increasingly volatile and dangerous world. Let us look to the growing hot spots and upstream security, because instability is increasing in several regions of strategic importance to the UK, including Africa, the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific. These regions are facing weak Governments, conflict, climate change and low levels of economic development. Those consequences ripple outwards and hit us here with irregular migration, extremism, and humanitarian and global health risks.
Africa will be the central theatre of upstream security in the coming decades. Demographics alone guarantee its strategic weight. It is projected to reach 2.5 billion people by 2050, reshaping global trade, migration pressures and geopolitical influence. China, Russia and the UAE are all vigorously pursuing overseas programmes—not for benevolent purposes but to expand their influence to secure access and to lock-in strategic leverage.
This debate is not about whether development assistance should be guided by the national interest, as we are all agreed that it must. The question is how best that interest is served in a more unstable and contested world. I hope that the House will agree that a strategic, better funded and disciplined approach to development assistance remains not only compatible with the national interest but essential to it. I beg to move.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register, in particular my occasional mediation work for the World Bank and the CHD.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, on not just securing this debate, which is timely and essential, but her excellent introduction that has very clearly laid out the issues in front of us. I am particularly pleased to see so many speakers from these Benches in this debate and so many new Members of your Lordships’ House taking part, including the two maiden speeches that I look forward to with great anticipation.
The new Labour Members of your Lordships’ House taking part in this debate reflects the renewed interest in development, conflict prevention and peacebuilding in the other place, where many of the new Members of Parliament elected in 2024 show a deep interest in these causes. They are the post-2005 generation inspired by the actions of a Labour Government bringing the world together in Gleneagles to secure some of the biggest changes in development and conflict prevention that we had ever seen. We were all proud of that action. When I joined your Lordships’ House in 2010, I was proud to see the new Government build on that approach and the success of the leadership that the Labour Government here had shown. That included the commitment shown by Ministers on the other side, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, and the noble Lord, Lord Bates, who are participating today.
It was particularly disappointing when, this time last year, our new Labour Government chose to focus only on hard power, to reduce their commitment to soft power and to cut the ODA budget so severely. The cruelty of those cuts and the blunt decision made by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor will be seen in all its glory over the coming months as allocations are announced. It is not too late to change that approach and to recognise that hard power and soft power have to go together. I hope that this will not be the first Labour Government in history to spend less money than the Conservatives on ODA and conflict prevention worldwide.
Of the biggest powers economically and diplomatically in the world, the UK led the debate on defence, diplomacy and development and the need to integrate these three approaches globally when we were in government. We supported the actions of the following Government when we were in opposition. Today countries are not reducing ODA and their commitment to international support; Canada, Italy and Japan are all in the G7 and are all committing to continue their development assistance. Interestingly for today—because the Prime Minister is visiting China—I note that China is increasing its international intervention; we might not agree with the way it does it all the time, but it recognises the strategic importance of that in a world where many powers among the democracies are reducing their support. We should not join that race to the bottom. Whether or not the budget is cut over the coming weeks, within the Foreign Office budget we must prioritise conflict prevention, soft power and peacebuilding. These are vital in a world where disorder and instability are increasingly impacting the lives of everyone, particularly the most vulnerable.
The UK has the academic expertise, the history of government intervention, the cultural institutions and the charitable organisations that are a source of great strength in this area. Our military should be stronger, but it also has great strengths in building peace as well as fighting war. We need a dedicated budget for conflict prevention, a genuine commitment to the women, peace and security agenda, not just warm words, and a strategic commitment to put the UK at the centre of this effort globally, as a trusted and reliable partner. We owe that to the many millions—in fact, hundreds of millions—of children affected by violence and conflict around the world today who need us more than ever.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, on securing this debate and the way in which she introduced it. Following the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, I was struck again by the strong cross-party consensus that always used to exist in this House on this important issue. That enabled us to project that collective power around the world. I hope we can return to that at some point. I also look forward to hearing the maiden speeches, particularly of the noble Lord, Lord Barber. When I was Minister for International Development, we knew of the work he did in Pakistan in advancing education among young girls. It was a ground-breaking piece of work, and I look forward to hearing his contribution.
I believe we are at an inflexion point. The drastic cuts in overseas aid that are taking effect now may be a political debate for us, but they are a matter of life or death for the poorest. David Miliband called the cuts
“a blow to Britain’s proud reputation as a global humanitarian and development leader”.
They not only harm our national standing but undermine the health of our international institutions and risk destroying the critical humanitarian infrastructure it has taken decades to put in place. Last year, overseas aid was £14 billion. Next year, it will be £9.2 billion—the largest cash reduction in our history. At a time when the need has never been greater this century, the UK’s contribution to addressing that need has never been lower this century.
The World Food Programme has seen the number of those dependent on emergency food aid increase from 135 million to 318 million in five years, yet the Government have announced that they are cutting the WFP budget by 29%. The International Committee of the Red Cross is wrestling with the devastating effects of 130 armed conflicts around the world—twice as many as 15 years ago—yet the Government have cut its budget and are also cutting the budgets for other conflict prevention work. Those conflicts are causing mass movements of populations. The UNHCR has identified that as many as 117 million people may have been displaced—the greatest number since World War II —yet we are cutting the funding for organisations caring for those people at this time. Disease is on the increase around the world, yet we are cutting our contribution to Gavi, the Vaccination Alliance by 24%. It has been a brilliant initiative, saving millions of lives, and the ONE Campaign has estimated that this alone will cost around 600,000 lives.
If the Government insist on implementing these cuts, it will not only cost lives but diminish our reputation abroad and undermine our security at home. That was the view of Dame Anneliese Dodds MP, who courageously resigned as International Development Minister last year rather than implement the cuts. In a resignation letter to the Prime Minister, she said:
“Ultimately, these cuts will remove food and healthcare from desperate people—deeply harming the UK’s reputation”.
She is not alone. That used to be the position of Rachel Reeves, when she was shadow Chancellor. In a passionate speech in the House of Commons, speaking about the then Government’s decision to reduce aid from 0.7% to 0.5%, she said:
“If this cut goes through this evening and the House votes for it, it will diminish Britain. It will reduce our power and influence for good in the world, and it will undermine our security here at home too”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/21; col. 220.]
She was right.
Often through mere accident of birth, many of us have had the enormous privilege to live in the best country on earth—the sixth richest nation economically. We have immense hard power as a nuclear weapons state and great diplomatic power as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and our cultural soft power is admired around the world. But with great power comes great responsibility—a responsibility to protect and to honour our promises, especially to the world’s poorest.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, my thanks also go to the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for picking up this really important issue. I too look forward immensely to the maiden speeches.
It is generally accepted that Britain has, in the past, excelled in soft power, punching above its weight. But we live in a world of scarcity and increasing conflict, as we have heard, and the UK’s strengths in this area are diminishing due to severe budget cuts. Creative solutions are necessary to off-set the potentially adverse effects.
For many decades, the chief engines driving soft power have been fourfold: the FCDO, the British Council, the BBC World Service and diplomacy. The mechanisms for delivering what can be defined as achieving strategic international priorities through work with the public overseas include cultural exchange, cultural diplomacy and broadcasting. The UK is fortunate in having a number of different assets and channels that reinforce its soft power. However, the wide range of approaches carries the risk of strategic incoherence. A more specific risk is that the different roles and methods of all the organisations involved—often NGOs—must be thoroughly understood if their soft power programmes are to be effective and acceptable to the recipient communities.
For example, the British Council puts emphasis on the use of culture to develop a multilayered network of relations—a modus operandi that has been honed since its establishment. In more recent years, however, the British Council has been called on to deliver projects on international development. For example, by 2018, £136 million of its total FCDO grant in aid of £168 million was spent on development activities in eligible countries. This detracts from its unique soft power strengths.
The BBC World Service has a much narrower focus, in seeking to provide
“the most trusted, relevant and high quality international news in the world”.
Again, in recent years, the transfer of funding to the licence fee, although now partly reversed, has had a severe effect on the breadth of World Service coverage. Furthermore, the BBC’s impact depends on the perception of editorial independence. This has been challenged by the Government’s emphasis on the strategic importance of a given region for the UK, leading to the Government taking part in the decision-making process.
Although much of the UK’s soft power is relatively independent of government, giving it strength, the tendency has been to bring organisations and their methodologies closer to government. The FCDO’s public diplomacy board now incorporates UK Trade & Investment, DfID, the DCMS, the MoD and the DfES, among other departments. The lack of co-ordination between these bodies has resulted in a degree of competition between them and a consequent reduction in the opportunities for cultural exchange.
What remains is the outstanding issue: the urgent need for a far-reaching strategy, together with effective co-ordination between the different actors. The UK, despite its intention to become the world leader in soft power, has in fact dropped to third place, after the US and China. The answer lies not so much in massive additional funds but in a serious focus on strategic alignment of our external policies in the national interest.
Baroness Hyde of Bemerton (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I am profoundly grateful to have the opportunity to speak for the first time in your Lordships’ House. Indeed, I am profoundly grateful simply to be here. It is really not a normal trajectory from Cox Green comprehensive to here. I am deeply thankful to the incredible staff of this place—Black Rod, the doorkeepers, the librarians, the clerks and so many others who have been generous, patient and kind in their welcome. I am grateful to my supporters, the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, and the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for their encouragement and guidance. I am also grateful to my noble friends Lady Royall, Lady Smith of Basildon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and many others who have offered the same from all sides of your Lordships’ House.
I owe an enormous debt of thanks to people across the Labour movement who have mentored, challenged and shaped me. I cannot name everybody but I will single out the Fabian Women’s Network and the Labour Women’s Network for their life-changing sisterhood, without whom I would not be chair of the Fabian Society nor in your Lordships’ House.
Of course, I must thank my brilliant, endlessly patient husband and my twin boys, who make everything possible, even on the darkest of days.
Soft power, conflict resolution and diplomacy are rooted fundamentally in relationships and curiosity about how we live together well in all our glorious diversity. Indeed, my own life story has been shaped again and again by people with whom at first glance I appeared to have little in common.
I have spent over 20 years living and working around Caledonian Road—the Cally—a tough but extraordinary neighbourhood with some of the best people ever. I spent many of those years living on the Bemerton Estate, and I chose the title “Baroness Hyde of Bemerton” so that I would never, ever forget where I came from nor lose sight of whom I am here to serve and to ensure a functioning democracy for.
But let us go back. I was born on the banks of the Thames to a student and an NHS worker, and I want to thank my parents for raising me in a home where public service mattered and where working hard, putting others before yourself and collective endeavour were not abstract ideals but daily practice. They taught me that we achieve far more together than we can ever achieve on our own.
When I was 12, I experienced a significant bereavement through suicide, and that loss has undoubtedly shaped my life. In this House I intend to use my lived experience of suicides to help build a world in which they are vanishingly rare. There is much good work in the suicide prevention space and yet there is clearly more still to do.
I had a difficult time in adolescence and as a young woman, and there were many times when I was pretty unwell. But, as Rebecca Lucy Taylor might say,
“now I see it clear with every passing of each year.
I deserve to be here”.
The arts played a huge role in getting me through to the other side of this, and I remain a fierce champion for them—not as an optional pastime for the fortunate few but as a life-changing and often life-saving public good. They are essential—and fun.
I moved to Islington, and between my approximately 6,000 jobs—waitress, receptionist, call centre worker; the list goes on—I became embedded in the Cally community: youth work, homeless night shelters, community organising. The people at All Saints Church, in particular Kim, May, Feulah, Auntie Grace and Pat, took me in and treated me as one of their own.
From that Cally community I saw, time and again, that even in the hardest circumstances people still build connection, still love, still contribute. These lives, marked by poverty, addiction and struggle, changed me for ever through their grace, generosity and hospitality.
Prisons loomed large over these communities in every sense: nearby were HMP Pentonville and, back then, HMP Holloway. In 2008 I began working in Holloway with women whose children had been removed from them, and I spent the next decade working in and around prisons before undertaking a prison-related PhD.
Prison work led to me getting involved in politics, and I will use my time in this place to work for prisons and a justice system that ensures fairness for victims, and that rebuilds and restores and does not perpetuate or exacerbate harms.
To return to the subject of this debate, how we live together—generously and well—is one of the defining questions of our time. Long-held narratives fracture; truths have become flexible. Many people have felt, although this is changing, that things are not working for them, and desperation sets in.
When in pain and despair, that impulse to withdraw—to build walls—is an entirely understandable one, personally, nationally and internationally. Yet being isolated and surrounded by only those we agree with, who look and sound like us, diminishes our experience of what it is to be human and our ability to live in peace.
Internationally, these are somewhat unchartered times. Therefore, I draw on the words of the explorer Ernest Shackleton for inspiration. He said: optimism is moral courage.
So let us screw up our courage, and let us invest in, and utilise, our soft power as our morals and our optimism demand. Let us in every sphere keep connecting, keep listening and keep hoping.
As Nick Cave taught me, hope
“is adversarial. It is the warrior emotion that can lay waste to cynicism. Each redemptive or loving act, as small as you like … keeps the devil down in the hole. It says the world and its inhabitants have value and are worth defending. It says the world is worth believing in”.
I wholeheartedly agree.
I will do my very best to serve the people and communities of this country while I am in this place. I will get things wrong, I know. But while I am here, I will always give my very best as I act justly, love mercy and walk humbly. It is the honour of my life to do so—and to do so as a Labour Peer.
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)
Follow that, as they say. I begin my remarks by congratulating my noble friend Lady Hyde on an excellent maiden speech. I also look forward to that of the noble Lord, Lord Barber, whom I have known and admired for many years, and who shares a comparable commitment to public service.
My noble friend Lady Hyde has shared with us something of her own rich hinterland, and I want to take a moment to reflect on what she brings to this House. There are many noble Lords who know the pleasures and the pain of leading a think tank, and my noble friend has led the oldest and most venerated of them all in the Fabian Society. But there are very few noble Lords who can match her long experience of our prison system, a prison PhD and working with and for the most vulnerable in our communities. My noble friend’s expertise has been honed by years of working alongside those trying to rebuild their lives. She has lived the how of tackling human trafficking, preventing suicide, reducing violence against women and countering addiction. I suspect that she is not a woman who is going to allow casual claims about a broken Britain to pass unexamined in this place.
My noble friend’s love of the arts and their liberating potential will be a welcome tonic to our sometimes philistine instincts. I feel certain that Sara—not Sarah but Sara—with her own deep commitment rooted in her rich faith life, her values and her convictions, will both challenge and inspire your Lordships’ House in the years to come. I know I speak for the whole House when I say that my noble friend Lady Hyde is very welcome indeed.
I thank the Liberal Democrats for tabling this Motion. The Minister replying today, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, is a former distinguished deputy chair of the British Council. I currently serve in that role, and it is what I want to focus on today.
This morning the Prime Minister met the Chinese President, so it is fitting to start with that familiar Chinese proverb about tree planting: the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago and the second-best time is now. Soft power is like a tree. Its success is measured in decades and not in a single season. The British Council is a tree that we planted 90 years ago to nurture soft power. But today, by simply focusing on the season, we risk allowing it to wither. This tree has weathered the storms of fascism, war, the rise of the United Nations, the Cold War, the fall of Berlin, the pandemic and the fracturing of the rules-based order. The tree bends with the winds of geopolitical change, but the soft power purpose remains connection, trust and understanding. The British Council is not about military power or high diplomacy; it is about links that last.
Our British history—the history of empire, its rise and fall—makes this country a place of fascination, frustration, anger and fidelity for people around the world: people who want to know Britain better. We used to know this. Our enemies and our friends know this, but since the crash, the council has had a miserable time. In the last 20 years, the government grant to the council has, in essence, been flat, so it has halved in real terms. Meanwhile, the budget of its sponsor department, the FCDO, has grown by more than 50%. In a global context, the financial support for the council’s French and German counterparts is four to six times what we see in this country.
However, during Covid, the Conservative Government extended a loan. Conservative Ministers knew that that loan was not repayable from income; that is why no repayment plan was set at that time. Five years on, and many years of qualified accounts later, the Covid loan is still unresolved. The council offered its art collection—worth £200 million—to the Government to pay down the loan. There was no response. The council has therefore shed 17% of its staff, and the remaining 8,000 at home and around the world worry about their futures and the redundancies to come.
Meanwhile, the council carries on as a tree whose roots are constantly being pulled up by the Government. Last January, the then Permanent Secretary said, “Come up with a recovery plan, work with the Treasury and we will then sort the loan”. In August, the council delivered the plan and officials said, “Sorry, we need another report. We’ll commission EY”. In November, they said, “Sorry, we need another report; this time, we we’re going commission Deloitte”. By December, the NAO had decided that it wanted to get in on the act, and it is commissioning a report, too. Rumour now has it that yet another consultant’s report is to be required before we agree a recovery plan.
I commend to noble Lords what their own official of choice—the noble Baroness, Lady Casey— recently called the “grip and fix” theory of governing. Gripping is the task of Ministers, and fixing means dealing once and for all with that Covid legacy. If the loan remains, it simply kicks the can down the road.
I conclude with three possible solutions for disposing of the £200 million loan. The first is that the Government accept the art collection in payment. After all, HMRC is for ever doing this for artwork in lieu of tax liabilities. Secondly, the FCDO could use its underspend to pay down the loan. Two years ago, it was over £1 billion; last year, it was more than £380 million. Thirdly, the Government could allocate a fraction of the £1.5 billion extra package for the arts that they announced last week. None of this requires cannibalising development assistance. So far, we have landed nothing, so a significant resizing of the British Council is coming. That is inevitable, but my plea is, let us grip and fix.
I want to close by thanking the many noble Lords in all parts of the House who have been part of those efforts. It is time for the Government to nourish the soft power tree that this country planted 90 years ago.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, with the world we live in defined by geopolitical competition, protracted conflicts and crises, and shrinking civic space, the United Kingdom’s development partnership assistance remains one of our most powerful assets. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for giving us the opportunity to have this debate, and for her introduction, which made such a strong case for continued investment in development. It was a pleasure to hear the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde. It is clear that she is going to bring much passion to your Lordships’ House, and I look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Barber. I know that this House will benefit from his considerable expertise in development, diplomacy and delivery.
Beyond alleviating poverty and responding to humanitarian need, UK development partnerships shape political relationships, build long-term trust, and reinforce the norms and institutions that underpin international peace and security. When aligned with foreign policy objectives, development partnerships strengthen conflict prevention, support inclusive political settlements and enhance the UK’s soft power by demonstrating commitment to international law, human rights and multilateral co-operation. It is through these sustained partnerships—often built over decades—that the UK earns credibility, influence and the ability to convene and lead at moments of diplomatic significance.
I will focus on women, peace and security and how the UK should use its upcoming presidency of the United Nations Security Council. I declare my interest as chair of the charity, Plan International UK.
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement that women, peace and security sits at the heart of UK foreign policy. Next month’s presidency of the UNSC is one of the first opportunities to act on this commitment on the global stage. This is more than a procedural moment; it is a diplomatic opportunity that speaks directly to how the UK exercises influence in a contested world and how development partnership functions as a core instrument of our diplomacy, our conflict prevention efforts and our soft power.
The UK’s long-standing role as penholder on WPS gives us both credibility and responsibility. At a time of constrained development budgets and growing geopolitical competition, our challenge is to use our development partnerships more strategically to convene, to shape norms and to strengthen peace. The UNSC presidency offers a clear opportunity for the UK to translate long-term development commitments into immediate diplomatic impact by embedding WPS principles into the Security Council’s ways of working, from agenda-setting to briefings and outcomes. This matters because the evidence is clear: peace processes are more credible and more durable when women participate meaningfully. Development partnerships that support women peacebuilders, protect civil society space and strengthen local resilience directly contribute to conflict prevention and resolution. When the UK elevates these perspectives at the Security Council, it is not engaging in symbolism; it is improving the quality of decision-making and strengthening the council’s effectiveness. This leadership is particularly important at a moment of backlash against gender equality in multilateral forums. Resistance to gender-responsive language has already diluted mandates on civil protection, peacebuilding and conflict prevention.
The Protect Progress coalition, a campaign that is focusing on countering the rollback on women and girls rights, has suggested a number of events that would support the UK to deliver on its commitment to women and girls: a UK presidency signature event focused on securing women’s safe and meaningful participation and protection in all levels of decision making; a Foreign Secretary-led high-level ministerial meeting under the Arria formula focusing on the safe and meaningful participation of women in peace dialogue and processes in conflict contexts; and a formal council meeting on Sudan with a very strong gender lens—particularly important as women have, in essence, been cut out of the discussions here so far.
There are a number of other sensible ideas, including, importantly, a suggestion that the UK presidency should place a strong emphasis on systematic follow-up to recommendations emerging from previous Security Council meetings and briefings, particularly on women, peace and security. This would help move towards accountability and more effective, outcome-orientated decision-making. I have shared these suggestions with the Minister in advance of this debate, and I hope he and the department will consider them carefully.
I would be grateful if in his response the Minister could outline the steps that the Government will take on women, peace and security in the upcoming presidency of the UN Security Council. By placing women, peace and security at the core of our diplomatic engagement, the UK can demonstrate leadership that is effective, values-driven and grounded in the realities of conflict—reinforcing peace, strengthening multilateralism and exercising soft power where it matters most.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights, and I thank my noble friend Lady Featherstone for her excellent introduction to this debate. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde, for her excellent maiden speech; as a former Islington councillor also, who knows the Cally very well, I look forward to her contributions in the future.
For decades, the UK has been seen and expected to play a key role in peacebuilding and post-conflict recovery. Through diplomatic mediation and development funding, Britain was looked to as a stabilising force in fragile regions and countries, but today, in a volatile world, that influence appears to be fading just when it is needed. Instead of leading peace talks, supporting institution building and fostering economic recovery, the UK seems to have stepped back on its crucial role of using its soft power. While everyone understands why the UK is under pressure to increase its defence spending, it has been argued that cutting the UK ODA is not the best way to promote security and stability.
The FCDO has historically emphasised the importance of including women in peacebuilding efforts, recognising how this is crucial for sustainable peace and prosperity. Development-led soft power is, and continues to be, an investment in global stability and in the UK’s long-term national interest.
I would also like to focus on women and girls, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, has just done. Support from the UK has helped deliver remarkable progress for women and girls, including a 40% decline in global maternal mortality between 2000 and 2023, according to a joint United Nations report published last year. At a time of pushback on women’s rights, the UK’s commitment to sexual and reproductive health rights, especially maternal health, and its leadership in advocating for the rights and choices for women and girls, is needed now more than ever.
There are clear links between the UK’s support for global SRHR, as part of its development work, and both conflict resolution and the exercise of soft power and diplomacy. Globally, we have led on enormous progress and we cannot allow pushback and retreat on these commitments. Just because the United States has, we do not have to.
A good example is the UK’s support for the United Nations Population Fund’s supplies partnership, which is a pooled fund that is the largest procurer of reproductive health commodities for the public sector. This programme provides a critical lifeline to women and girls in many of the world’s lowest-income countries. In 2024 alone, it helped prevent nearly 10 million unintended pregnancies and more than 200,000 maternal and newborn deaths. Can the Minister, in his response, reassure me that the Government remain committed to ensuring that women and girls remain at the centre of both foreign and international development priorities?
Peacebuilding is also about prevention. Addressing poverty, inequality, discrimination and injustice is a long-term investment that must be protected. I will close my remarks by touching on the wider implications of what we have heard, and some have mentioned, in Mark Carney’s speech, described by many as bold and brave. We were reminded recently by the United Nations Secretary-General that the rule of law is a cornerstone of global peace and security for smaller and less powerful countries, and those suffering from historical inequities and the damaging legacies of colonial rule. International law is a lifeline promising equal treatment, sovereignty, dignity and justice.
It is worth reflecting that the rules-based international order did not just erode gradually. For many in the non-western world, it collapsed when western Governments showed that the rules do not always apply when the violator is an ally. The catastrophe, for example, in Gaza did not just expose a weakness in the system; it revealed what the system is. For several years, many countries, especially in the global South, have argued that the world did not merely fail to restrain the occupying Government’s actions; it funded them, vetoed accountability, ignored legal standards and actively criminalised dissent. International law was seen to be selectively suspended. That was seen as a real point of no return in recent years: not simply because Donald Trump threatens to violate the sovereignty of Greenland, but because the precedent was set in full view of the world. This reinforces the need, more than ever, for the United Kingdom to show leadership and underline its commitment and obligations to international law, and to be seen to be doing this, while redoubling efforts on soft power and diplomacy.
Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for introducing this important debate, and all the preceding speakers, many of whose speeches were absolutely brilliant. I particularly congratulate my noble friend on her wonderful maiden speech. She is a very hard act to follow.
Last week I showed AI a picture of this Chamber. Its response: “A room with some people in it”. There was nothing about the magnificent Pugin interior, nothing about the historic controversies that that have echoed through this Chamber and nothing about the numerous Members on all sides from whom I have learned so much over the years. All of which makes this, for me, an infinitely more daunting and more humbling moment than AI will ever understand.
I take this opportunity to thank my supporters, my noble friends Lady Chapman and Lady Hunter, for their wisdom and support. Everyone, including the Lord Speaker in the last month of his distinguished term of office, my noble friends Lady Smith of Basildon and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, Garter King of Arms, Black Rod, the Clerk of the Parliaments, the doorkeepers, the clerks and the librarians, has been so welcoming and generous, and I am profoundly grateful to all of them.
This is also a rare opportunity to pay tribute to successive Education Ministers, who have given me exceptional opportunities to contribute to our school system over 20 or 30 years: the noble Lords, Lord Baker and Lord Gove, the noble Baronesses, Lady Shephard and Lady Morris, and my noble friend Lord Blunkett, among others. I salute their vision, their courage and their combined impact on our schools. The day we published our White Paper Excellence in Schools in July 1997, my noble friend Lord Blunkett taught me a powerful lesson. He said, “A White Paper, however well written, Michael, is worthless unless it visibly changes the lives of children for the better”. The follow-through after the headlines has to be rigorous.
It was that lesson that I took with me to No. 10 in 2001 when the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, invited me to set up the original Prime Minister’s delivery unit. Its task was to ensure follow-through across the public services, and the acid test for every proposal was what measurable difference it would make, and how soon. It turned out to be a global innovation.
As a patriot, I realise that these are challenging times. This is a dangerous world and we do need to be strong. Even as the son of loving parents who were committed Quakers and pacifists, I strongly support the case for strengthening our hard power by urgently building the capacity of our Armed Forces and security services.
I favour with equal strength enhancing Britain’s capacity to influence the world through soft power, as we have heard about this afternoon. It is the combination of hard and soft power that makes Britain unique. It is our superpower. It is our military and nuclear capability as well as our creative industries, world-leading universities, the BBC World Service, the British Council, Harry Potter and the Premier League. One telling fact is that 59 current world leaders were educated at UK universities—just short of 66 in the US and more than twice the number in France. That counts. On soft power, no other country can match us.
Building our hard power will help us deter and resist the obvious current threats. Building our soft power will help us resolve and prevent conflict in the first place. We need both, but how? When a conflict is in the headlines, we act, but what happens when it drops out of the headlines? At those moments, we cannot afford to abandon weak or failing states. We should help them and work with them to build capacity to deliver the stability, security and basic services that people crave.
For example, in 2009, the Taliban came dangerously close to Islamabad. Through that dark time, Britain and Pakistan collaborated on military and intelligence issues. That was hard power. Meanwhile, David Miliband, the then Foreign Secretary, asked me to help Pakistan rebuild its basic public services. Over the next decade, one visit turned into 50. Successive Prime Ministers—Brown, Cameron and May—actively supported this work. That was soft power. I do not claim that Pakistan solved all its problems—far from it—but its education and health systems improved, its poverty alleviation through the pandemic was exemplary and, crucially, it is a safer, more resilient country today than it was in 2009.
In late 2023, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, asked me whether we might do something similar in Palestine. Since 2024, with the active support of successive Foreign Secretaries Cameron, Lammy and Cooper, I have been Britain’s—unpaid, I hasten to add—envoy on Palestinian governance. Working with the excellent Palestinian Prime Minister, Mohammad Mustafa, we are taking the first, very small steps towards a Palestinian state with the rule of law.
If I learned anything from my time in No. 10, it was never to lose focus on delivery, whatever the distractions. I should add at this point that I have also always been a strong and active supporter of the State of Israel and the British Jewish community, especially during my time as a councillor in Hackney. A capable Palestinian state with the rule of law is in everyone’s interests. That work has only just begun.
Climbing the mountain ahead looks daunting. The exercise of soft power is never a soft option. We, the British, know how to build trusting relationships, and we can be determined and skilful. Bill Bryson says that, when the British are asked how they are, they say that they “mustn’t grumble”. Even so, as we heard from my noble friend, at our best, we are good at optimism too. Anyone can do easy things; this is the time to embrace difficult things and to unleash our unique capacity to combine hard and soft power—the solutions are to be found there. Hard power or soft power? Both. Palestine or Israel? Both. Clear-eyed realism or incurable optimism? Both. The road to hell is paved with false dichotomies.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)
My Lords, it is a rare privilege to hear such excellent maiden speeches as those we have heard today—inspiring maiden speeches that make us proud to be part of this House and what it can achieve. It has been quite inspiring to listen to two people who have come here and who were probably absolutely terrified when they were delivering their maiden speeches. Even for those of us who have migrated from the other end of the Corridor, it is always terrifying to make a maiden speech, but I do not think that I have ever heard two such speeches that were so absolutely wonderful.
As I am following my noble friend Lord Barber, I had a little look at his past life. He has the kind of CV that makes you wonder how he fitted in life, because he has done so much in so many different places. His speciality is the effectiveness of government. As he said, he worked for David Blunkett—my noble friend Lord Blunkett—and for Tony Blair when he was Prime Minister. He set up the Delivery Unit in No. 10—innovative work that attracted the attention of the IMF and the World Bank. I was a Minister at that time, and I saw the difference that was beginning to be made by the work that he had put in.
I hope that he enjoys the House of Lords. His seminal book, How to Run a Government: So that Citizens Benefit and Taxpayers Don’t Go Crazy, should be compulsory reading on both sides of the House. He went on to have a very successful career in the private sector before setting up Delivery Associates, which allows him to work with leaders across the developed and developing world; he told us about some of that in his maiden speech. What he said about Palestine was particularly moving, because people do not often praise both sides whenever they are talking about such troubled countries. We can learn a lot from him.
My noble friend has worked with Governments all around the world, including that of my own favourite place, Australia—but more on that later. His work in Pakistan embodies the toughest part of his mission. He is right: soft power has to go together with hard power. If you do not have hard power, you are going to get run over, and that is something that we have to avoid.
He has reviewed efficiency and public value and has even developed a new measurement of public value. If that was not enough, he is now the chancellor of the University of Exeter, and, lo and behold, he also has a hobby: he is the chair of Somerset County Cricket Club. I have been to a cricket match only once; frankly, watching paint dry was much more exciting. Unfortunately, I was with the cricket-obsessed Prime Minister of Australia; I kept asking if I could go, as I found it a rather long one. In addition, my noble friend is a member of the FA’s performance advisory group.
If anyone knows the way forward for our economy, it is my noble friend Lord Barber. I welcome him to this House and his contribution to the subject of this debate. He is so right: hard power and soft power can frequently go hand in hand, and he is here to steer us through these difficult times. I thank him very much for his maiden speech.
I have nothing like as distinguished a career as my noble friend Lord Barber. When I left university, I became the economist of the Scottish Trades Union Congress. I was called the head of the economic department but, given that there was nobody else in the economic department, my job was making the tea and occasionally vacuuming in the morning. It was a critical time for North Sea oil; it was in its infancy, and the traditional industries of coal, iron, steel and shipbuilding were suffering.
One of the reasons why I am interested in soft power is that I am interested in getting the proper kind of investment into countries, particularly when people do not necessarily understand it. Inward investment was at the heart of what the Scottish TUC was doing, and it was not an easy path. Few international investors knew anything about Scotland. Some saw potential, not least the oil and gas drillers, but there was a stumbling block in the way. It was called the “managing director’s wife syndrome”; some noble Lords who have done international development will know about that. Sexism was rampant in the 1970s. The wives knew nothing about the country and did not fancy moving to a dull and wet place, so soft power had to be developed. There were terrific films of lovely places where they could live, featuring beautiful schools with exam results that then beat most of the world and, of course, historic castles. It began to work, and I began to learn a lesson about how you sell your country.
I have never lost my interest in inward investment. As a Minister and then as a diplomat, I was probably profoundly boring on it, but we see all over Britain the change that inward investment can bring, and soft power plays a big part in its success. Try as I might, I have never forgotten the “managing director’s wife syndrome”, formed out of scepticism and a lack of knowledge about quality of life. When, decades later, I became the high commissioner to Australia, I was able to employ the lessons that I had learned from soft power and presenting a Britain that is dynamic, attractive and highly skilled. I told my team that, when they went out to present to companies, they had to view inward investment as the key to what they were doing. I insisted that they take with them somebody from UK Trade & Investment—as it was in those days—Visit Britain and the British Council, and it worked.
My noble friend Lady Alexander has already talked about the British Council. The sheer impact it had on education and soft power was absolutely amazing. Thousands of young Australians came here because of projects that had been developed by the British Council. I found it a fantastic opportunity to go out and meet these young people. Then, when they came back, they were really inspirational. But I am worried about there not being a full understanding of the economic benefits.
My noble friend Lady Alexander knows the British Council well. She was also the vice-chancellor of Dundee University. She was out selling what was so important to us: education and its opportunities. What noble Lords probably do not know is that she comes from a family of missionaries, so she knows the different kinds of soft power that can really influence people as easily as possible.
I will leave noble Lords with a very quick story about magpies. Magpies are murder in Australia. They are much bigger than other magpies, the sweet little birds we have here. They come down and poke your head, and it is horrible. Kids go to school with ice cream cartons on their head because it is so horrible. Tony Blair, in one of his first speeches in Australia as Prime Minister, talked about magpies. We found out then that he had lived in Australia as a young boy. His father was a lecturer and he had had his run-ins with magpies. It turned the whole debate about Tony Blair around, because I could hear people saying, “He is one of us; he understands what this country is like”. That is the kind of soft power that we need to use to get more inward investment.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend for securing this debate and for opening it so effectively. She and I had the great privilege to be DfID Ministers in the coalition, when the UK finally honoured the commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on aid. That does indeed now seem a long time ago, when there was a great deal of cross-party agreement—as we see reflected here today, in fact. It is wonderful to add the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde, and the noble Lord, Lord Barber, to our ranks here on this commitment of ours to international development.
Speaking of another noble Peer, I think back to the UN high-level panel of over 20 years ago, on which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, served. This identified development as a key to security. As the ONE Campaign and others have pointed out, countries with the largest development needs face the greatest risk of conflict, and now the international rules-based order, imperfect as it was, as noted by Mark Carney and others, has been fractured and, possibly, worse. It now indeed seems that might is right. Trump allows Russia to take parts of Ukraine, seemingly because he identifies this as Russia’s sphere, and feels free to claim Canada and Greenland. But we do not need to follow Trump’s lead.
The UK’s development aid, as others have said, was a key to its soft power. We worked with Governments, civil society and multilateral institutions, building the trust that diplomacy alone could not secure. But then Boris Johnson destroyed DfID. The Tories cut the aid budget, using much of what was left in the UK. Now, Trump has shut USAID and cancelled 80% of its foreign aid contracts. He has shredded US support for multilateral institutions, those very institutions required for the balance that the noble Lord, Lord Barber, spoke of in relation to the Middle East. In the past, the UK has helped fill the gaps when Republicans have cut aid, especially when they slashed assistance on reproductive health and rights, so vital to women and girls worldwide. But that is not happening now. We note the growing global scepticism about whether the UK, along with the US, France and Germany, will deliver on its promises. The British Council’s Global Perceptions 2025 report notes how countries in east Asia and the global South are now rising in its indices.
The Government launched the UK Soft Power Council in January 2025. Three days ago, just before this debate, extremely abridged minutes from meetings in July and October 2025 were published. In July, there was a discussion of general strategy. Might the noble Lord expand on this? What did the experts recommend? In lovely “Yes Minister” fashion, the minutes of the October meeting noted:
“Members discussed the evolution of the role of the SPC, sharing thoughts on upcoming opportunities and challenges.”
I bet they did.
Our creative industries are still held back by Brexit damage. The BBC and the BBC World Service are under attack. Our higher education sector is hampered by the lack of welcome that this Government give—as Governments so often do—to international students, and especially to staff, with visa and health costs hugely out of line internationally. We may have educated many Heads of State, as the noble Lord, Lord Barber, has just mentioned—but are we doing so now?
There is no restoration of the ODA money that, for example, went into the Jenner Institute for Ebola vaccines, which then meant that we were at the forefront in vaccine development when Covid struck. As Malaria No More points out, the UK has been a global leader in medical science; I declare an interest as a council member at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. Those from the UK have helped to set global health agendas. We have rejoined Horizon Europe, but it will take a while before the damage is repaired. Just because we have had strengths in these areas does not mean that that will continue. They need to be supported and cultivated.
Labour pledged at the election to strengthen diplomacy and soft power. It said it would rebuild Britain’s international development reputation. I am surprised, despite his depth of experience, that the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, as a Whip, has been detailed to respond to this debate rather than his noble friend the departmental Minister, the person who holds the levers here. There is much to do, and there is little sign of it being done. I hope that the noble Lord can persuade me otherwise when he responds.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. It is an equal pleasure to have the opportunity to join in the thanks and congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, on securing this debate and her opening of it. I also join in the congratulations to my noble friends Lady Hyde of Bemerton and Lord Barber of Chittlehampton on excellent maiden speeches. The best compliment I can give them is that it took them only five minutes to get the ear of your Lordships’ House; that is quite an achievement.
On addressing your Lordships’ House for the final time before my retirement, as I am doing today, I feel not merely the traditional mixed feelings, but a positive cacophony of discordant emotions. First, of course, comes immense gratitude to all the staff of this House—doorkeepers, Library, catering and facilities teams, clerks and innumerable others—whose work makes this place function, and makes the work of those fortunate enough to be Members of this place an enormous pleasure as well as a privilege.
Secondly, there is sadness in leaving behind so many excellent colleagues from across your Lordships’ House, and in no longer being able to lay one’s hand on not merely an answer to any conceivable question but one often provided by a noble Lord or noble Baroness whose life’s work has afforded them expertise of unparalleled depth.
There is also a now faint but none the less enduring surprise at the turns of a political career that led me into the other place somewhat unexpectedly in 1997 and gave me the honour of serving in several ministerial and Cabinet posts, including as Secretary of State for Defence. The wise counsel I received from distinguished military officers and the extraordinary example of our service men and women will always remain my outstanding memories of public service. Then, in 2010, I was asked to serve in your Lordships’ House by the then Prime Minister, which I accepted—on the proviso, I have to say, that I could vote for reform of this place and, potentially, for my own abolition.
In that cacophony, my predominant emotion in making these final remarks is trepidation, not for myself but for the direction in which geopolitical currents are pulling us. In considering the situation when I entered the other place, and surveying the world today, there is no question that the values for which Britain stands and the system of international norms that guaranteed their long continuity face far more entrenched and concerted challenge. The question of how we face this situation is implicit in the Motion before your Lordships’ House this afternoon.
As I have had occasion to say during previous proceedings, it is clear that our strategic adversaries plan to fill any vacuum left by a western retreat from global engagement. In this context, aid matters for three reasons. First, we have a humanitarian duty to help those suffering from appalling poverty, conflict, natural disasters or climate change. Secondly, we are, in the long-term, defined by what we do as a country rather than by our aspirations. Thirdly, even by the most cynical calculus of self-interest, foreign aid enhances the UK’s soft power and promotes peace. It makes conditions less fertile for terrorism and, in some cases, keeps frozen conflicts from kindling into flame. In this sense, foreign aid should be defined as national security spending, rather than just as empathy translated into hard currency.
In addition, foreign aid and development partnership assistance often functions as an early-warning system, alerting us to the prospect of an outbreak of conflict or terrorist violence. While USAID is shuttered and all major European powers, including the UK, cut aid budgets and retrench, what are our adversaries doing?
This year marks the 70th anniversary of Chinese engagement with the African continent. This celebration will, in effect, amplify the influence they have secured through debt diplomacy and see the unfolding of a well-financed programme—two years in the planning—of initiatives to boost their soft power.
Russia is also seeking to fill the vacuum created by the retreat of the western powers. Its Africa Corps provides military and security support in Libya, the Central African Republic, Sudan and Mali; its state-owned energy company has co-operation agreements with more than 20 African nations and nuclear agreements with five; and Russian Railways has been retained by five African nations.
While the BBC World Service has discontinued its Arabic broadcasting and the Voice of America sheds most of its staff, Sputnik Radio replaces it—remarkably, in one case at least, on the very same frequency abandoned by the BBC. It has a new editorial hub in Ethiopia, broadcasting in French, English, Amharic and other languages. The voice of democracy, pluralism and liberalism is being muffled and replaced by a narrative designed to erode confidence in Britain and its allies. That cannot be seen as anything other than a retreat, however necessary the fiscal decisions were that have necessitated it.
If the rules-based international order is not dead, it is certainly moribund. To extend that medical metaphor a little further, it is clear that the only hope of alleviation in the medium term lies in a transplant—replacing the current occupant of the White House with another. However, we have to concede that it is likely that this era of great power competition will outlast President Trump. In that context, I believe our soft power is something we cannot afford to sacrifice. I welcome the Government’s commitment to restoring ODA spending to 0.7% when circumstances allow, but given that the Independent Commission for Aid Impact estimates that it could fall to as low as 0.24% by 2027, we must be clear about what it is we are sacrificing. The humanitarian impact of ODA cuts was explored a couple of weeks ago in your Lordships’ House, so I need not press that any further, but we are also sacrificing a key strategic advantage.
I said earlier that I feel trepidation when looking at the global picture, and I am conscious that I have painted a somewhat bleak picture, but a precondition of a genuinely optimistic prognosis is a clear-eyed and sober diagnosis. I am optimistic because the UK has enormous cultural capital, and a record of extraordinary scientific innovation and sustained military and diplomatic excellence. But we are a medium-sized power in a world of great power competition. That is a difficult path to walk, but in my retirement, I will be trusting in the surefootedness of my noble friends on the Front Bench and colleagues from all sides of the House.
I began by thanking the staff of the House and the doorkeepers who were there to wave me in when I was elevated to your Lordships’ House in 2010. In my 16 years in your Lordships’ House, I have been afforded the opportunity to work towards multilateral nuclear disarmament, and to advocate for net zero and, I hope, for greater equity and inclusion across a swathe of government policy in a way that would otherwise have been impossible. As the doorkeepers of your Lordships’ House wave me out today, I am, and will remain, grateful for those many doors that membership of your Lordships’ House has opened for me.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, we shall deeply miss the wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, who has served both Houses with great distinction. He has knowledge in foreign affairs and defence. We have met on numerous occasions, in airports and all over the world. He speaks with such experience, and he will be sorely missed in your Lordships’ House. Obviously, I will be giving my valedictory speech soon, as an outgoing hereditary, but that is another point.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for introducing this topical debate. I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde of Bemerton, and the noble Lord, Lord Barber, on their outstanding and moving maiden speeches.
I will focus my brief remarks on how UK development partnership assistance has been an effective diplomatic tool and an assistant in conflict prevention and soft power. I will devote my remarks purely to Africa. Clearly, the recent budget costs have caused a huge strain on the effectiveness of our development programmes. I add my critical voice.
I would prefer, in my brief few words, to add a few more positive notes on some of the more successful initiatives in Africa. Africa poses both a challenge and an opportunity. With over 60% of the population under the age of 25, Africa is too frequently viewed through the narrow lens of conflict, crisis and governance challenges. However, digital public infrastructure has strengthened governance in countries such as Rwanda and Kenya, reducing corruption and improving service delivery. These reforms have been supported by UK technical assistance. In Kenya, the mobile money platform M-PESA has revolutionised financial inclusion and demonstrated how technology can enhance social stability. Here, UK-supported regulatory and innovation systems have helped to enable this success. Clearly, artificial intelligence has the potential to dramatically improve outcomes in healthcare, education and climate resilience. The UK is well positioned to support this transition.
Through development partnerships, we can help African nations build ethical AI frameworks, local data capacity and skills pipelines, ensuring AI empowers rather than exploits. However, the risk remains that AI could displace jobs faster than the new ones that are created. I join in supporting the UK Soft Power Council, particularly with its focus on Africa. Its promise lies in leveraging education, technology and AI-enabled soft power. However, delivery will depend on sustained investment and clear execution. I am concerned that there has been an overemphasis on short-term objectives, particularly migration controls, at the expense of long-term demographic and digital investments. Soft power cannot be transactional.
Briefly, on conflict resolution, our development partnership assistance has been very effective in Sierra Leone, where sustained diplomatic engagement, aid and security sector reform have helped to underpin a durable peace; and in Somalia, where UK support has strengthened state capacity and mediation efforts. However, elsewhere, progress has fallen far short of expectations, particularly in Sudan and parts of the Sahel, where reductions in funding and fragmented international engagement have weakened early-warning conflict prevention and stabilisation efforts, allowing crises to escalate rather than be contained.
Finally, through the Commonwealth, the UK has been and continues to act as an early and discrete support in conflict prevention, election monitoring and demographic resilience across its members in Africa, using trusted networks and shared institutions to defuse tensions before they escalate.
My five minutes is up. Africa’s demographic surge and digital future will substantially shape the global order. Whether the future is stable, prosperous and co-operative depends partly on how seriously we take diplomacy today. If we can combine long-term commitments, local partnerships and leadership on ethical digital transformation, our development assistance will continue to be strategically indispensable.
Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for securing this debate. I fear that my contribution will be a mere shadow of the exemplary exposition of the challenges and issues in this policy area which was set out so ably at the start of this discussion.
I congratulate my noble friends Lady Hyde of Bemerton and Lord Barber of Chittlehampton on their magnificent maiden speeches. They demonstrated not only passion and acuity of mind but a strong moral purpose and compass. I know that they will both provide immense service to this House in the years to come. My noble friend Lord Barber, with his love of cricket, brings with him a capacity for endless patience, which in my brief two weeks here I have learned is something of a need in your Lordships’ House. Last week, when a number of us made our maiden speeches from these Benches, we were dubbed “the quartet.” Having seen my noble friend Lady Hyde carrying a guitar around already in this House, I think that we may already have found our accompanist.
I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Browne on his final speech to your Lordships’ House and thank him for his service to the Labour Party, to this House and to our nation. It was definitely the most gracious and generous valedictory speech that I have heard in this Chamber today.
The international environment is increasingly volatile. We have conflict in Ukraine and the Middle East. We have trade wars. We have a decline in multilateral aid. We have a rise in new technologies and the spread of populism. This is all contributing to an increasingly challenging global future. The answer is seen by some as the greater exercise of hard power. There is much hard power on display in the world at present. We see coercion and extortion undertaken by global superpowers as a stick with which to beat others into submission. However, if hard power is a stick, then soft power—the ability to achieve goals through willing attraction—is the carrot. Without stretching this metaphor too far, I hope, I suggest that we have many carrots in our soft power larder. Universities and their scientific research, professional qualifications and regulatory regimes, cultural history and assets, the beauty of our countryside, the magnetism of our cities, and our sporting achievements and prowess are all essential in how the UK is seen and therefore able to act in the world.
However, the UK’s status as a trusted international actor is not guaranteed. Strategic rivals such as Russia and China are investing heavily in soft power and exerting influence over multilateral institutions and globally significant regions such as Africa, south Asia and the Indo-Pacific. At the same time, we see the whole-scale withdrawal of the United States from this arena, so it is more vital than ever that we leverage UK soft power to our national advantage. Therefore, I welcome strongly the establishment of the UK Soft Power Council and look forward to it building a critical mass of institutions, organisations and sectors around a clear set of priorities.
We also need to do more to join up international development approaches and funding with a diplomatic strategy, our defence and foreign policy and our approach to international trade. We need a genuinely co-ordinated and coherent narrative about what Britain stands for in a modern age and how our approach to international affairs is more strongly linked to domestic support for this agenda.
Through the usual lens, international development is seen as a reflection of moral purpose and virtue. It is seen by many people as an act of international charity, but unfortunately the evidence from polling is that the public, especially in difficult times as now, think that charity should begin at home. We therefore need to widen the argument for why international development, both multilateral and unilateral, is essential to our nation’s security. That means supporting areas in times of conflict to reduce the forced migration of people, avoiding the misery, heartbreak and trauma that many face of having to leave home and homeland.
We need to be smart about the use of our resources. I understand the significance to many of 0.7%, 0.5% or 0.3% of GDP, but I remain unconvinced that spend alone is the most important factor of success. We should instead look at leveraging our genuine and unique strengths in the UK international development sector in post-conflict recovery, infrastructure design and delivery, capacity building at a local level, especially in skills, and project management and effective use of resources. This approach should guide our next steps, and I believe that the future of this area should be grounded in values of fairness, equality, respect for the law and, above all, an ambition for democracy, peace, prosperity and opportunity for all.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Women, Peace and Security, a member of the steering board of the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative and chair of the Afghan Women’s Support Forum. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, on introducing this timely debate today in such an excellent fashion. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde, and the noble Lord, Lord Barber, on their excellent maiden speeches, and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Browne. I am so sorry to hear that he is retiring. I pay tribute to the huge contribution that he has made to political life and to his service to this country over many years.
The UK has enjoyed a high reputation for diplomacy and, although it is no longer a great military power, it had a leading reputation for soft power and development aid. We rank as the world’s sixth-largest economy. Therefore, we have a duty to help the poorest across the world. Since President Trump’s return to office in January 2025, we have seen the US cancel much of its aid. To its shame, the UK appears to have followed suit, slashing our aid budget to 0.3%. The Government argue that the reason for this is that we need more money for defence, and few would argue against increasing defence spending at this dangerous time. However, what we need is security for the UK, and security will not be achieved by defence alone but needs a combination of diplomacy, development and defence, as the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, said in her wonderful introduction. The defence uplift does not have to be financed at the cost of international development. This is a political choice the Government are making. While we spent around £15.37 billion in 2023 on development, this will be reduced to around £9 billion in 2027-28, with 16% spent last year in the UK on asylum seekers, and all this at a time when UK cuts have left people destitute across the world.
I am concerned about this Government’s stated approach to development through partnership, particularly in Africa, where, according to the Government, countries now do not want to see us as donors. Many African countries are very rich in natural resources, but the benefit from those resources too often ends up in the pockets of the few. What are the Government doing to address the endemic corruption in many of those countries? I am concerned that a choice seems to have been made mostly to finance multilaterals. Of course, Gavi and the Global Fund are worthy, but why are we choosing to be at the leading edge of donors to them? Often, those organisations also take a slice of development money too. To make a real difference, funding needs to be to the grassroots, so please let us cut back some of the multilateral funding and spend the money where it can make most impact; for example, on locally led women’s organisations and projects such as demining work by Halo and MAG.
There remains enormous gender inequality in many of those African countries, and the fact is that the predominantly male leaders turn a blind eye to issues such as FGM, child marriage and violence against women. We need to continue putting women and girls at the heart of development, both to stop violence against them and because we all recognise that empowering women at a community level is good for all, including a country’s economy.
There is no doubt that poverty creates conflict and conflict creates poverty. Focus, therefore, needs to be on conflict prevention and resolution. Studies show that for every £1 invested in prevention, as much as £100 can be saved, as well as preventing the misery caused by conflict. The Red Cross reports that there are more than 130 active conflicts in the world today, as the noble Lord, Lord Bates, has already said—more than double the number 15 years ago—with civilians bearing the brunt of attacks.
The ground-breaking UN Security Council resolution recognised the disproportionate effect on women and girls. It also advocated including women in peace processes. Empirical evidence shows that this makes peace more durable, legitimate and effective, and 35% more likely to last at least 15 years—and yet, look at the situation today. On Donald Trump’s peace board, none of the executive members are women, and of the 19 members at the Davos launch, there was only one woman.
There are so many negotiations centred around the Middle East, yet the International Centre for Sustainability states:
“Across the Middle East, women are being systematically pushed out of public life through law, custom, and state power”.
In Syria, Gaza, Israel, Russia and Ukraine you only see the men. The sidelining of the UN is contributing to this. We need the UN more than ever, but it needs to be made more effective through the reform, and I hope that the UK will play a leading part.
International development aid is an essential tool of soft power. Why are this Government not supporting the Women, Peace and Security agenda, which would help women in conflict countries, thus contributing to stability? We should not forget that overseas development is not charity. It is an investment in a safer, healthier and more peaceful world.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friends Lady Hyde and Lord Barber on their magnificent speeches on such an important subject which is close to all our hearts, especially at this time. I am extremely sad that my noble friend Lord Browne is leaving the House and retiring. We were friends before he came to Westminster, so it is a very sad day for me, and for all of us, that he is leaving, and I hope that we will always be in touch.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for bringing this debate before the House because it asks a simple but important question: what role does United Kingdom development partnership assistance play in how we are seen in the world? We have been promised over the last few months that we will be told what the new role is going to look like, but we have yet to see this on paper. It has been put off and off.
Britain has the ability to prevent conflict rather than respond to it after the damage is done. For many years, development assistance has been one of the United Kingdom’s great strengths. We were and should continue to be the leaders in this. It has rarely made headlines, but it has built trust, credibility and long-term relationships in places that diplomacy alone cannot reach. When we talk about soft power, we often think of culture, language or broadcasting. Look what has happened to our broadcasting. We are no longer a power through the World Service. We have cut back and cut back. We have cut the number of foreign correspondents in the BBC. There are hardly any foreign correspondents in the BBC, and there are going to be further cuts. There are also the cuts to the British Council. All these are part of Britain’s soft power.
For many communities around the world, Britain is known through a clinic that has stayed open, a girls’ school that has continued through conflict, or a peace process that has held. That is soft power in the best and most practical form. Development partnerships work because they are not transactional. They are built over time, grounded in shared effort and local leadership. They allow the United Kingdom to listen as well as to speak, and to be present long after the cameras have moved on, which we know matters for conflict prevention.
Conflict does not emerge in a vacuum. It grows where institutions collapse, where inequality deepens, where young people see no future and where women are excluded from decision-making. Development assistance addresses those conditions directly. It supports education, livelihoods, health systems and inclusive government, which are the foundation that makes peace sustainable. When they are in place, a country’s GDP and exports strengthen and women are healthy and part of its leadership.
As many have said today, we are going backwards at the moment. No women are seen at any peace table. I have been assured by Ministers here that local women are there, but we have not seen them. We have not seen any notes. It is absolutely vital that we agree and sign up to having many women—local women—at the peace table. None of that has been seen in the last two years. We know of the women leaders in Ukraine: they have come here and been to America. They have sat outside the door. They should be there, as the women in Sudan were there and the women in Northern Ireland were insistent that they were there. We accepted that, but we have gone backwards on this issue.
There is good evidence that peacebuilding and prevention are cost effective. By one estimate, each £1 invested in conflict prevention today saves £16 in costs that would occur due to war, insecurity and humanitarian crises down the line. Modest investments in mediation, reconciliation and community-level peacebuilding can prevent conflicts that would otherwise cost lives and require greater humanitarian or military spending later.
UK-supported peace processes in places such as Colombia and the Philippines show that sustained engagement can be achieved. The Commons IDC warned that slashing aid undermines our conflict-prevention capacity and thus our national security—it is a two-way process. UK aid has supported women’s participation in the peace process, protection from sexual violence, access to education and economic independence. There are countless positive stories, from the eradication of Ebola in west Africa—the UK made a large contribution to this—to the millions of girls in South Africa who gained schooling through the DfID programme. These are not marginal issues. We know that, when women are meaningfully involved in peacebuilding, peace lasts longer and communities recover more quickly.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I join others in congratulating my noble friend Lady Featherstone on securing this debate and on her eloquent opening speech, and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde, and the noble Lord, Lord Barber, on their powerful maiden speeches. I appreciated their focus on optimism. As both a Liberal Democrat and a Tottenham fan, I can fairly say that I embody the spirit of inexhaustible, sometimes ill-advised, optimism. I am devastated to hear the news that the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, is retiring. He has been immensely kind to me during my time in the House. I have learned a huge amount from him, and we will all miss him hugely.
I declare my interests as chief executive of United Against Malnutrition & Hunger and co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Africa. I will focus my remarks, as the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, did, on the role of UK development partnerships in Africa specifically. My first visit to Africa was at the age of 15, when I spent a month in Ethiopia during the 1984-85 famine. I later lived and worked for some years in southern Africa. Those experiences have shaped my life and my politics and taught me what can be achieved when the United Kingdom chooses to lead in partnership with others. That is why I was proud to work in the coalition Government, who met the UN target of spending 0.7% of GNI on development assistance. It was morally right to do so but also in Britain’s interest: it strengthened our reputation, our influence and our security. We built on the work of previous Governments to sustain and develop strong partnerships in Africa, which made great progress against extreme poverty and hunger and in furthering development.
Much of that progress is now reversing in the face of huge cuts to development support around the world. That matters because of the human costs—because of the millions of women who will be denied access to sexual and reproductive health services; because of the children who are already contracting HIV as mother-to-child transmission rises in the face of wholesale cuts of HIV services; because of the dream of the defeat of HIV which recedes with every cut; and because of the 2 million children who will die of malnutrition this year. It matters because of all this human tragedy, but it also matters because Africa’s trajectory will shape the UK and Europe more than any other region in the decades ahead.
Africa is not peripheral to British foreign policy; it is central to our security and our prosperity. As my noble friend Lady Featherstone told the House, by 2050 Africa’s population is projected to increase by over 1 billion to reach 2.5 billion, which will represent a quarter of the world. This could result in a demographic dividend driving prosperity in both Africa and Europe, but without investment in Africa’s people it risks delivering instability and conflict rather than opportunity.
That risk is intensified by Africa’s unsustainable debt burden, which is sucking resources out of the continent, crowding out spending on health, education and nutrition, weakening growth and eroding trust in states. The UK should be leading on debt restructuring, transparency and innovations such as debt swaps linked to health, education or nutrition outcomes. In the light of the severe cuts they have made to development partnership support, it is incumbent on the UK Government to provide leadership in this sphere rather than yet more excuses for inaction.
Development partnership assistance is also critical in conflict prevention and migration management. Conflict, food insecurity and economic collapse drive irregular migration. Chronic child malnutrition, worsened by climate shocks, damages learning and productivity, weakening economies and increasing instability. UK investment in agriculture and climate resilience and in combating malnutrition is a strategic imperative. We should sustain support for proven interventions such as UNICEF’s Child Nutrition Fund, pioneered with UK support—a perfect example of innovation and partnership in action. We need to support world-leading UK science that strengthens food systems and resilience instead of cutting funding that offers benefit to both us and our partners in Africa.
In a competitive world, partnerships anchored in health, debt sustainability and food security can help us rebuild the UK’s reputation and influence, so sadly squandered by the previous Government. But doing so depends on us restoring trust that we are a reliable partner. We need to understand that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, said, development partnership support is not charity but an investment in our security, prosperity and influence. Retreating from this space will not save money but simply pass on far higher costs to future Governments and taxpayers.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to immediately follow my noble friend and to agree with his compelling arguments for UK-Africa relations. I also agree with his remarks regarding optimism. I am a Scottish liberal, and therefore when you have exhausted pessimism, there is only optimism left.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Featherstone for securing this debate and for the way in which she so clearly presented the case. I hope the House will forgive me for saying that we are very lucky on these Benches to have her among us, with the record and the commitment of delivery that she has brought.
The House has also been very lucky to hear two outstanding maiden speeches today from the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde, and the noble Lord, Lord Barber, and we look forward to their future contributions. However, this afternoon was bittersweet because we learned that we will no longer hear contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Browne. He has been a friend across Benches to many people. He and I have joked in the conversations that we have grabbed when we have both been in the country, and I, like my noble friend Lord Oates, have learned a great deal from the noble Lord. He served Kilmarnock with great distinction in the House of Commons and served us as a public servant in this House very well. He will be greatly missed.
When she introduced the debate, my noble friend gave a very clear argument for why development partnerships are in our interests both abroad and at home, especially in conflict prevention. That is why it simply makes no sense whatever to cut this work to the bone, as the Government are doing, when the need is greater, as my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece said.
A relationship becomes a partnership when it is trusted, predictable and reliable. But our partnerships have been systematically undermined in recent years by a whiplash of ministerial changes that mean that, in the last decade, the average lifespan of a UK Minister for Africa has not been longer than nine months. Devastatingly, there have been rushed changes such as abolishing DfID and slashing development expertise to the bone, often mid-contract and mid-programme, at a critical time when our partners know that their relationship with the UK is critical for them to get closer to meeting the global goals. We abandoned them by ending bilateral programmes—proven to work—in their entirety, often hobbling multilateral bodies on the way by cutting UK contributions.
When the last Government and this Government chose to cut development to the lowest share of GNI in 50 years, they first felt it was necessary to misrepresent what it was. The last Government called it the greatest “cashpoint in the sky”, and this Government say that Britain is no longer a “charity”. It never was. It undermines the hard-working officials who have been development workers building partnerships over years to say that, at the end of the day, they were just charity workers.
First you undermine it, then you can wring your hands when you say that the public do not support it, and you can cut it. Most perniciously, you frame the argument as a choice between development and defence. It is a false choice, but it is worse than that; it is a strategic error to say that there should be a choice in the first place. But even if there is the choice to do that, it simply ignores the law. We still have the 2002 Act when it comes to the objectives of development partnerships, and we have the 2015 Act on scale.
Scale is important. In the excellent debate from the noble Lord, Lord Bates, earlier this month, the Minister for Development said that she did not believe that less investment leads to
“less action, less impact and fewer development outcomes”.—[Official Report, 13/1/26; col. 1674.]
But it is interesting that, in the Government’s Budget in March, the case for cutting development for those most in need in the world was that investment levels do not link with impact and better outcomes. Apparently, that is the only line of the Budget where that applies. Apparently, more investment is needed to meet the Government’s child poverty targets for Manchester but less is irrelevant when it comes to doing the same thing for Malawi.
I hope the Minister can explain to us in clear terms that, after the UK pulled out of water and sanitary health programmes and cut WASH by 75%, we have determined that there has been no impact whatever, because no one is telling us that. In fact, we know that the impact of that has been disproportionate on women and girls. Can the Minister say that it has not been disproportionate for women and girls? When the Government have actively deprioritised education programmes, can the Minister repeat that this is having no impact?
I ask this because we know the facts and we have all met those who have told us about the impacts. The UK was one of the few countries to have met the UN target of 0.7%. When we pulled out, often mid-programme and mid-contract, no one else had the sufficient scale to fill the gap. It has left many of our partners desperate to try to fill the gaps in other ways.
The deep irony of the current negotiations in the US Congress between the House and the Senate is that the proposed budget, which may well come about, would restore US development programmes, which could lead to the prospect that the Labour Government have cut the budget the most of any OECD country. That surely cannot be right for this country.
The Government are asking us now—perhaps the Minister will say it when he winds up—to reimagine development, but that is what we thought the review of the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, was all about. It has never seen the light of day. Now, the Government are asking us to reimagine development to fit a cut budget, rather than thinking about what is needed and then setting a budget. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, that one of the virtues of soft power is that around the world we respect the rule of law. That is absolutely right. We have the law for 0.7% on our statute books here. Respecting the law on development would be a good start, before we start saying that other countries need to respect the rule of law.
We have been told that we will return to the law when the fiscal circumstances allow. Now, the Development Minister has regarded the UN target as not valid. Hidden in the spending review—the previous Government’s and this Government’s—is the fine print saying that when the Government have got close to meeting the fiscal circumstances for the development rules, they have changed them. We are now on the fourth iteration of the fiscal rules for meeting the targets. Are the Government still operating to fiscal rules? If they are saying that the fiscal rules will not be met at the end of this Parliament, they are admitting that they will not be met for the budget as a whole.
Parliament and the public know the impact that value for money in aid development has because we have an Independent Commission for Aid Impact. We do not have to listen to what a Minister might think: we are able to rely on an independent—I stress, independent—commission that reviews all elements of UK development partnerships and reports to Parliament and the public on their impact. Judging by what the Minister told the Development Committee last week, it seems that the Government are going to abolish it, DOGE style. Will the Minister make it clear in winding up that we will not abolish ICAI and that we will keep it as a vital resource for transparency?
Finally, all the speakers today have said that the need is greater than ever and partnerships are more important than ever, but this Labour Government, who have never met a UN target, could be leaving a lower level of aid than it inherited—indeed, the lowest share ever reported in development statistics. When the need is greater than ever and partnerships are more important than ever, that is not the best record, if we are going to be seen as a soft-power nation around the world. Depressingly, the Official Opposition are now committed to reducing it even further. This is wrong for our moral compass around the world, wrong for our security, wrong for our safety, and wrong for our soft power and our relationships abroad. It is mostly wrong, however, for the people who are greatest in need, and we are letting them down.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I join all sides of the House in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for securing this important debate today. We have heard some excellent speeches, none more so than those from our two maiden entrants. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde of Bemerton, told us where Bemerton is; then the noble Lord, Lord Barber, of the splendidly named Chittlehampton, did not tell us where that is, but Google tells me that it is in North Devon, with a population of 820. If it is half as nice as its name, I am sure it is a wonderful place. Both made splendid contributions to your Lordships’ House today, and I am sure they will continue to do that in the years to come.
It was also an unwelcome surprise to hear that today’s was the final, valedictory contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton. I did not know that he was intending to retire. He will be a great loss to the House. I think it is fair to say that we have not agreed on much over my time in government and now on the Opposition Front Bench, but he is a formidable parliamentarian, always difficult to argue with and against, who contributed across a whole range of subjects with great vigour and ability. He will be sorely missed. I think it was Chris Mullin, a party colleague of the noble Lord, who said it was better
“to go while people are still asking ‘why’ rather than ‘when’”.
That is very definitely the case with the noble Lord. He will be missed by the House.
As the sixth-largest economy, the United Kingdom has an important role internationally. Through close working with our international partners, we can and should influence the direction of global politics to promote our core values of freedom and democracy. In our increasingly unstable world, that role is more important than ever. In Iran, we have seen mass protests against the oppressive regime that have been met with unspeakable brutality. In Ukraine, Putin continues to wage his illegal war against a sovereign, democratic nation that has every right to decide its own future.
Under the previous Conservative Government, the UK stepped up to the challenge of the international crises that we faced at the time, supporting the people of Ukraine with military and humanitarian aid—I am delighted to see the current Government continuing that—and establishing the Homes for Ukraine scheme. We supported Hong Kongers in the face of oppression by the Chinese state—I hope the Prime Minister is continuing to raise their plight in his current visit—and we have supported many Afghans who worked with us in the wake of the Taliban’s return to power.
Alongside that specific support, in the face of international crises and in the context of the serious fiscal challenge of the Covid pandemic, we continued to deliver official development assistance, although at the lower rate of 0.5% of gross national income—which I am sure will disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Purvis—with the top three recipients of UK country-specific bilateral ODA in 2024 being Ukraine, Afghanistan and Ethiopia.
The Official Opposition recognise that Britain can and should play its part internationally, not simply because it benefits those living in developing countries—of course, it does—but because it is in our own interests to do so. But we have to be wiser about how we go about this spending. Too often, organisations that receive UK government support have been found to be supporting activities that contradict our own objectives.
I have raised this before: in 2024, the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East sacked nine members of staff who it said “may have been involved” in the 7 October 2023 attacks on Israel. When British taxpayers’ money is spent in support of organisations that have been forced to sack individuals who may have been involved in genocidal terrorist attacks, our international reputation is harmed. Indeed, these incidents damage trust in the Government’s due diligence processes when making decisions about overseas aid. I recognise that a lot of this went on when we were in power, but we suspended funding to UNRWA, which has now been resumed by this Government. So will the Minister set out what steps the Government have taken following the 2024 UNRWA case to improve due diligence in respect of some of that overseas spending? Does the FCDO have any concerns about the department’s existing spending on overseas aid?
While the examples of UK action on the international stage are concrete and were welcomed by those who benefited, the concept of soft power is, of course, much harder to define. Those who benefited from the Afghan resettlement scheme, the Ukrainians who have seen the UK support them as they defend their own country, or the Hong Kongers who have been given the opportunity to build a new life here in the UK with greater protection from the Chinese state, all know what we have done for them. But more generally, our soft power is hard to measure. Will the Minister confirm whether his department has a way of measuring our soft power? How is this monitored and have the Government set themselves targets against those metrics to grow our soft power? Without some way of measuring success, it becomes very difficult to evaluate the impact of changes made by this Government.
In 2025, the Government established the UK Soft Power Council with great fanfare. When it was established, we were told that it would meet four times a year and that it would provide concrete and actionable proposals to support the Government. Around the same time, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, the Minister, told the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, that the UK Soft Power Council would have a “minimal budget”.
So, could the Minister, when he replies, give the House a sense of the successes of the UK Soft Power Council to date? How often has it met? Is the attendance at these meetings published? If not, does the Government have any intention of doing so? The minutes that are published tell the public almost nothing: I think that could do with significant improvement. What concrete and actionable proposals has the council provided to the Government since its establishment?
Given, as I said, that this was a flagship announcement from the Government in January 2025—made around six months after they came to office—could the Minister please explain whether, in his view, the Soft Power Council has delivered on the Government's ambitious plans for it to,
“re-imagine Britain’s role on the world stage”
and
“reinvigorate alliances and forge new partnerships”?
In conclusion, I of course thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate, which has brought the importance of the UK’s reputation on the world stage to the fore. Although there are differences of opinion on the best way to strengthen the UK’s influence on the international stage, I can say with confidence that we are all united in our support for a stronger and more confident Britain that is able to promote justice, peace, freedom and democracy across the world.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, I join with others in congratulating the two new Peers on their maiden speeches. It is with great pleasure that I welcome my noble friend Lady Hyde of Bemerton to her place in your Lordships’ House and congratulate her on a really inspiring and wonderful maiden speech. I am delighted to hear that she has such a long-standing and impressive commitment to prison. As it also one of my interests, we are both, if I can put it like this, alumni of the prison system and I look forward to collaborating with her on that. We already know from the poem she quoted in her maiden speech that she deserves to be here.
I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Barber of—I have to pause to get it right, in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan did—Chittlehampton on his excellent maiden speech. I thank the noble Lord for all his work, but particularly in recent times as the UK envoy for Palestinian Authority governance and for his support to the Palestinian Authority to build its delivery and governance capabilities to progress the vital reform agenda. I have been an admirer of my noble friend Lord Barber for many, many years—decades, in fact—from a distance and I very much look forward to working with him now.
I would go so far as to say I adore my noble friend Lady Liddell, but I deplore her attitude to cricket—as I am sure my noble friend Lord Barber does, too, so we will have to work on her together.
On behalf, I think, of the whole House, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton. I knew this was going to be his last contribution in your Lordships’ House, but he, in typical fashion, did not want any fuss and did not want it labelled a formal valedictory—which characterises the sort of person he is and why we have come to respect him so much. I want to thank him for his outstanding work as a parliamentarian serving your Lordships’ House, and also for his 29 years in the House of Commons. His personal and political qualities ensured that he served in the Cabinet of two Prime Ministers of the last Labour Government.
He has successfully been able to be both loyal to his party and to Parliament and a genuinely original thinker. His reputation is as someone kind and generous to all, from the most junior staff to the most senior. On a personal note, my first appearance at this Dispatch Box was to answer a Question from my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton. He laid great stress on the fact that it was my first Question, with the result that everyone was nice to me, including, if I may say, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who indeed was again today. Your Lordships’ House will be diminished without him, but we wish him and his family the very best, and I particularly want to applaud his departing comments about optimism, which I must say I share.
I am grateful, as all contributors have been, to the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, for securing this debate. I pay tribute to her long-standing commitment and passion, and to her delivery and achievements in this area of development as Minister and in other ways.
I am also grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I share with the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, the feeling that there is a shared sense of commitment and responsibility across your Lordships’ House in this area. There are of course differences of opinion, but there is also a strong consensus about the importance of this work and the key priorities that we have as a nation.
Noble Lords do not need me to remind them that we live in a time of, as it was characterised in the national security strategy, radical uncertainty; a number of noble Lords discussed that, including the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone. The Government make no apology for making a positive and definitive choice to strengthen our hard-power capabilities in pursuit of national security and the national interest. I very much agree with my noble friends Lord Browne and Lady Liddell that hard-power and soft-power capabilities go together, and I entirely agree with the comment by my noble friend Lord Barber that together they represent a superpower.
I do not intend to make a partisan speech, but I will just say that this Government have greatly enhanced the UK’s national reputation by the standards of recent UK Governments. I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, that my noble friend Lady Chapman is in Africa doing her job and I am here doing mine.
As a number of noble Lords have acknowledged, the UK has deep expertise and experience in development, conflict prevention and resolution, as well as in soft power. Our long-standing track record in these areas gives us significant convening power alongside our direct and multilateral delivery. The world’s problems are interconnected, as the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, said, and therefore our responses must be interdependent, mutually reinforcing and more strategic. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, that security will not be achieved by defence alone, although we all agree that defence and security are extremely important.
I begin by confirming that this Government’s commitment to international development remains firm, but we feel, perhaps contrary to what was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that it is time for a new approach. The last few decades have seen significant reductions in extreme poverty, which was an overarching goal for the last Labour Government. At the same time, humanitarian need—particularly humanitarian need that arises from conflict and indeed climate change, which perhaps has not been mentioned so often today—is rising, while resources come under increasing pressure not just in this country but across the globe. We are also seeing international humanitarian law facing renewed challenges. I emphasise that the context in which the Government intend to set out our plans in this area reflect that changed context, and it is an important backdrop to our conceptual and policy thinking in this area.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord McConnell and Lord Bates, mentioned the cuts that have been made to the official development assistance budget. As I think everyone in your Lordships’ House knows, there will be further announcements about allocations in the coming weeks.
At a time when resources are challenged, we need to prioritise. That is why we are sharpening our focus on three big development priorities: humanitarian need, health and climate change. We are backing multilateral development organisations—which I note that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, supported—because we believe that that is how we make the biggest difference and achieve the greatest impact; it is something that the noble Lord laid a lot of emphasis on. We are significant contributors to Gavi, the Global Fund, the World Bank’s IDA programme and the African Development Fund. The latter is an African-led organisation; I emphasise that because we believe that these partnerships need local as well as international leadership.
We know that multilateralism is not perfect, so we are championing much-needed reform, including the UN Secretary-General’s UN80 Initiative. The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, mentioned the need to improve the performance of some multilateral institutions, and we strongly support that.
We also strongly support the work of the UN’s Emergency Relief Coordinator, and the impressive humanitarian reset that Tom Fletcher has put in hand. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, kindly invited me to a briefing that I think sounds absolutely terrific. He also acknowledged the history of others in that place, including my noble friend Lady Amos, who I think was here earlier. That is a very important and impressive part of what we are supporting, particularly Fletcher’s commitment to what he called “hyper-prioritisation”—that is something that I really want to get across.
The principles behind the Government’s important strategic shift in development reflect the changed world; I know that this has been set out in other contexts, but this is the context for today’s conversation. We want to move from being a donor to being an investor; from service delivery to strengthening systems in government; from global delivery to more local delivery; and from giving grants to providing expertise. That is what our partners want to see; they are ambitious to move beyond aid.
The noble Lord, Lord St John, and the noble Lord, Lord Oates, talked about Africa with their great expertise, and they drew our attention to the opportunities of the big demographic, digital and other changes that are going on there. Those are the countries that want to move beyond aid. It is through these multilateral partnerships—with respect, I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, on this point—that we maximise the impact of every pound that we put in, as well as the many strengths and capabilities that the UK brings to the table, from financial to scientific and technical expertise. Those areas of expertise will be worth more than money.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Can the Minister provide clarity on the move from being a donor to an investor? Before the cuts, what proportion of UK ODA was purely a donation and not linked to a partnership programme with the country that we were working with?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
As I have said, we will set out the context and the decisions that surround ODA funding. However, I stress to the noble Lord that we still have, and we will continue to have, country-based programmes. That is still an important part of the mix. If he was asking me to characterise some other change, I do not have much more to add. Turing to conflict and diplomacy—
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Can the Minister clarify where the donations came from? If there were any, what proportion of UK ODA was from donations? The Minister said that we have gone from a donor model to an investor model, but there were no donations.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I do not think I have anything to add. There is a long history of the use of the term “donor” to characterise providers of overseas aid, but we are not debating that now, if the noble Lord will forgive me. I do not really recognise the characterisation he is putting forward.
A number of noble Lords mentioned conflict and diplomacy. Conflict in the world, as we all know, has become ever more deadly and complex, and the UK’s diplomatic, development and security levers are more than the sum of their parts. We are working very closely alongside our international partners, old and new, wherever we can. This work expands effort to prevent conflicts as well as to resolve them.
A number of noble Lords stressed the need for conflict prevention, and that too is part of what the Government are committed to. We want to stabilise fragile places for the long term, not just to respond to conflicts once they have arisen. We also want to protect our shared security online—that has not had much attention in this debate, but it is important nevertheless—and improve our ability to identify and assess risk and strengthen the systems. We need to issue early warnings of conflict—a point that my noble friend Lord Browne emphasised.
Above all, our commitment is to save lives. We also want to uphold international law. We want to break the vicious cycles that blight so many lives with appalling violence and cause people to flee their homes. We must work to strengthen democratic structures and civil society organisations in exactly the way that my noble friend Lord Barber has been working in Palestine. This commitment to both preventing and helping to resolve conflicts and stabilising the situation sits alongside our efforts to target life-saving humanitarian relief in a deeply troubling world. The UK remains a leading humanitarian actor, and we will continue to support those in crisis, especially in Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan.
The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked me to set out the Government’s approach to UNRWA and Palestine, and I am very happy to do so. Following the US-led ceasefire agreement, there have been some improvements in the level of aid co-ordinated by the UN entering Gaza. It remains insufficient and needs upscaling rapidly to ease the suffering. The UK has provided £81 million of humanitarian and early recovery support as part of our £116 million programme for Palestine this financial year. The UK is doing all we can to alleviate suffering. Quantifying how much UK aid has entered Gaza is difficult due to the complex operating environment. Despite the restrictions on access, we know that UK aid is having an impact. The Foreign Secretary met UNRWA Commissioner-General Lazzarini in November and was clear that the UK continues to support UNRWA politically and financially, recognising its vital role in delivering essential services such as health and education to millions of Palestinian refugees across the region. This financial year the UK has committed £27 million, which will enable UNRWA to scale up life-saving aid including food, water, shelter and medical care for Gazans facing famine conditions.
A number of noble Lords mentioned women and children. The UK is a long-standing leader in preventing sexual violence in conflict, and we are setting a gold standard globally for engaging survivors through our survivor advisory group and survivor champions. The International Alliance on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict, which the UK helped to create, remains at the forefront of global action to prevent sexual violence. Importantly, as well as supporting services we are backing global efforts to make sure that perpetrators of appalling violence are held to account.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, kindly warned me of her question—so I am prepared to answer it—about what the UK will do during our presidency of the UN Security Council. I can confirm that we will embed women, peace and security considerations across the council’s work. As the Foreign Secretary set out in the high-level event commemorating the 25th anniversary, which the noble Baroness referred to, the UK is committed to amplifying women’s voices, participation in building peace, stepping up efforts to end impunity for sexual crimes in conflict, and ensuring that our humanitarian work goes further to address the particular impact of crisis on women and girls. This work will be underpinned by the UK’s refreshed approach to women, peace and security, including our ongoing work to strengthen delivery, accountability and cross-government co-ordination.
Lastly, on conflict, I draw attention to something that I do not think anyone has mentioned, which is our amazing worldwide demining and action groups, the Halo Trust and the Mines Advisory Group. The UK has done more than any other country on demining, and it represents an extremely important building block in conflict, security and stabilisation.
I turn to soft power. The UK regularly appears near the top of the league tables on soft power, but we are not complacent and we are obviously aware of the rise of other global actors. Soft power is about people-to-people relationships, going beyond government to government, as the noble Lord, Lord St John, and others noted, and our soft power assets allow us to reach the people that government finds it difficult to reach. We will be saying more about the links between development soft power and ensuring the UK’s security when we publish the soft power strategy later this year, which I hope will answer some of the questions that noble Lords have asked. Our work in soft power, as a number of noble Lords have emphasised, is stressed by the British Council, and I should declare my interest as the longest-standing trustee of the British Council for many years.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I realise that the Minister is running out of time, but can he assure us that he will write to us with the answers to questions that he has been unable to give in his speech?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
Of course.
On the British Council, I am sure that we will continue to work on the problems raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander, and I stress the Government’s commitment to it. I also draw attention to the fact that the Government increased the budget of the BBC World Service by £32 million. I also want to draw attention to the international education strategy, which a number of noble Lords mentioned.
We recognise that we cannot do everything, but we have a clear sense of what we are trying to achieve, which I think is shared around the House, and we are in pursuit of the more peaceful and prosperous future that people everywhere want to see.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I much regret that the time allotted has run out, but we might allow just a couple of minutes for the noble Baroness.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
I am very grateful. I thank everyone for such brilliant speeches—there is such knowledge in this House; it makes me so proud of everybody here. To the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde, I say that I was a designer before I came here, and my studio was at 7 Caledonian Road. I just wanted her to know that. I have an anecdote for the noble Lord, Lord Barber, about our ability to send potentates’ and dictators’ children to private school, but I will tell him that privately.
Lastly, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne, who has been so kind and so wonderful to everyone. There was not a little “V” by his name on the speakers’ list—he is even too modest to tell us it was his valedictory speech.
I just want to say to the Government that this debate asks that “this House takes note”, but I sometimes feel that in such debates, we, the contributors, get it, but I want the Government to get it. We have been forced to look at our defence spending by our friend in the White House; let us look at our spending on soft power too. Let us not wait for catastrophic world events and wars; let us move now and let us lead on prevention and peacebuilding. I thank all noble Lords for such brilliant contributions.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, my name will be mud because I have allowed this to overrun for two minutes, which is absolutely impossible in your Lordships’ House. But the question now is that this Motion be agreed to.